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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 27 October 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 4 is 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 1 first recites the invention as a damper device in at least line 1. Claim 4 also recites “an input shaft of a gearbox to be connected to the rear end of the engine” as part of an intended use for the damper device. However, claim 4 positively recites a flywheel at a rear of an engine in at least lines 2-3. It is therefore unclear from the claims whether the applicant is intending to claim the subcombination of the damper device of the combination of the damper device and the engine. For purposes of examination, Examiner interprets the claims as being directed to the subcombination of the damping device, given the preamble of claims 1-7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over Tomita (US 12,173,770 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Tomita discloses a damper device (see Fig. 1) comprising:
a first rotor (3);
a second rotor (4) arranged to rotate with respect to the first rotor (see Fig. 1), wherein the second rotor includes a boss part (24) at a center of the second rotor;
a spring member (29) connecting the first rotor and the second rotor elastically in a rotational direction (see Fig. 1); and
a friction-producing mechanism (12, 62, 65) structured to produce a frictional torque in response to relative rotation between the first rotor and the second rotor (see Fig. 1);
wherein the friction-producing mechanism includes:
a bushing (62) having an annular shape (see Fig. 1), and fitted on an outer periphery of the boss part (see Fig. 1), and arranged to rotate with respect to the boss part (see Fig. 1), wherein the bushing has an end surface in contact with an annular friction surface (25, see Fig. 1) of the second rotor (see Fig. 1);
a retaining plate (A in Annotated Figure 1 below) of the first rotor, wherein the retaining plate faces the bushing in an axial direction (see Fig. 1); and
a conical spring (65) having an annular shape, and arranged in a compressed state between the bushing and the retaining plate to bias the bushing toward the annular friction surface (see Fig. 1);
wherein the bushing includes:
a disc portion (B in annotated Figure 1 below) located between the annular friction surface and the conical spring (see Fig. 1);
a tubular portion (C in annotated Figure 1 below) extending in the axial direction from an inner periphery of the disc portion and between the outer periphery of the boss part and an inner periphery of the retaining plate (see Fig. 1); and
claw portions (D in annotated Figure 1 below) each of which protrudes radially outwardly from a corresponding one of locations of an outer periphery of the disc portion (see Fig. 1);
wherein each of the claw portions engages with an engagement recess formed in an annular member (52) that rotates integrally with the first rotor (see Fig. 1 and Column 9 lines 28-37); and
wherein the tubular portion is structured to limit an angle of deviation of a central axis of the boss part with respect to a central axis of the first rotor so as to prevent the claw portions from being broken due to a bending stress, by being sandwiched between the inner periphery of the retaining plate and the boss part in response to inclination of the central axis of the boss part with respect to the central axis of the first rotor.
Applicant is reminded that "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Accordingly, all the process limitations of “… the tubular portion is structured to limit an angle of deviation of a central axis of the boss part with respect to a central axis of the first rotor so as to prevent the claw portions from being broken due to a bending stress, by being sandwiched between the inner periphery of the retaining plate and the boss part in response to inclination of the central axis of the boss part with respect to the central axis of the first rotor…” are given limited patentable weight. All that is required of claim 1 is that the tubular portion is capable of being structured to limit an angle of deviation of a central axis of the boss part with respect to a central axis of the first rotor so as to prevent the claw portions from being broken due to a bending stress, by being sandwiched between the inner periphery of the retaining plate and the boss part in response to inclination of the central axis of the boss part with respect to the central axis of the first rotor.
PNG
media_image1.png
439
511
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Annotated Figure 1.
PNG
media_image2.png
409
366
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2. Annotated Figure 1.
Regarding claim 2, Tomita discloses wherein the friction-producing mechanism (12, 62, 65) is a first friction-producing mechanism (see Fig. 1), the bushing (62) is a first bushing, and the annular member (52) is a second bushing of a second friction-producing mechanism arranged radially outside the first friction- producing mechanism (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Tomita discloses wherein:
the first rotor (3) is attached to a flywheel at a rear end of an engine (see NOTE below);
the second rotor (4) includes a splined hub (see Fig. 1) having splines formed in an inner periphery of the boss part (24, see Fig. 1); and
the boss part is structured to receive insertion of an input shaft of a gearbox to be connected to the rear end of the engine (see NOTE below).
NOTE: The damper device is capable of being attached to, and receiving, the above recited components of an engine. See 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection above.
Regarding claim 5, Tomita discloses wherein each of the claw portions is formed to have a base portion (E in annotated Figure 1 below) and a radially outer tip portion (F in annotated Figure 1 below) such that the radially outer tip portion is smaller in thickness in the axial direction than the base portion (see Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
265
282
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3. Annotated Figure 1.
Regarding claim 6, Tomita discloses wherein the claw portions (D in annotated Figure 1 above) are short in radial length (see Fig. 1) so as to prevent the claw portions from being broken when the angle of deviation is maximized under the limitation by the tubular portion.
Applicant is reminded that "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Accordingly, all the process limitations of “…so as to prevent the claw portions from being broken when the angle of deviation is maximized under the limitation by the tubular portion…” are given limited patentable weight. All that is required of claim 6 is that length of the claw portions is capable of preventing the claw portions from being broken when the angle of deviation is maximized under the limitation by the tubular portion.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomita (US 12,173,770 B2).
Regarding claim 3, Tomita discloses the disc portion (B in annotated Figure 1 above), the tubular portion (C in annotated Figure 1 above), and the claw portions (D in annotated Figure 1 above) of the bushing (62), but fails to disclose as claimed that the disc portions, tubular portions, and claw portions are integrally formed of a hard synthetic resin.
Applicant is reminded that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the damper device of Tomita, such that the bushing is made of a hard synthetic resin, in order to provide a lightweight wear resistant bushing to maximize longevity and efficiency of the damper device.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomita (US 12,173,770 B2) in view of Wiggin (US 4,635,780 A).
Regarding claim 7, Tomita discloses the disc portion (B in annotated Figure 1 above) of the bushing (62) and the claw portions (D in annotated Figure 1 above), but fails to disclose as claimed wherein the outer periphery of the disc portion includes a recess adjacent to one of the claw portions, wherein the recess extends radially inwardly.
However, Wiggin teaches a bushing (see Fig. 3) comprising a plurality of slots (55) extending along the outer periphery of the bushing and extending radially inwardly, in order to reduce the weight of the bushing and therefore increase the efficiency of the object in which the damper is attached to.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the damper device of Tomita, with Wiggin, such that it comprises the slots of Wiggin on the bushing of Tomita, in order to reduce the weight of the bushing and therefore increase the efficiency of the object in which the damper is attached to.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY A HALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 8:00am to 4:00pm.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached on 571-270-5281. 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.
/ZAH/Examiner, Art Unit 3678
/AMBER R ANDERSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3678
Prosecution Insights