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 11/26/2026 have been considered and entered. Claims 1 and 10 have been amended and claims 19 and 20 have been newly added. Claims 1-20 are pending in the present application.
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, 3-5, 7-9 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Komiya (DE 112016000175 B4).
Regarding claims 1, 19 and 20, Komiya discloses a bearing assembly (fig. 3) for mounting a device, the bearing assembly comprising:
a bearing (10) having an elastomer body (20) having a core that comprises a through-opening extending along a longitudinal axis for a connecting element (24), and
a receiving structure (14) having a receiving opening that extends along the longitudinal axis,
wherein the bearing has a bearing element (18), the bearing has an outer surface in a shape of a cylinder jacket that extends about the longitudinal axis, the elastomer body (20) bears against a contact surface of the bearing element, the receiving opening has an inner surface in the shape of a cylinder jacket, and the bearing is connected by an interference fit to the inner surface and the elastomer body having a conical area of effect (note conical surfaces 26 and 28 providing conical area of effect as shown in fig. 3), and the conical area of effect is provided by the bearing element (18) in combination with the inner surface, whereby the receiving opening comprises a step-type projection arranged at a distance to the receiving opening and narrows the diameter of the receiving opening at its position, protruding from the inner surface, or wherein the conical area of effect is provided by the inner surface in combination with the sleeve element arranged between the elastomer body and the inner surface, wherein the bearing element or the sleeve element abut the projection (note the step projections of the elements 14, 16, 18 and 20 as shown in fig. 3).
Re-claim 3, Komiya discloses the contact surface is conical in relation to the longitudinal axis (note each of the elements 14, 16, 18 and 20 comprises conical surfaces relative to the central axis of the bearing 10 as shown in fig. 3).
Re-claim 4, Komiya discloses the contact surface is annular and is oriented perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (note each of the elements 14, 16, 18 and 20 comprises annular surfaces relative to the central axis of the bearing 10 as shown in fig. 3).
Re-claim 5, Komiya discloses the inner surface (14) has a projection having a bearing surface extending radially with respect to the longitudinal axis as an axial stop (note the step projections adjacent to portion 56 of the element 14 as shown in fig. 3) for the bearing element.
Re-claim 7, Komiya discloses the elastomer body (20) is connected in a firmly bonded manner to the bearing element.
Re-claim 8, Komiya discloses the bearing has a sleeve element (18) that is disposed or arranged between the elastomer body (20) and the inner surface, the sleeve element bearing with a first surface against the inner surface and with a second surface against the elastomer body.
Re-claim 9, Komiya discloses the sleeve element (18) is connected fixedly to the bearing element (14).
Re-claim 13, Komiya discloses the core (16) tapers along the longitudinal axis at least in one portion.
Re-claim 14, Komiya discloses the elastomer body (20) has a radial free path in a direction radial to the longitudinal axis in the direction of the core and/or in the direction of the inner surface.
Re-claim 15, Komiya the bearing element is composed of a cast material (note the tubular support bracket 14 is made of metal or synthetic resin. As for the metal, for example, ferrous metal can be used, but light metal such as aluminum alloy and magnesium alloy is preferably used. As for the synthetic resin, for example, fiber-reinforced synthetic resin reinforced with short fibers or long fibers such as resin fiber and carbon fiber is preferably used, and particularly, fiber-reinforced synthetic resin such as GRP and CFRP is used. In particular, by using an aluminum alloy, a magnesium alloy, or a fiber-reinforced synthetic resin, a reduction in weight of the tubular holding bracket, and hence the component mount 10 and the like, is realized).
Re-claim 16, Komiya the bearing element is composed of plastic or aluminum (note the tubular support bracket 14 is made of metal or synthetic resin. As for the metal, for example, ferrous metal can be used, but light metal such as aluminum alloy and magnesium alloy is preferably used. As for the synthetic resin, for example, fiber-reinforced synthetic resin reinforced with short fibers or long fibers such as resin fiber and carbon fiber is preferably used, and particularly, fiber-reinforced synthetic resin such as GRP and CFRP is used. In particular, by using an aluminum alloy, a magnesium alloy, or a fiber-reinforced synthetic resin, a reduction in weight of the tubular holding bracket, and hence the component mount 10 and the like, is realized).
Re-claim 17, Komiya discloses most of the bearing element and most of the conical area of effect are disposed inside the receiving opening (note each of the elements 14, 16, 18 and 20 comprises conical surfaces relative to the central axis of the bearing 10 as shown in fig. 3).
Re-claim 18, Komiya discloses the interference fit acts radially around the conical area of effect (note each of the elements 14, 16, 18 and 20 comprises conical surfaces relative to the central axis of the bearing 10 as shown in fig. 3).
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 1-5, 7-9 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westling et al. (US 2020/0056602 A1) in view of Komiya (DE 112016000175 B4).
Regarding claims 1-5, 7-9 and 13-20, Westling et al. discloses a compressor unit including a battery compartment (112) coupled to a frame (106) via a plurality of elastomeric mounts (note [0006], [0032]) but fails to disclose the mounts comprising the structures as recited in the claims. However, as set forth above, Komiya discloses all claimed limitations. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the filing date of the application was made to modify the mount of Westling et al. with the teaching of Komiya will efficiently suppress vibration and improve stability.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komiya (DE 112016000175 B4) in view of Hettler (DE 4305808 C2).
Regarding claims 10-12, Komiya discloses all claimed limitations as set forth above but fails to disclose a pretensioning element as recited in the claims. However, Hettler discloses a similar bearing assembly comprising an elastomer body (6) disposed or arranged between a pretensioning element (15) comprising a disc portion and a bearing element (5.1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the filing date of the application was made to modify the bearing assembly of Komiya with the teaching of Hettler will efficiently suppress vibration and improve stability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 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.
Conclusion
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