Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with:
37 CFR 1.83(a) they fail to show a drive train and a stationary-operated internal combustion engine as recited in claims 22 & 23.
37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: WP.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because:
At paragraph 0032 Fig. 4 is described as showing a loaded state, but at paragraph 0055 it is described as showing a non-loaded state.
In the abstract and paragraphs 0014, 0072-0074, spring characteristic curve 13 is identified as “degressive”. However, Fig. 11 shows the spring characteristic curve 13 as tending to increase, not decrease.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 12-13 & 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are those that relate the damping unit to the coupling portions.
Claims 12-23 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "degressive spring characteristic curve”. However, Fig. 11 shows the "degressive spring characteristic curve” 13 as tending to increase, not decrease. Thus it is unclear how spring characteristic curve 13 is deemed to be “degressive”.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the intermediate plate". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because an intermediate plate is previously recited in the alternative only.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 12-14 & 21-23 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 17-36 of copending Application No. 19/123,266 (reference application, published as US 2026/0153131). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 12-14 & 21-23 are generic to all that is recited in claims 17-36 of the reference application. In other words, claims 17-36 of the reference application fully encompasse the subject matter of claims 12-14 & 21-23 and therefore anticipate claims 12-14 & 21-23.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 12-17 & 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 10 2008 057 112. At Fig. 5 and paragraphs 0012 & 0025-0026, DE 10 2008 057 112 discloses a torsional-vibration insulated coupling comprising every limitation of the claims.
Claims 12-16 & 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hundley, US 10,030,731. Hundley discloses a torsional-vibration-insulated coupling (Figs. 1A-1D & 9) having a rotation axis, comprising:
a first coupling portion (140) as an input side of the coupling;
a second coupling portion (150) as an output side of the coupling; and
a damping unit, wherein the damping unit comprises at least one non-linear resilient arrangement (130, 910-930) having a degressive spring characteristic curve (310-350),
wherein the at least one non-linear resilient arrangement comprises at least one resilient element (920, 930) having a positive spring rigidity and at least one resilient element (910) having a negative spring rigidity,
wherein the first coupling portion as the input side of the coupling and the second coupling portion as the output side of the coupling are coupled via the damping unit to the at least one non-linear resilient arrangement,
wherein the at least one non-linear resilient arrangement forms an interface in the form of a plate (160) between the at least one resilient arrangement which cooperates with the plate and the first coupling portion of the coupling for bidirectional force transmission and movement transmission,
wherein the plate is coupled, via a connecting rod (155), to the second coupling portion of the coupling,
wherein the first coupling portion of the coupling and the second coupling portion of the coupling are arranged coaxially with respect to each other,
wherein the coupling is a coupling of a drive train of a stationary-operated application (col. 1, lines 35-36).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
At Fig. 3, Jackson shows a torsional-vibration-insulated coupling having a rotation axis, comprising an intermediate plate (h) arranged on an end face (see inner projection of the plate (f)) in a state not connected to the plate.
At Example 2, Abdulmajeed discloses a non-linear arrangement.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Greg Binda whose telephone number is (571)272-7077. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 et.
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, Matthew Troutman can be reached at 571-270-3654. 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.
/Greg Binda/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights