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 .
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.
Claim 16 is 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 16, the limitation “the retention feature having openings in a first portion and grooves in a second portion” is unclear. In claim 1, the retention feature includes “a first portion and a second portion, the first portion comprising openings or the second portion comprising grooves”. It is unclear if the first and second portions and respective openings and grooves of claim 16 are the same first and second portions and respective openings and grooves as defined in claim 1.
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 1-5, 7, 11-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Krehmer et al. (US-20180209478).
Regarding claim 1, Krehmer et al. discloses a mount (1) having a cylindrical cavity portion (at least inside of 3); a vibration mitigation element (4) within the cylindrical portion of the mount (at least figs 4b and 5); and a retention feature (5a and/or 5b) configured to cover an end of the vibration mitigation element (figs 4b and 5), wherein the retention feature is tunable to provide a selected precompression of the vibration mitigation element and a selected rate for the vibration mitigation element (at least [0029]), wherein the retention feature includes a first portion (fig 5, 10a/b) and a second portion (11a-d), the first portion comprising openings (fig 5, at least wherein the open space 9a-d at 10a and 10b, between 11a-d have been interpreted as openings) or the second portion comprising grooves (fig 5, at least wherein the open space 9a-d between 11a-d have been interpreted as grooves).
Regarding claim 2, Krehmer et al. discloses wherein the retention feature is comprised of a polymeric material ([0011], rigid polymer material).
Regarding claim 3, Krehmer et al. discloses wherein the vibration mitigation element is a bushing comprised of rubber (4, [0025]).
Regarding claim 4, Krehmer et al. discloses a part (2) connected to an interior or middle of the vibration mitigation element (2, figs 4b and 5).
Regarding claim 5, Krehmer et al. discloses a bay attachment portion (at least at 3) attached and bolted to an engine bay of a vehicle and a connection element (2) attached to an interior of the vibration mitigation element (figs 4 and 5). Krehmer et al. discloses wherein the bushing is attached to a chassis region of a motor vehicle ([0004]). It has been interpreted that the chassis region includes an engine bay region.
Regarding claim 7, Krehmer et al. discloses the retention feature (5a and/or 5b) being an end cap (figs 4b and 5).
Regarding claim 11, Krehmer et al. discloses retention feature (5a and/or 5b) configured to compressibly (wherein 5a and 5 b are axially movable) attach a connection element to the mount without an adhesive (at least wherein the connection is through protuberances 11a-11d and wherein 5a and 5 b are axially movable).
Regarding claim 12, Krehmer et al. discloses wherein the retention feature is tunable by rotation to provide a set rate buildup (at least [0012] at least wherein “for the stiffening of the bearing bushing, the support ring is rotated”).
Regarding claim 13, Krehmer et al. discloses wherein the retention feature being lockable (at least [0012] at least wherein “for the stiffening of the bearing bushing, the support ring is rotated until it is situated parallel to the force flow of the force introduced into the bearing bushing ” which has been interpreted to be locked into an operational position).
Regarding claim 14, Krehmer et al. discloses a cover (5a/5b and 10a/b) that shields the retention feature and vibration mitigation element (fig 4b and 5).
Regarding claim 15, Krehmer et al. discloses a detent (9a-9d) configured to prevent rotation of the feature after installation (fig 5).
Regarding claim 18, Krehmer et al. discloses providing an engine mount having a cavity portion and an engine bay attachment (3) and comprised of metal ([0027]); inserting a vibration mitigation element (4) into the cavity portion of the engine mount; installing a polymeric retention ([0011], rigid polymer material) feature (5a and/or 5b) to the engine mount to cover an end of the vibration mitigation element (figs 4b and 5), wherein the retention feature is rotated to provide a selected precompression of the vibration mitigation element and a selected rate for the vibration mitigation element ;locking the retention feature (at least [0012] at least wherein “for the stiffening of the bearing bushing, the support ring is rotated until it is situated parallel to the force flow of the force introduced into the bearing bushing ” which has been interpreted to be locked into an operational position); and attaching a connection element (2) to the vibration mitigation element (figs 4b and 5), wherein the retention feature includes a first portion (fig 5, 10a/b) and a second portion (11a-d), the first portion comprising openings (fig 5, at least wherein the open space 9a-d at 10a and 10b, between 11a-d have been interpreted as openings) or the second portion comprising grooves (fig 5, at least wherein the open space 9a-d between 11a-d have been interpreted as grooves).
Regarding claim 19, Krehmer et al. discloses bolting (at least through 2) the engine bay attachment of the mount to an engine bay of a vehicle. Krehmer et al. discloses wherein the bushing is attached to a chassis region of a motor vehicle ([0004]). It has been interpreted that the chassis region includes an engine bay region.
Regarding claim 20, Krehmer et al. discloses providing the retention feature as a detent (at least 9a-d and 11a-d) and preventing rotation after installation ([0012]).
Claims 1-11, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Kanamaru et al et al. (US-20210010561).
Regarding claim 1, Kanamaru et al. discloses a mount (1) having a cylindrical cavity portion (at least wherein 11 sits); a vibration mitigation element (11) within the cylindrical portion of the mount (at least fig 2); and a retention feature (20) configured to cover an end of the vibration mitigation element (fig 2), wherein the retention feature is tunable to provide a selected precompression of the vibration mitigation element and a selected rate for the vibration mitigation element ([0017]-[0020], at least wherein it is possible to limit deformation of the moveable part based on the position of 20) wherein the retention feature includes a first portion (20/51) and a second portion (22), the first portion comprising openings (fig 1, at least 21a) or the second portion comprising grooves (fig 1, at least grooves on 22a).
Regarding claim 2, Kanamaru et al. discloses wherein the retention feature is comprised of a polymeric material ([0059]).
Regarding claim 3, Kanamaru et al. discloses wherein the vibration mitigation element is a bushing comprised of rubber (11, [0055]).
Regarding claim 4, Kanamaru et al. discloses a part (at least at or near 5/11/12) connected to an interior or middle of the vibration mitigation element (fig 2).
Regarding claim 5, Kanamaru et al. discloses a bay attachment portion (at least at or near 5) attached and bolted to an engine bay of a vehicle and a connection element (fig 2) attached to an interior of the vibration mitigation element (fig 2 and [0042]).
Regarding claim 6, Kanamaru et al. discloses wherein the connection element being part of a vehicle engine (at or near 5, fig 2 and [0042]).
Regarding claim 7, Kanamaru et al. discloses wherein the retention feature (20) being an end cap (figs 1-2).
Regarding claim 8, Kanamaru et al. discloses wherein the retention feature formed of a thermoset polymeric material ([0059] at least wherein nylon is a thermoplastic).
Regarding claim 9, Kanamaru et al. discloses wherein the thermoset polymeric material comprising one or more of aliphatic polyamides ([0059]).
Regarding claim 10, Kanamaru et al. discloses wherein the thermoset polymeric material comprising one or more of aromatic polyamides, aromatic polyimides, and aliphatic polyimides ([0059]).
Regarding claim 11, Kanamaru et al. discloses wherein the retention feature (20) configured to compressibly (at least through 50) attach a connection element to the mount without an adhesive.
Regarding claim 14, Kanamaru et al. discloses wherein a cover (at least 3/40/30) that shields the retention feature and vibration mitigation element (fig 1-2).
Regarding claim 15, Kanamaru et al. discloses a detent (23) configured to prevent rotation of the feature after installation ([0066] at least wherein 23 regulates movement of which rotation has been interpreted to be included).
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 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krehmer et al. (US-20180209478) in view of Kanamaru et al et al. (US-20210010561).
Regarding claims 8-10, Krehmer et al. discloses the use of a rigid polymer for the material of the at least one auxiliary member, but is silent as to a specific rigid polymer.
Regarding claim 8, Kanamaru et al. teaches wherein a retention feature formed of a thermoset polymeric material ([0059] at least wherein nylon is a thermoplastic).
Regarding claim 9, Kanamaru et al. teaches wherein a thermoset polymeric material comprising one or more of aliphatic polyamides ([0059]).
Regarding claim 10, Kanamaru et al. teaches wherein the thermoset polymeric material comprising one or more of aromatic polyamides, aromatic polyimides, and aliphatic polyimides ([0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a polymeric material with vibration damping characteristics as taught by Kanamaru et al. to achieve a desired result based on the engineering design.
Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krehmer et al. (US-20180209478) in view of Fitzgerald (US-7735812).
Regarding claim 17, Krehmer et al. discloses the use of a metal for the material of the mount but is silent as to iron or steel.
Fitzgerald teaches wherein steel (col. 4, lines 18-45) is the metal used for a material of an engine mount.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use iron or steel as taught by Fitzgerald to achieve a desired result based on the engineering design.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claims 1 and 18, Applicant argues that the prior art of record Krehmer lacks wherein “the retention feature includes a first portion and a second portion, the first portion comprising openings or the second portion comprising grooves”, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth above, it has been interpreted that the retention feature 5a/5b in at least figure 5 includes a first portion (fig 5, 10a or 10b) and a second portion (11a-d), the spaces 9a-d in 10a and 10b, open towards 4, and between elements 11a and 11b, or 11c and 11d have been interpreted as openings. With regards to the “or” clause and under a different interpretation, the spaces 9a-d between elements 11a and 11b or 11c and 11d have been interpreted as grooves.
Applicant also argues that the prior art of record Kanamaru lacks wherein a retention feature is “tunable to provide a selected precompression of the vibration mitigation element and a selected rate for the vibration mitigation element” Examiner respectfully disagrees. In [0017]-[0020] Kanamaru describes limiting the displacement and deformation of a movable part and the mount holding part 20 (retention feature). It has been interpreted that the ability to limit the displacement and deformation of the movable part and the mount holding part 20 reads over being tunable to provide a selected precompression and selected rate. The selection has been interpreted as the appropriate limit that has been set. With regards to the amendment, as set forth above Kanamaru discloses wherein the retention feature includes a first portion (20/51) and a second portion (22), the first portion comprising openings (fig 1, at least 21a) or the second portion comprising grooves (fig 1, at least grooves on 22a).
Regarding claims 1 and 18, it appears that the arguments are more specific than the limitation set by the claims.
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 JAMES K HSIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-6259. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5, Monday-Friday.
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.
/J.K.H/ Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616