DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09 July 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection.
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 11-14, and 16-23 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 1 recites the limitation "the enclosure regions" in line 4, and “the direction of travel” in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
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 –
Claims 11, 13, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vossel et al. (US 2003/0151178).
In Re claim 11, Vossel et al. disclose a hydraulic bearing bushing (figs.1 and 2) comprising: an inner bushing (1); an annular rubber body (9, 11) vulcanized to the inner bushing (par. 0018); an outer housing (8); two chambers (5, 5’); a throttle channel (7) connecting the two chambers; and reinforcing members (10, 10’) vulcanized to the rubber body (par. 0018), wherein the reinforcing members at least reduce an axial inflation of the rubber body during travel. The examiner notes that “the direction of travel” is broad and not clearly defined; thus allowing the reinforcing members of Vossel et al. to be interpreted to read on the claim limitation.
In Re claims 13, the reinforcing members (10, 10’) are annular disks (par. 0018).
In Re claims 18-20, see support rings (12, 12’). Vossel et al. further disclose the use of metal (claim 4).
In Re claims 21 and 23, Vossel et al. disclose that the hydraulic bearing bushing is intended to be used with wheel suspensions (par. 0002). The examiner notes that limitations of claims 21 and 23 are interpreted to recite an intended use of the claimed invention, and are therefore not given patentable weight.
In Re claim 22, the hydraulic bearing bushing is intended to be used with a pin inserted through the central inner bushing. The examiner notes that limitation regarding the “bogie frame” is interpreted to recite an intended use of the claimed invention, and are therefore not given patentable weight.
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vossel et al. (US 2003/0151178) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Palluck et al. (US 2018/0087567).
In Re claim 12, Vossel et al. fail to disclose the material of the reinforcing members.
Palluck et al. is related to the art of hydraulic bearing bushings (1) having axial end reinforcing members (18, 19), and teaches forming said reinforcing members of plastic (par. 0031). Plastic is a well-known, cheap, lightweight, strong, and corrosion-resistant material. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bearing bush of Vossel et al. to use a plastic material for the reinforcing members, as taught by Palluck et al., as it was a cheap, lightweight, strong, and corrosion-resistant material suitable for use in the bearing bushing art. The examiner notes 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 (MPEP2144.04).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vossel et al. (US 2003/0151178) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Wittbracht et al. (US 2019/0040928).
In Re claim 14, Vossel et al. further disclose the use of metal for elements of the bearing bushing (claim 4), but fail to specifically disclose steel.
Wittbracht et al. is related to the art of hydraulic bearing bushings. Wittbracht et al. teach the use of steel for the structural elements of the bearing bushing. Steel is a well-known, readily-available, cheap, and strong material. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the reinforcing members of steel, as taught by Wittbracht et al., as it was a readily available, strong, and art-recognized material suitable for use in bearing bushings. The examiner notes 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 (MPEP2144.04).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vossel et al. (US 2003/0151178) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Krsjak et al. (EP 3604851 A1).
In Re claims 16 and 17, Vossel et al. fail to specifically disclose a fiber mesh material.
Krsjak et al. is related to the art of hydraulic bearing bushings. Krsjak et al. teach the use of a fiber reinforced plastics material, understood to be formed as a fiber mesh encased in a plastic material. Fiber reinforced plastics are a well-known, lightweight, strong, and corrosion-resistant material. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the reinforcing members of a fiber-reinforced plastic material, as taught by Krsjak et al., as it was a readily available, strong, lightweight, and corrosion-resistant material suitable for use in bearing bushings. The examiner notes 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 (MPEP2144.04).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS W IRVIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3095. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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 571-272-7124. 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.
/THOMAS W IRVIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights