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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments submitted on 10/17/2025 have been considered and entered. Claims 1, 12, 15 and 16 have been amended and claim 20 has been newly added. Claims 1-20 are now pending in the present application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 13 and 16-20 are allowed.
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: “an hole” in line 2 of the claim should be --a hole--. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3, 4, 9-11, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 37477834 B2 in view of Bernd (EP 1806518 A1) and James (CN 101057087 B).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 9 and 14, JP ‘784 discloses a bushing comprising:
a body (36);
an inner rod (28) configured to be coupled to a vehicle part and disposed in a central portion of the body (36) that surrounds a central portion of the inner rod;
a reinforcing material (40) disposed to surround an outer surface of the body;
a first elastic member (38) comprising a coupling hole in which the body is disposed; and
an outer member (70) disposed to surround the first elastic member and the second elastic member.
JP ‘784 fails to disclose a second elastic member disposed around one or more portions of the first elastic member, wherein the reinforcing material is disposed between the outer surface of the body and an inner surface of the first elastic member. However, Bernd discloses a mounting bushing assembly comprising an inner rod (2), a body (16), a plurality of reinforcing materials (15), a plurality of elastic members (1-2), and an outer member (7), wherein the reinforcing material is disposed between the outer surface of the body and an inner surface of the first elastic member. 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 device of JP ‘784 with the teaching of layers of elastic member and reinforcement member of Nicolas will prevent residual stresses and improve durability.
JP ‘784 disclose the outer member as set forth above but fails to disclose the member to steel as recited in the claim. However, James discloses a bushing comprising an outer member (22) is formed of steel (note [0033]). 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 outer member of JP ‘784 to be made of steel as taught by James will prevent residual stresses and improve durability.
Re-claim 3, the modified device of JP ‘784 discloses the reinforcing material (40 of JP ‘784) comprises a metal material.
Re-claim 10, the modified device of JP ‘784 discloses the first elastic member and the second elastic member comprise different rubber materials (note [0054]).
Re-claim 11, the modified device of JP ‘784 discloses the inner rod comprises a plurality of fastening hole portions (48) disposed at both ends of the inner rod.
Re-claim 15, the modified device of JP ‘784 discloses the bushing is connected to a trailing arm of a vehicle (note figs. 1-2).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 3747784 B2 in view of Nicolas (US 2002/0154940 A1) and James (CN 101057087 B), and further in view of Kammel et al. (US 6,997,614 B2).
Regarding claim 5, the modified device of JP ‘784 discloses the reinforcing material and the outer steel member but fails to disclose the reinforcing member to be formed of steel or same material as the outer member. However, Kammel et al. discloses a bushing comprising a reinforcing element 4 which consists of steel plate. 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 reinforcing member of JP ‘784 to be made of steel as taught by Kammel et al. will prevent residual stresses and improve durability.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 3747784 B2 in view of Nicolas (US 2002/0154940 A1) and James (CN 101057087 B), and further in view of CHA (US 2016/0052357 A1).
Re-claims 6-8, the modified device of JP ‘784 discloses the body comprises a plurality of through-hole portions each having different hole sizes as recited in the claims. However, CHA discloses a body (300) comprises a plurality of through-hole portions each having different hole sizes. 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 body of JP ‘784 with a plurality of holes as taught by CHA will prevent a direct transmission of the vibration and the impact to the vehicle body, thereby improving riding comfort.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, the applicant argues that the bush 36 and the shaft 46 of Yamada are not separate members from each other and thus Yamada fails to disclose or suggest an inner rod configured to be coupled to a vehicle part and disposed in a central portion of the body the surrounds a central portion of the inner rod as recited in the claim. The examiner disagrees. The examiner notes that the claim does not recite or define the body and the inner rod to be separate members. As set forth above, Yamada discloses a body (36), an inner rod (28) configured to be coupled to a vehicle part and disposed in a central portion of the body (36) that surrounds a central portion of the inner rod as recited in the claim. 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