DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 10, 11 and 19 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 10 recites “a relatively thick thickness” in line 5. It is unclear what is considered “relatively thick”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the lower plate" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites “a shock absorber” in line 2. It is unclear if the shock absorber is a new limitation or refers to the previously recited “shock absorber” in claim 1.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 200. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Parr et al. (US 10215252).
Re claim 1, Parr et al. disclose a hydro bushing comprising: a main body () configured for absorbing shocks using a sealed fluid; a side stopper (14, 20, 18) including a shock absorber (20) and having a hollow cylindrical structure; and a housing (32) fixing the side stopper and the main body, wherein the main body and the side stopper are separable from each other. (Fig. 2A)
Re claim 2, Parr et al. disclose wherein the side stopper includes an upper plate (14) and a lower plate (18), wherein the shock absorber (20) is disposed and coupled between the upper plate and the lower plate, and wherein the upper plate, the lower plate, and the shock absorber form an internal hole. (Fig. 6A, 6B)
Re claim 3, Parr et al. disclose wherein an upper surface of the lower plate (18) is coupled to the shock absorber (20) at a predetermined interval from an external circumference thereof. (Fig. 2A)
Re claim 4, Parr et al. disclose wherein the main body includes an internal pipe (12) formed to protrude to one side thereof, and wherein a protrusion of the internal pipe is inserted into the internal hole of the side stopper (14, 20, 18).
Re claim 5, Parr et al. disclose wherein the internal pipe (12) protrudes as long as a sum of a thickness of the lower plate (18) of the side stopper and a thickness of the shock absorber (20).
Re claim 6, Parr et al. disclose wherein the internal hole of at least one of the upper plate (14), the lower plate (18), or the shock absorber (20) includes a diameter, different from a diameter of a remaining internal hole.
Re claim 7, Parr et al. disclose wherein a diameter of the internal hole formed in the lower plate (18) and the shock absorber (20) is at least wider than an external diameter of the internal pipe (12).
Re claim 8, Parr et al. disclose wherein the diameter of the internal hole formed in the upper plate (14) is narrower than the external diameter of the internal pipe (12).
Re claim 11, Parr et al. disclose wherein the housing (32) further includes a curled portion (46) bent in a "U" shape surrounding a surface of an external circumference of the lower plate (18) of the side stopper. (Fig. 2A)
Claims 1-3, 12, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bradshaw et al. (US 9038997)
Re claim 1, Bradshaw et al. disclose a hydro bushing comprising: a main body (104) configured for absorbing shocks using a sealed fluid; a side stopper (102) including a shock absorber (114) and having a hollow cylindrical structure; and a housing (190) fixing the side stopper and the main body, wherein the main body and the side stopper are separable from each other. (Fig. 1, 7)
Re claim 2, Bradshaw et al. disclose wherein the side stopper includes an upper plate (110) and a lower plate (112), wherein the shock absorber (114) is disposed and coupled between the upper plate and the lower plate, and wherein the upper plate, the lower plate, and the shock absorber form an internal hole. (Fig. 7)
Re claim 3, Bradshaw et al. disclose wherein an upper surface of the lower plate (112) is coupled to the shock absorber (114) at a predetermined interval from an external circumference thereof. (Fig. 7)
Re claim 12, Bradshaw et al. disclose wherein the main body includes: a hollow cylindrical internal pipe (180) including an anti-vibration unit (146) configured for absorbing vibrations; an external pipe (160) surrounding the internal pipe and sealing the fluid in an internal space formed with an external surface of the internal pipe; and a middle pipe (152) forming a movement path of the fluid therein.
Re claim 15, Bradshaw et al. disclose wherein the middle pipe (152) further includes an auxiliary stopper (106) protruding onto an opposite side of the side stopper.
Re claim 18, Bradshaw et al. disclose a movement limiting unit (174) provided between the anti-vibration unit (146) and the internal pipe (180), to support the internal pipe in a liquid chamber of the anti-vibration unit.
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parr et al. (US 10215252) in view of KR 10-0803035 B1.
Re claim 9, Parr et al. do not teach wherein the upper plate further includes a first protrusion protruding toward the shock absorber on a portion of a lower surface in the upper plate. KR ‘035 teaches an upper plate (250) including a first protrusion protruding toward a shock absorber (236) on a portion of a lower surface in the upper plate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the protrusion as taught by KR ‘035 in order to provide additional radial dampening.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradshaw et al. (US 9038997).
Re claim 19, Bradshaw does not explicitly teach wherein an anti-vibration unit of the main body and a shock absorber of the side stopper are formed of different materials. In column 3, lines the shock absorber 114 is stated as being “an elastomeric material or natural rubber”. The anti-vibration unit 146 is disclosed by Bradshaw as a “rubber element”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the anti-vibration unit of the main body and a shock absorber of the side stopper of different materials since elastomers and rubber are well known elastic materials and it would have been obvious to select materials based on the desired dampening characteristics.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13, 14, 16 and 17 are 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 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cha, Rawlings et al., Satori et al., Hale, Cho et al., and Ogawa et al. teach similar bushings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELANIE TORRES WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-7127. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday - Friday 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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, 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.
/MELANIE TORRES WILLIAMS/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3616
MTW
December 5, 2025