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 04/24/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Amendments submitted on 04/24/2026 have been considered and entered. Claims 1, 14 and 22 have been amended. Claims 1-24 are pending in the present application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-24 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 1, the claim recites “wherein front stoppers protrude only in an axial direction of the bush-type mount from a front surface of the rubber part such that the front stoppers protruding only in the axial direction of the bush-type mount are in continuous contact with inner surfaces of the supports and rear stoppers protrude from the rear surface of the rubber part such that the rear stoppers protruding only in the axial direction of the bush-type mount are in continuous contact with inner surfaces of the supports” in line 12 of the claim. It is not clear which surface portion of the rubber part, the applicant is considering as the front and the rear surfaces of the rubber part so that the front and the rear stoppers protrude only in an axial direction of the bush-type mount, since the stoppers (201) as shown in figures appear to protrude in an axial direction and a radial direction of the bush-type mount. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "thereof" in line 22 of the claim renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites “front stoppers protrude only in an axial direction of the bush-type mount from a front surface of the rubber part so as to be in continuous contact with inner surfaces of the at least two supports and rear stoppers protrude only in the axial direction of the bush-type mount from the rear surface of the rubber part so as to be in continuous contact with inner surfaces of the at least two supports, wherein the front stoppers and the rear stoppers are disposed and engaged between the bulge part and the at least two supports to be compressed or expanded in the axial direction such that a property of the bush-type mount in the axial direction is increased to a level of the property thereof in a radial direction of the vehicle.” in line 14 of the claim. It is not clear which surface portion of the rubber part, the applicant is considering as the front and the rear surfaces of the rubber part so that the front and the rear stoppers protrude only in an axial direction of the bush-type mount, since the stoppers (201) as shown in figures appear to protrude in an axial direction and a radial direction of the bush-type mount. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase "thereof" in line 22 of the claim renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
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 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Missig (US 5,122,011).
PNG
media_image1.png
630
847
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Missig discloses a bush-type mount (note figs. 5A-6 and the abstract) for a vehicle, comprising:
an outer pipe (30 in fig. 6) fitted into a press-fit hole formed in a frame of a vehicle body in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle;
an inner pipe (10) having a bolt hole formed therein so as to be mounted to a PE part, the inner pipe being disposed inside the outer pipe so as to be oriented in the longitudinal direction;
a rubber part (20) formed in a vulcanization-molding process so as to fill a space between the outer pipe and the inner pipe;
supports (note the end portions of the outer member 30 as shown in fig. 6 and the figure shown above) integrally formed at a front end and a rear end of the outer pipe (30) so as to be in close contact with a front surface and a rear surface of the rubber part (20); and
a bulge part (note the figure shown above) integrally formed with an outer circumferential portion of the inner pipe (10) to compress or expand the rubber part (20) in a same direction as a direction of movement of the inner pipe, the inner pipe being mounted so as to move in the longitudinal direction, wherein front stoppers (note the figure shown above) protrude only in an axial direction of the bush-type mount from a front surface of the rubber part such that the front stoppers protruding only in the axial direction of the bush-type mount are in continuous contact with inner surfaces of the supports and rear stoppers (note the figure shown above) protrude from the rear surface of the rubber part such that the rear stoppers protruding only in the axial direction of the bush-type mount are in continuous contact with inner surface of the supports,
wherein the front stoppers (note the figure shown above) and the rear stoppers (note the figure shown above) are disposed and engaged between the bulge part (note the figure shown above) and the supports (note the figure shown above) to be compressed or expanded in the axial direction such that a property of the bush-type mount in the axial direction is increased to a level of the property thereof in a radial direction of the vehicle.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura (US 2021/0309066 A1) in view of Missig (US 5,122,011) or Gautheron et al. (US 5,288,059).
PNG
media_image2.png
852
1101
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Nishimura discloses a bush-type mount (28) for a vehicle, comprising:
an outer pipe (30) fitted into a press-fit hole (20R, 20L) formed in a frame of a vehicle body (12) in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle (note [0037]-[0038]);
an inner pipe (50) having a bolt hole formed therein so as to be mounted to a PE part, the inner pipe being disposed inside the outer pipe so as to be oriented in the longitudinal direction;
a rubber part (38, 70; [0053]) formed in a vulcanization-molding process so as to fill a space between the outer pipe and the inner pipe;
at least two supports (36) integrally formed at a front end and a rear end of the outer pipe so as to be in close contact with a front surface and a rear surface of the rubber part (30); and
a bulge part (54) integrally formed with an outer circumferential portion of the inner pipe to compress or expand the rubber part in a same direction as a direction of movement of the inner pipe, the inner pipe being mounted so as to move in the longitudinal direction (note figs. 8-10),
wherein the rubber part (38, 70; [0053]) is disposed and engaged between the bulge part (54) and the supports (36) to be compressed or expanded in the longitudinal direction such that a property of the bush-type mount in the longitudinal direction is increased to a level of the property thereof in a radial direction of the vehicle (note that providing various shape of the bulge part 54, providing various distance between the bulge part and the supports, and disposing the rubber part in between the bulge part and the supports, limits various direction of movements; also note [0063]-[0076]).
Nishimura discloses all claimed limitations as set forth above but fails to disclose front stoppers protrude from a front surface of the rubber part so as to be in continuous contact with inner surfaces of the supports and rear stoppers protrude from the rear surface of the rubber part so as to be in continuous contact with inner surface of the supports as recited in the claim. However, each of Missig and Gautheron et al. as set forth above (note the figure shown above), discloses a similar mount comprising: an outer pipe, an inner pipe, rubber part, wherein front stoppers protrude only in an axial direction of the mount from a front surface of the rubber part so as to be in continuous contact with inner surfaces of the supports and rear stoppers protrude only in an axial direction of the mount from the rear surface of the rubber part so as to be in continuous contact with inner surface of the supports. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the filing date of the present application was made to modify the supports of Nishimura to be in continuous contact with inner surfaces of the supports as taught by each of Missig and Gautheron et al. will provide extra support and improve dampening.
Re-claim 2, Nishimura discloses the at least two supports (note the front left and right (36), the rear left and right (36), and the left and right bulges (54) as shown in fig. 3) comprise: a front-left support and a front-right support integrally formed with the front end of the outer pipe at left and right positions so as to be in close contact with the front surface of the rubber part to support the rubber part together with the bulge part so as to compress and expand the rubber part; and a rear-upper support and a rear-lower support integrally formed with the rear end of the outer pipe at upper and lower positions so as to be in close contact with the rear surface of the rubber part to support the rubber part together with the bulge part so as to compress and expand the rubber part.
Regarding claims 3, 4 10, 11 and 15-21, Nishimura discloses all claimed limitations as set forth above including the plurality of supports and the plurality of the bulge parts may have various orientations relative to each other (note [0044] and [0049]-[0051]) but fails to disclose the orientations of the supports and the bulge parts presented in the claims. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the filing date of the present application was made to have the orientations of the supports and the bulge parts presented in the claims, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art as it will allow to adjust the damping of the device as desired.
Re-claim 5, Nishimura discloses front stoppers (note the rubber part engaged with the surface 40) protrude from the front surface of the rubber part at left and right positions so as to be in close contact with the front-left support and the front-right support, and rear stoppers protrude from the rear surface of the rubber part at upper and lower positions so as to be in close contact with the rear-upper support and the rear-lower support.
Re-claim 6, Nishimura discloses the at least two supports (note the front left and right (36), the rear left and right (36), and the left and right bulges (54) as shown in fig. 3) comprise: a front-upper support and a front-lower support integrally formed with the front end of the outer pipe at upper and lower positions so as to be in close contact with the front surface of the rubber part to support the rubber part together with the bulge part so as to compress and expand the rubber part; and a rear-upper support and a rear-lower support integrally formed with the rear end of the outer pipe at upper and lower positions so as to be in close contact with the rear surface of the rubber part to support the rubber part together with the bulge part so as to compress and expand the rubber part.
Re-claim 7, Nishimura discloses the bulge part (54) comprises: an upper bulge plate and a lower bulge plate protruding upwards and downwards from the outer circumference of a lengthwise middle portion of the inner pipe so as to be embedded into the rubber part, the upper bulge plate and the lower bulge plate being disposed so as to be aligned with the front-upper support, the front- lower support, the rear-upper support, and the rear-lower support in the longitudinal direction.
Re-claim 8, Nishimura discloses front stoppers (note the rubber part engaged with the surface 40) protrude from the front surface of the rubber part at upper and lower positions so as to be in close contact with the front-upper support and the front-lower support, and rear stoppers protrude from the rear surface of the rubber part at upper and lower positions so as to be in close contact with the rear-upper support and the rear-lower support.
Re-claim 9, Nishimura discloses the at least two supports (note one of the front left and right (36), one of the rear left and right (36), and one of the left and right bulges (54) as shown in fig. 3) comprise: a front single support integrally formed with the front end of the outer pipe at a lower position so as to be in close contact with the front surface of the rubber part to support the rubber part together with the bulge part so as to compress and expand the rubber part; and a rear single support integrally formed with the rear end of the outer pipe at an upper position so as to be in close contact with the rear surface of the rubber part to support the rubber part together with the bulge part so as to compress and expand the rubber part.
Re-claim 12, Nishimura discloses a front stopper (one of front 36, 40) protrudes from the front surface of the rubber part at a lower position so as to be in close contact with the front single support, and a rear stopper (one of rear 36, 40) protrudes from the rear surface of the rubber part at an upper position so as to be in close contact with the rear single support.
Re-claim 13, Nishimura discloses a slit (note the rubber part 70 having a V-shaped cross section as shown in fig. 2) having a V-shaped cross section is formed in one side portion or in each of two opposite side portions of the outer pipe and the rubber part in a longitudinal direction thereof.
Claims 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura (US 2021/0309066 A1) in view of Missig (US 5,122,011) or Gautheron et al. (US 5,288,059), and in further view of Kameda (US 5,261,748).
Regarding claims 22 and 24, Nishimura discloses all claimed limitations as set forth above but fails to disclose a first separate outer pipe having at least two front supports formed so as to be in close contact with a front surface of the rubber part, the first separate outer pipe being press-fitted onto a front portion of an outer circumferential portion of the outer pipe and a second separate outer pipe having at least two rear supports formed so as to be in close contact with a rear surface of the rubber part, the second separate outer pipe being press-fitted onto a rear portion of the outer circumferential portion of the outer pipe as recited in the claim. However, Kameda disclose a similar device (fig. 3) comprising: an inner tube (13) having a plurality of bulge parts (14), an outer tube (15), an elastic member (19), and a plurality of intermediate tubes (16) press-fitted into the outer cylindrical tube (15) and each intermediate tubes having a support part, wherein the elastic member having a greater outer diameter than the inner diameter of the intermediate tubes, wherein the rubber part (38, 70; [0053]) is disposed and engaged between the bulge part (54) and the supports (36) to be compressed or expanded in the longitudinal direction such that a property of the bush-type mount in the longitudinal direction is increased to a level of the property thereof in a radial direction of the vehicle (note that providing various shape of the bulge part 54, providing various distance between the bulge part and the supports, and disposing the rubber part in between the bulge part and the supports, limits various direction of movements; also note [0063]-[0076]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the filing date of the present application was made to include a plurality of intermediate tubes as taught by Kameda in the device of Nishimura will provide resistance against both unwanted rotational movement and sliding movement of the tubes.
Re-claim 23, the modified device of Nishimura discloses all claimed limitations as set forth above including the plurality of supports and the plurality of the bulge parts may have various orientations relative to each other (note [0044] and [0049]-[0051]) but fails to disclose the orientations of the supports and the bulge parts presented in the claims. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the filing date of the present application was made to have the orientations of the supports and the bulge parts presented in the claims, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art as it will allow to adjust the damping of the device as desired.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on some reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The examiner notes that at least Nishimura with the teachings of Missig, Gautheron et al. and Kameda as set forth above, discloses all of the limitations as recited in the claims including the front stoppers protrude only in an axial direction of the mount from a front surface of the rubber part so as to be in continuous contact with inner surfaces of the supports and the rear stoppers protrude only in an axial direction of the mount from the rear surface of the rubber part so as to be in continuous contact with inner surface of the supports. Therefore, the rejections are proper and valid.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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