DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/11/2024, 11/29/2024, 06/16/20256, 07/29/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The examiner notes that the abstract should be a single paragraph instead of using a plurality of sentences and also “the present disclosure” in line 1 should be avoided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “the one side” in line 2 of the claim. It is not clear if the applicant is referring to the side of the outer attachment member or a different side. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “the other side relative to the one side” in line 3 of the claim. It is not clear if the applicant is referring to the side of the outer attachment member or a different side. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “preparing a pre-anti-vibration device with a same configuration as the anti-vibration device except for the body rubber not including the rubber mass portion” in line 3 of the claim. It is not clear what the applicant is referring to as preparing, how it is preparing or what the applicant is considering as preparing as recited in the claim. The claim also recites “near” in line 7 of the claim. It is not clear what distance the applicant is considering to be near as recited in the claim. The claim further recites “the other side relative to the one side” in line 7 of the claim. It is not clear if the applicant is referring to the side of the outer attachment member or a different side Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “the other side relative to the one side” in line 2 of the claim. It is not clear if the applicant is referring to the side of the outer attachment member or a different side. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 5551049 B2.
Regarding claim 1, JP’049 discloses an anti-vibration device (figs. 1-18) comprising a cylindrical outer attachment member (12), an inner attachment member (14) disposed closer to one side of the outer attachment member in an axial direction, and a body rubber (16, 30) connecting the outer attachment member (12) and the inner attachment member (14), the body rubber (16, 32) having an outer surface formed in a shape of a truncated cone convex toward the inner attachment member (14), wherein
the body rubber (16, 32) includes a rubber body portion (30, h2) and a rubber mass portion (46),
the rubber body portion (30) is in contact with the outer attachment member (12) and the inner attachment member (14),
the rubber mass portion (46) is not in contact with either the outer attachment member (12) or the inner attachment member (14) and protrudes from the rubber body portion (30), and
the rubber body portion (30) and the rubber mass portion (46) are integrally formed from a same rubber.
Re-claim 2, JP’049 discloses the rubber mass portion (46) protrudes from the rubber body portion (30) toward the one side in the axial direction.
Re-claim 3, JP’049 discloses the rubber mass portion (46) protrudes from the rubber body portion (30) toward the other side relative to the one side in the axial direction.
Re-claim 5, JP’049 discloses the rubber mass portion (46) protrudes from the rubber body portion (30) toward the other side the relative to the one side in the axial direction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 5551049 B2 in view of Klingner (CN 112739930 A).
Regarding claim 4, JP’049 discloses all claimed limitations as set forth above but fails to disclose forming the rubber mass portion of the body rubber by removing a rubber portion as recited in the claim. The examiner notes that cutting, removing, shaving, or milling cutter, etc. are some well-known methods or process in the art for forming desired shape of a solid object. However, Klingner discloses a damper comprising a concave portion manufactured by cutting processing method. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application was made to use cutting method as taught by Klingner for the damper of JP’049 in order to save manufacturing step and cost.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHBUBUR RASHID whose telephone number is (571)272-7218. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am to 10pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ROBERT SICONOLFI can be reached at 5712727124. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MAHBUBUR RASHID/Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights