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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection noted below.
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 1 and 13-14 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitation “at least four webs” and the limitation “at least two webs” are recited. It is unclear whether “at least two webs” are the members of the “at least four webs” group or a separate two webs. For purposes of examination “the at least two webs” will be interpreted as “two webs of the at least four webs”.
Regarding Claim 13, the limitation “about 20°” is recited. It is unclear what is considered to be “about 20°” as the specification does not specify. For purposes of examination “about 20°” will be interpreted as “within the range of 15-25°”.
Regarding Claim 14, the limitation “the vertical plane” is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation because Claims 1 and 11, which Claim 14 is dependent on, do not recite this limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jorn (EP 0075807 A2) in view of Eguchi (US 20150219175 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Jorn discloses A bearing bush (12) (see Fig. 3) for supporting a vehicle part on a vehicle body (see [0001]), comprising: a core (1) (see Fig. 3) that extends along a central longitudinal axis of the bearing bush (see Fig. 1), and an outer sleeve (2 & 3) that surrounds the core circumferentially (see Fig. 3, [0025]), wherein an elastomer body (5 & 6) is arranged between the core and the outer sleeve (see Fig. 3, [0025]); the elastomer body comprises at least four webs (5a, 5b, 6a, 6b) (see Fig. 3, [0025]), each of the at least four webs having a centerline (A) (see annotated Fig. 3 below); and longitudinal centerlines of the at least four webs are not directed toward the central longitudinal axis of the bearing bush (see Annotated Fig. 3 below); the outer sleeve (2, 3) comprises two half-shells (2, 3), each half-shell (2, 3) includes at least two webs (5a, 5b, 6a, 6b); the two half-shells separated from one another by a gap (17, 18) (see Fig. 3, [0025]).
Jorn does not disclose and at least one of the two half-shells (2, 3) has, on an inner side of the outer sleeve, a stop buffer in a region between the at least two webs.
Eguchi teaches a stop buffer (46) on the vertical center axis (47) inner side of the outer sleeve (14) in region between two webs (38a) of a bearing bush (see Fig. 2, [0020]).
It would have been obvious to combine the stop buffer between two webs of Eguchi with the bearing bush of Jorn in order to prevent excessive elastic deformation of the bearing bush (see US 20150219175 A1 [Eguchi]; [0020]).
PNG
media_image1.png
553
535
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3
Regarding Claim 2, Jorn discloses wherein the elastomer body (5, 6) connects the core (1) and the outer sleeve (2, 3) to one another (see Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 5, Jorn discloses wherein the outer gap (17, 18) comprises a half-shell parting plane (see Annotated Fig. 3 above).
Regarding Claim 6, Jorn discloses wherein at least one of the half-shells (2, 3) has a respective end stop buffer (21a, 21b) on an inner side in a region of each of its two ends (see Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 7, Jorn discloses including an end stop buffer (21, 21b) adjacent the gap (17, 18) (see Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 8, Eguchi teaches wherein the stop buffer (46) projects substantially in a radial direction of the central longitudinal axis (see Fig. 2, Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 9, Jorn discloses wherein the end stop buffer (21a, 21b) projects from an inner side of the outer sleeve (2, 3) in a direction of the core (1) substantially in a radial direction of the central longitudinal axis (see Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 10, Jorn discloses wherein the at least four webs (6a, 6b, 5a, 5b) are arranged substantially in an x shape (see Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 11, Jorn discloses wherein longitudinal centerlines of each of the at least four webs slope at an angle relative to a radius of the bearing bush projecting from a central point of the bearing bush (see Fig. 3, Annotated Fig. 3 (2) below).
PNG
media_image2.png
481
535
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 (2)
Regarding Claim 12, Jorn discloses wherein the at least four webs are each sloped at angle relative to a vertical plane perpendicular to a half-shell parting line (see Fig. 3, Annotated Fig. 3 (2) above).
Regarding Claim 15, it is not explicitly clear Jorn discloses wherein each of the at least four webs has a concave shape.
Eguchi teaches wherein each of the at least four webs has a concave shape (see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to combine the teaching of concave shape webs of Eguchi with the bearing bush of Jorn in order to improve durability and maintain the spring ratio of the elastic webs (see US 20150219175 A1 [Eguchi]; [0012-0013]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jorn (EP 0075807 A2) as modified by Eguchi (US 20150219175 A1) in Claim 1, above, further in view of Schwarz (DE 102017117142 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Jorn modified by Eguchi teaches the bearing bush as claimed in Claim 1.
Jorn modified by Eguchi does not explicitly teach wherein each web has a length and a width in cross section, a ratio of the length to the width being at least 1.0.
Schwarz teaches wherein each web has a length and a width in cross section, a ratio of the length to the width being at least 1.0 (see Fig. 4, [0012]).
It would have been obvious to combine the teaching of web length and width of Schwarz with the bearing bush of Jorn modified by Eguchi in order to improve the spring arrangement for the elastic support of the transverse forces transmitted to the bearing bush (see DE 102017117142 A1 [Schwarz]; [0012]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jorn (EP 0075807 A2) as modified by Eguchi (US 20150219175 A1) in Claim 1, above, further in view of Werner (WO 2020108825 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Jorn modified by Eguchi teaches the bearing bush of Claim 1.
Jorn modified by Eguchi does not explicitly teach wherein each web is wider in a contact region with the outer sleeve than in the contact region with the core.
Werner teaches a bearing bush web (40 and 42) wherein each web is wider in a contact region with the outer sleeve than the core (see Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to combine the teaching of a wider contact region with the outer sleeve than the core of Werner with the bearing bush of Jorn modified by Eguchi in order to provide increased stability and adapt the damping characteristics of the web.
Claims 1, 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eguchi (US 20150219175 A1) in view of Scharf et. al. (US 20110164839 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Eguchi discloses a bearing bush (10) for supporting a vehicle part on a vehicle body, comprising: a core (12) that extends along a central longitudinal axis of the bearing bush (see Fig. 1), and an outer sleeve (14) that surrounds the core circumferentially, wherein an elastomer body (16) is arranged between the core (12) and the outer sleeve (14); the elastomer body (16) comprises at least four webs (38b, 38a), each of the at least four webs (38b, 38a) having a centerline (48b, 48a); and longitudinal centerlines (48b, 48a) of the at least four webs (38b, 38a) are not directed toward the central longitudinal axis of the bearing bush, each side of the outer sleeve (14) includes at least two webs (38a, 38b), and on at least one side of the outer sleeve has on an inner side of the outer sleeve (14), a stop buffer (46) in a region between the at least two webs (38a) (see Fig. 3).
Eguchi does not disclose the outer sleeve being comprised of two half-shells.
Scharf teaches a bearing bush wherein the outer sleeve (4, 5) comprises two half-shells (4, 5) the two half-shells (4, 5) separated from one another by a gap (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to combine the teaching of utilizing a two half-shell outer sleeve with a gap of Scharf with the bearing bush of Eguchi in order to have “a relatively flexible design with regard to respectively larger torsional deflections” (see US 20110164839 A1 [Scharf]; [0006]).
Regarding Claim 11, Eguchi discloses wherein longitudinal centerlines of each of the at least four webs slope at an angle relative to a radius of the bearing bush projecting from a central point of the bearing bush (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 12, Eguchi discloses wherein the at least four webs are each sloped at angle relative to a vertical plane perpendicular to a half-shell parting line (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 13, Eguchi discloses wherein the angle is about 20° (see Fig. 2, [0059]).
Regarding Claim 14, Eguchi discloses wherein the angle is between 10° and 80° to the vertical plane (see Fig. 2, [0059]).
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 Shea Irvin whose telephone number is (571)272-9952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 - 17:00.
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.
/S.W.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights