DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that Palluck et al. fail to teach the reinforcing members, and that the reinforcing members are formed of a material having a modulus of elasticity higher than the rubber body, and are formed of plastic
In response to applicant’s arguments, the examiner points out reinforcing members (18, 19, 20, 21) formed of plastic (par. 0031), which are functionally disposed in a similar location as applicants with respect to the rubber body (4) and outer housing (3).
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 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Palluck et al. (US 2018/0087567).
In Re claims 11 and 22, Palluck et al. disclose a hydraulic bearing bushing (1) comprising: an inner bushing (15); an annular rubber body (4); an outer housing (3); two chambers (10, 11); a throttle channel (12) connecting the chambers; and reinforcing members (18, 19, 20, 21) formed of plastic (par. 0031). In Re claim 22, Palluck et al. disclose that the hydraulic bearing bushing is intended to be used as an elastomeric journal bearing. The examiner notes that limitations of claim 22 are interpreted to recite an intended use of the claimed invention, and are therefore not given patentable weight.
In Re claims 12, 13, 20, 24, and 25 see reinforcing members (20, 21) in figs. 1, 3, and 4.
In Re claims 18 and 19, see metal support rings (18, 19).
In Re claims 21 and 23, Palluck et al. disclose that the hydraulic bearing bushing is intended to be used as an elastomeric journal bearing. 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.
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.
Claims 14 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palluck et al. (US 2018/0087567) as applied to claims 11 and 22 above, and further in view of Wittbracht et al. (US 2019/0040928).
In Re claim 14, Palluck et al. further disclose the use of metal (par. 0031), 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. 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, 17, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palluck et al. (US 2018/0087567) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Krsjak et al. (EP 3604851 A1).
In Re claims 16, 17, 27, and 28, Palluck et al. further disclose a plastics material (par. 0031), but 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. 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, 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).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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