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.
Claims 7-12 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 7, the phrase “consisting at least of” is indefinite because the use of the word “consisting” implies an exclusive recitation of elements, whereas the phrase “at least of” implies a non-exclusive recitation of elements. As such, it is unclear whether the claim is reciting an exclusive or non-exclusive set of elements.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase “an elastic linkage via at least one rubber bearing” is indefinite because it is unclear whether the “elastic linkage” is a distinct element form the “at least one rubber bearing,” or alternatively, that the “at least one rubber bearing” forms the “elastic linkage.”
Regarding claim 7, the phrase “the rubber linkage” lacks antecedent basis, rendering it unclear whether the “elastic linkage” or the “rubber bearing” is being referenced.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase “the stiffness of the rubber bearing in the vertical direction” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase “the rubber bearing in the longitudinal direction of the motor vehicle” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase “the longitudinal direction of the motor vehicle or its longitudinal axis” is indefinite because it is unclear which element “its” is referring to.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase “consisting at least of” is indefinite because the use of the word “consisting” implies an exclusive recitation of elements, whereas the phrase “at least of” implies a non-exclusive recitation of elements. As such, it is unclear whether the claim is reciting an exclusive or non-exclusive set of elements.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase “an elastic linkage via at least one rubber bearing” is indefinite because it is unclear whether the “elastic linkage” is a distinct element form the “at least one rubber bearing,” or alternatively, that the “at least one rubber bearing” forms the “elastic linkage.”
Regarding claim 8, the phrase “the rubber linkage” lacks antecedent basis, rendering it unclear whether the “elastic linkage” or the “rubber bearing” is being referenced.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase “the stiffness of the rubber bearing in the vertical direction” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase “the rubber bearing in a transverse direction of the motor vehicle” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase “a transverse direction of the motor vehicle, or one of its transverse axes” is indefinite because it is unclear which element “its” is referring to.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase “two front and two rear rubber bearings” are indefinite because it is unclear whether these are the same element as, in addition to, or separate from the previously recited “at least one rubber bearing.”
Regarding claim 9, the phrase “[a]n axle carrier bearing system” is indefinite because it is unclear whether this is the same as, distinct from, or in addition to the previously recited “bearing system for an axle . . . comprising: an axle carrier” as recited in claim 8.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase “the bushing of each rubber bearing” lacks antecedent basis (see e.g. rejection of claims 9-12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) below –claim 9 does not require all of the limitations of claim 8 as currently written).
Regarding claim 11, the phrase “the at least one rubber bearing” is indefinite because it is unclear whether this is referring to one of the “two front” or one of the “two rear” rubber bearings (see claim 9).
Regarding claim 12, the phrase “the one direction” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase “the rubber bearings” is indefinite because it is unclear whether this is referring to the “two front” bearing, the “two rear” rubber bearings, or a combination thereof (see claim 9).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 9-12 fail to include all of the limitations of independent claim 8. While claim 9 makes reference to claim 8, claim 9 only recites that the rubber bearings “have a stiffness distribution according to claim 8” and does not require the entirety of claim 8. For example, claim 9 does not require that any of the front two bearings or the rear two bearings have a rubber sleeve, a bushing and a bearing core. Rather, claim 9 only requires that the front two bearings and/or the rear two bearings have “a stiffness distribution according to claim 8.”
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 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 that 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 the longitudinal direction of the motor vehicle or its longitudinal axis, 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 10 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 or its longitudinal axis (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; ratio of Z:X is 7:2, or 3.5), and the upper value of the stiffness of the rubber bearing in the vertical direction is not greater than 10 times the stiffness of the rubber bearing in the longitudinal direction (see ¶ 0021; ratio of Z:X is 7:2, or 3.5).
It would have been obvious to configure the at least one rubber bearing of Stangl to have a vertical to longitudinal siffness 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 Abstrtact, 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 ¶¶ 0004, 0005, 0022). Therefore, it would have been obvious to vary the relative stiffnesses 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 an axle carrier bearing system (see ¶ 0034; FIG. 1) which, as viewed in the vehicle longitudinal direction, is attached by way of two front (6) and two rear (6) rubber bearings to the motor vehicle body (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 the at least one rubber bearing 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.
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 one direction which is hydraulically damped by way of the rubber bearings is the longitudinal direction of the motor vehicle (see ¶ 0022).
Conclusion
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
December 23, 2025