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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “axle,” “double track motor vehicle,” “axle carrier,” “elastic linkage,” and “carrier of a motor vehicle body” as recited in claims 7 and 8 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. Additionally, the “two front and two rear rubber bearings” as recited in claim 9, the “one threaded through bolt” as recited in claim 10, the bearing being “hydraulically damped” as recited in claim 11 and the bearing being “hydraulically damped” in the vertical direction as recited in claim 12 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims.
No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 § 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 12 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 12, the phrase “the at least one rubber bearing is hydraulically damped” is indefinite because it is unclear whether all four rubber bearings constituting the “at least one” rubber bearing are required to be hydraulically damped, or rather, that only one of the four rubber bearings are required to be hydraulically damped.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stangl (WO 2020/038855) in view of Stenzenberger et al. (US 2016/0083012). All citations to Stangl will be made with respect to Stangl (US 2021/0170822), which is an English language publication corresponding to Stangl (WO 2020/038855).
Regarding claim 7, Stangl discloses a bearing system for an axle of a double-track motor vehicle (see Abstract, FIGS. 1-3), comprising: an axle carrier (5) (see ¶ 0034; FIG. 1) which is attached with an elastic linkage (6) formed by at least one rubber bearing (6) to a carrier of a motor vehicle body (see ¶ 0039), each rubber bearing having a rubber sleeve (see ¶ 0040, “rubber element”), an outer circumference of which is surrounded by a bushing (see ¶ 0040, “sleeve”) and an inner circumference of which is applied in an axial longitudinal direction onto a bearing core (see ¶ 0040, “metallic core”), the elastic linkage formed by the at least one rubber bearing being positioned on the carrier in such a way that each rubber sleeve extends with its axially oriented longitudinal axis in a vertical direction of the motor vehicle (see FIG. 2; ¶ 0040).
Stangl does not disclose that a stiffness of the rubber bearing in the vertical direction lies between a lower value and an upper value, depending on the stiffness of the rubber bearing in a longitudinal direction of the motor vehicle, the lower value of the stiffness of the rubber bearing in the vertical direction is not smaller than 1.4 times the stiffness of the rubber bearing in the longitudinal direction, and the upper value of the stiffness of the rubber bearing in the vertical direction is not greater than 3 times the stiffness of the rubber bearing in the longitudinal direction.
Stenzenberger teaches a bearing system for an axle of a double-track motor vehicle (see Abstract, FIGS. 1-8) comprising at least one rubber bearing (9) wherein the stiffness of the rubber bearing in the vertical direction (Z) lies between a lower value and an upper value (see ¶ 0021), depending on the stiffness of the rubber bearing in the longitudinal direction (X) of the motor vehicle (see ¶ 0021), the lower value of the stiffness of the rubber bearing in the vertical direction (Z) is not smaller than 1.4 times the stiffness of the rubber bearing in the longitudinal direction (see ¶ 0021, “the elastomer bearings are preferably designed to be at least three times as stiff in a z direction . . . as in an x direction”), and the upper value of the stiffness of the rubber bearing in the vertical direction is not greater than 3 times the stiffness of the rubber bearing in the longitudinal direction (see ¶ 0021, “the elastomer bearings are preferably designed to be at least three times as stiff in a z direction . . . as in an x direction”).
It would have been obvious to configure the at least one rubber bearing of Stangl to have a vertical to longitudinal stiffness ratio of between 1.4 and 10, as taught by Stenzenberger, to provide an advantageous configuration with regard to acoustics, comfort and driving dynamics (see e.g. Stenzenberger, ¶ 0021).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stangl (WO 2020/038855) in view of Igami (US 2008/0054538). All citations to Stangl will be made with respect to Stangl (US 2021/0170822), which is an English language publication corresponding to Stangl (WO 2020/038855).
Regarding claim 8, Stangl discloses a bearing system for an axle of a double-track motor vehicle (see Abstract, FIGS. 1-3), comprising: an axle carrier (5) (see ¶ 0034; FIG. 1) which is attached with an elastic linkage (6) via at least one rubber bearing (6) to a carrier of a motor vehicle body (see ¶ 0039), each rubber bearing consisting at least of a rubber sleeve (see ¶ 0040, “rubber element”), an outer circumference of which being surrounded by a bushing (see ¶ 0040, “sleeve”) and an inner circumference of which is applied in an axial longitudinal direction onto a bearing core (see ¶ 0040, “metallic core”), the rubber bearing linkage being positioned on the carrier in such a way that each rubber sleeve extends with its axially oriented longitudinal axis in a vertical direction of the motor vehicle (see FIG. 2; ¶ 0040).
Stangl does not disclose the stiffness of the rubber bearing in the vertical direction lies between a lower value and an upper value, depending on the stiffness of the rubber bearing in a transverse direction of the motor vehicle, or one of its transverse axes (y), the lower value is not smaller than 0.3 times the stiffness of the rubber bearing in the transverse direction, and the upper value is not greater than half the stiffness of the rubber bearing in the transverse direction.
However, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” (see MPEP 2144.05.II.A). Furthermore, it is only routine experimentation to vary a known results-effective variable (see MPEP 2144.05. II.A).
In the present case, Igami teaches a bearing system for a vehicle drivetrain (see Abstract, FIGS. 1-2), wherein the stiffness of the rubber bearing in the vertical direction relative to the stiffness of the rubber bearing in a transverse direction of the motor vehicle is recognized as a result-effective variable (see ¶¶ 0060-0064). Therefore, it would have been obvious to vary the relative stiffnesses in the X and Y directions of the bearing of Stangl as a matter of routine experimentation to optimize the noise, vibration and harshness that is generated by the drivetrain (see Igami, ¶¶ 0060, 0061) (see also Stangl, ¶ 0014; drivetrain is supported by axle carrier).
Regarding claim 9, Stangl discloses that the at least one rubber bearing comprises four rubber bearings including two front (6) and two rear (6) rubber bearings by which the axial carrier is attached to the motor vehicle body as viewed in the vehicle longitudinal direction (see FIG. 1; ¶ 0039).
It would have been obvious to configure the at least the two front rubber bearings or at least the two rear rubber bearings or all four rubber bearings have a stiffness distribution according to claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8, above).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stangl (WO 2020/038855) in view of Igami (US 2008/0054538) and further in view of Miyahara et al. (US 2008/0284076). All citations to Stangl will be made with respect to Stangl (US 2021/0170822), which is an English language publication corresponding to Stangl (WO 2020/038855).
Regarding claim 10, Stangl does not disclose that the bushing of each rubber bearing is attached to the vehicle body via one threaded through bolt which is plugged through the bushing.
Miyahara teaches a bearing system (see Abstract, FIG. 7), wherein a bushing (11) of each rubber bearing (4) is attached to the vehicle body (22) via one threaded through bolt (23) which is plugged through the bushing (see FIG. 7).
It would have been obvious to utilize the threaded through bolt of Miyahara with the device of Stangl to utilize a common and well known means for attaching the bushing to the vehicle body that allows for quick assembly and disassembly as needed.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stangl (WO 2020/038855) in view of Igami (US 2008/0054538) and Miyahara et al. (US 2008/0284076), and further in view of Schnaars et al. (US 2010/0109213). All citations to Stangl will be made with respect to Stangl (US 2021/0170822), which is an English language publication corresponding to Stangl (WO 2020/038855).
Regarding claim 11, neither Stangl nor Igami disclose that at least one of the two front rubber bearings and the two rear rubber bearings additionally hydraulically damped in at least one of the damping directions of vertical direction, the transverse direction, and the longitudinal direction.
Schnaars teaches an axle carrier bearing assembly (see ¶ 0002), wherein at least one rubber bearing (1, 2, 4) is used which is additionally hydraulically damped in at least one of the damping directions of vertical direction and/or transverse direction and/or longitudinal direction (see ¶¶ 0019; 0022).
It would have been obvious to combine the hydraulic damping of Schnaars with the device of Stangl to implement a known means that is capable of adjusting the spring rate in the longitudinal direction (see e.g. Schnaars, ¶¶ 0004, 0005, 0022).
Regarding claim 12, Schnaars discloses that the at least one rubber bearing is hydraulically damped in the longitudinal direction of the motor vehicle (see ¶ 0022).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11-May-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the objection to the drawings for failing to show claimed subject matter Applicant argues that “[u]nder § 1.81(a), a drawing is required ‘where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter sought to be patent’” and that “[o]nly after it has been determined that a drawing is required does the inquiry move to 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a)” (see Amendment, page 5).
37 CFR 1.81 governs whether any drawings are required in the application at all. If drawings are required to be furnished in the application, then 37 C.F.R. 1.83(a) clearly requires that “every feature of the invention specified in the claims” must be shown, without any limitation. Furthermore, 37 C.F.R. 1.83(a) also states that “conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation.” Applicant has not even shown conventional features in representational form. As such, the drawing objections are maintained.
Regarding the rejection of independent claim 7 as being obvious in view of Stenzenberger, Applicant argues that “the upper limit has been amended from 10.0 to 3.0” and “claim 7 would no longer read on the 3.5 ratio disclosed by Stenzenberger” (see Amendment, page 7). Stenzenberger, however, explicitly discloses that “the elastomer bearings are preferably designed to be at least three times as stiff in a z direction . . . as in an x direction” (see ¶ 0021). Thus, Stenzenberger discloses a ratio of “three times” (see ¶ 0021) which anticipates the claimed range of “not greater than 3.0.”
Regarding independent claim 8 as being unpatentable in view of Igami, Applicant argues that “Igami teaches that its Y-axis and Z-axis stiffnesses may be substantially similar, which points toward a ratio of approximately 1:1” (see Amendment, page 7). While this is one example disclosed by Igami, Igami also teaches that “during the design phase for a particular motor vehicle, the stiffnesses of the orthogonal axes can be adjusted to optimize the stiffnesses for a particular frame, power train, and mount locations” (see ¶ 0061) and further that “[a]djustments to the stiffnesses of mounts 102 may occur along any axis, such as the X-axis, Y-axis, Z-axis, or any combination of axial stiffnesses” (see ¶ 0064) to optimize for NVH (see ¶ 0059). As such, Igami explicitly teaches routine experimentation of optimizing the relative ratios of the stiffnesses in the X, Y and Z directions to optimize for NVH. Furthermore, Igami explicitly discloses in a non-preferred embodiment that the ratio Z:Y = 1:3 (see ¶ 0059, “the stiffness along the Y-axis is typically about a third of the stiffness along the Z-axis”).
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 NICHOLAS J LANE whose telephone number is (571)270-5988. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
/NICHOLAS J LANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
June 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights