This is Final office action for serial number 18346107.
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 Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 8, claims states, “a body that defines a curved surface” then in claim 12 states, “the body further comprises a first curved surface”, the applicant needs to disguise the whether the curved surface and the first curved surface are the same element or different elements. Appropriate correction is required.
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 8, 11, 12, 15, 16, and 18-22 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "first open opening" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "a first curved surface" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 claims a body including a “curved surface”, the examiner can not determine if the “curved surface” of claim 8 is the same limitations as the “first curved surface” of claim 12 therefore the claim is confusing and indefinite.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "planar surfaced" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the first sidewall" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the second sidewall" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the first lobe opening" in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the second lobe opening" in line 25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "a first lobe opening" in line 2. The examiner can not determine if the “first lobe opening” recited in claim 18 is the same or a different “first lobe opening” recited in claim 16 therefore indefinite and confusing.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "a second lobe opening" in line 3. The examiner can not determine if the “first lobe opening” recited in claim 18 is the same or a different “first lobe opening” recited in claim 16 therefore indefinite and confusing.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "a first lobe opening" in line 5. The examiner can not determine if the “first lobe opening” recited in claim 18 is the same or a different “first lobe opening” recited in claim 16 therefore indefinite and confusing.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "a second lobe opening" in line 6. The examiner can not determine if the “first lobe opening” recited in claim 18 is the same or a different “first lobe opening” recited in claim 16 therefore indefinite and confusing.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "a first lobe opening" in line 1 . The examiner can not determine if the “first lobe opening” recited in claim 18 is the same or a different “first lobe opening” recited in claim 16 therefore indefinite and confusing.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "a second lobe opening" in line 3. The examiner can not determine if the “first lobe opening” recited in claim 18 is the same or a different “first lobe opening” recited in claim 16 therefore indefinite and confusing.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "claim 17" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since claim 17 has been canceled.
Claim 20 fails to further limit claim 16 since all of the limitations within claim 20 are already included within claim 16, therefore “a first aperture”, “first fastener”, “first top hat bushing”, therefore “a second aperture”, “second fastener”, “second top hat bushing” raise indefinite and confusion issues since the examiner can not determine if the limitations are new limitations or existing claimed limitations of claim 16. This rejection is based on the examiner interpreting claim 20 as dependent from an one of claims 16, 18, or 19 since claim 17 has been canceled.
The claims have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 for the above reasons. Please note that the Examiner may not have pointed out each and every example of indefiniteness. The applicant is required to review all the claim language to make sure the claimed invention is clear and definite.
All words in a claim must be considered in determining the patentability of theclaim against the prior art. If no reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to certainterms in the claim, the subject matter does not become obvious, the claim becomesindefinite. In re Wilson, 424F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970). The examiner's analysis ofthe claims, in particular claim language within the claims as rejected under 35 USC 112 above, indicates that considerable speculation as to the meaning of the terms employed and assumptions as to the scope of the claims needs to be made, as the examiner does not understand what is exactly being claimed by the applicant. Any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 should not be based on such speculations and assumptions. In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859,862 (CCPA 1962); Ex parte Head, 214 USPQ 551 (Bd.App. 1981). Accordingly, the applicant should not assume that any claims not rejected using prior art is considered allowable since the examiner can not clearly determine the limitations of the claim due to indefiniteness. The applicant should be aware that once the claims have been corrected to remove the problems concerning indefiniteness, prior art may be used to reject the claims and the next action made final or if the application is in a final status the amendment after final may not be entered as requiring further search and/or consideration.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haggerty 4,778,199 in view of Gutierrez 10988015. Haggerty discloses claims: (Claim 1) An isolator, comprising: a first lobe (34) comprising a first opening (aperture of 34) oriented in a first direction; a second lobe (35) comprising a second opening (aperture of 35); a cylindrical body (33) comprising: a curved surface (outer surface of 33 or inner surface surrounding aperture), a planar surface (front surface of 33), a third opening (bore of 33) passing through the planar surface and oriented in a second direction different from the first direction, wherein the first lobe and the second lobe are integrally formed with the cylindrical body along the curved surface, and the body, the first lobe, and the second lobe comprises a rubber (elastomeric material); (Claim 3) wherein the second lobe (35) is oriented in the second direction; (Claim 4) wherein the first direction is perpendicular with respect to the second direction; (Claim 5) wherein: the first opening and the second opening are configured to receive a respective fastener (39) to secure the isolator to a drive unit, the third opening is configured to receive a structure, the isolator is configured to isolate the structure from vibration caused by the drive unit; (Claim 23) the body comprises a plurality of walls (front/back walls of body 33 and wall of aperture )
[AltContent: textbox (1st lobe (34) with 1st opening (where 39 extends through aperture of 34))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Planar surface (front surface of 33)
3rd opening (where 31 extends through aperture of 35))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Cylindrical body (33))][AltContent: textbox (2nd lobe (35) with 2nd opening (where 39 extends through 35))][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
512
414
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Haggerty discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention except for the third opening defines a rectangular opening and one or more grooves.
Gutierrez teaches it is known to have a opening (14) defines a rectangular opening (14) and one or more grooves (15).
[AltContent: textbox (Rectangular opening
grooves)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
298
492
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have made for the third opening defines a rectangular opening and one or more grooves, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art since the applicant has not shown how the chosen shape is critical (the applicant’s invention within the specification paragraph 0035, it states “opening 432 may include a different shape (e.g., circular) and may include fewer grooves (including no groove) or more grooves”) therefore making this limitation a matter of design choice not critical.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haggerty et al. (Haggerty) 4,778,199 in view of in view of Gutierrez 10988015 in view of Rodecker 20070063401.
Haggerty in view of Gutierrez discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention except for the metal ring.
Rodecker discloses (Claim 6) The isolator of claim 1, further comprising a metal ring (64) integrated with the body (62), wherein the metal ring encircles the “third” opening (68). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success to have modified Haggerty in view of Gutierrez to have included a metal ring integrated with the body, wherein the metal ring encircles the opening as taught by Rodecker for the purpose of providing a reinforcement means for the device to prevent damage. Haggerty in view of Rodecker inherently discloses (Claim 7) The isolator of claim 6, wherein the metal ring is positioned between the first lobe and the second lobe.
Claim(s) 16 and 18-21 is/are rejected, as best understood in regards to first and second top hat bushing, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haggerty 4,778,199 in view of Kojima 10337585. The applicant is reminded that the first, second top hat bushing, first fastener, and second fastener are not positively claimed therefore the prior art only need to be capable of performing the functions related to the first, second top hat bushing, first fastener, and second fastener.
Haggerty discloses:
(Claim 16) A vehicle, comprising: a drive unit (M, T); a subframe (10, 11, support frame) configured to carry the drive unit; an isolator assembly coupled to the subframe, the isolator assembly comprising: an isolator, comprising: a body (33) comprising a first curved surface, a second curved surface, and a planar surface; a first lobe (34) extending from the body; and a second lobe (35) extending from the body (33); and a first cover (36) comprising: a first curved wall that conforms to the first curved surface, a first set of extensions that at least partially covers the first lobe and the second lobe,, the first lobe, and the second lobe; and a second cover (37) comprising: a second curved wall that conforms to the second curved surface, a second set of extensions that at least partially covers the first lobe and the second lobe, the first lobe, and the second lobe, a first aperture defined by the first set of extensions, the first lobe opening, and the second set of extensions, wherein the first aperture is configured to receive a first fastener and a first top hat bushing, and a second aperture defined by the first set of extensions, the second lobe opening, and the second set of extensions, wherein the second aperture is configured to receive a second fastener and a second top hat bushing, the second top hat bushing separate from the first top hat bushing.
(Claim 18) The vehicle of claim 17, wherein: the first lobe comprises a first lobe opening, the second lobe comprising a second lobe opening, and the first set of extensions comprises: a first opening (left hole in 36 receiving 39) aligned with the first lobe opening; and a second opening aligned with the second lobe opening (right hole in 36 receiving 39).
(Claim 19) The vehicle of claim 18, wherein the second set of extensions comprises: a third opening (left hole in 37 receiving 39) aligned with the first lobe opening; and a fourth opening (right hole in 37 receiving 39) aligned with the second lobe opening;
(Claim 20) The vehicle of claim 17, wherein the isolator assembly further comprises: a first aperture defined by the first set of extensions, the first lobe opening, and the second set of extensions, wherein the first aperture is configured to receive a first fastener and a first top hat bushing; and a second aperture defined by the first set of extensions, the second lobe opening, and the second set of extensions, wherein the second aperture is configured to receive a second fastener and a second top hat bushing.
(Claim 21) The vehicle of claim 16, wherein the body (33) comprises a cylindrical body.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (2nd set of extension for 2nd lobe)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (2nd curved wall of 37)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (2nd set of extension for 1st lobe)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First set of extension for 2nd lobe)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (2nd lobe (35) with 2nd lobe opening (where 39 extends through 35))][AltContent: textbox (First set of extension for 1st lobe)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (1st curved wall of 36)][AltContent: textbox (1st curved surface of body 33
2nd curved surface of body 33)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Planar surface (front surface of body 33)
3rd opening (where 31 extends through aperture of 35))][AltContent: textbox (1st lobe (34) with 1st lobe opening (where 39 extends through aperture of 34))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Cylindrical body (33))][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
512
414
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Where fastener 39 and top hat bushing can be positioned)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Where fastener 39 and top hat bushing can be positioned.)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second set of extensions of 37)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First set of extensions of 36)][AltContent: textbox (Curved surface (outer curved surface of 33)
Planar surface (front surface of 33))]
PNG
media_image1.png
512
414
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox ( First aperture second aperture)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
512
414
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Haggerty discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention except for the first and second cover including a first and second sidewall, respectively first and second covers, that at least partially cover the planar surface, the first lobe, and second lobe. Kojima teaches it is known to (Claim 16) a sidewall that would at least partially covers a planar surface, a first lobe, and second lobe; have a cover including a first and second sidewall (see figure below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success to have modified Haggerty to have included a first and second sidewall on each of the first and second covers, respectively as taught by Kojima since Haggerty teaches that the covers are shells 36 and 37 therefore motivated or suggested to encase or enclose at least partially the body on all sides which would include the planar surfaces, first lobe, and second lobes with first and second sidewalls as taught by Kojima for the purpose of preventing debris and moisture on the body therefore preventing mechanical break down.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second sidewall)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox ( First sidewall
Cover)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
190
432
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 16 and 18-21 is/are rejected, as best understood in regards to first and second top hat bushing, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haggerty 4,778,199 in view of Kojima 10337585, as discussed above, in view of Protzmann et al. (Protzmann) 20230028093. (If the applicant’s intent is to claim the first and second top hat bushings) Haggerty in view of Kojima discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention except for a first top hat bushing and a second top hat bushing. Prrotzmann discloses that it is known to have (Claim 16 and Claim 20), wherein the isolator assembly further comprises: a first top hat bushing (upper 10) and a second top hat bushing (lower 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success to have modified Haggerty in view of Joseph to have included first fasteners, second fastener, first top hat bushing, and second hat bushing as taught by Protzmann for the purpose of providing reinforcement to the lobes to prevent damage.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second top hat bushing (10) with second shaft)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First top hat bushing (10) With first shaft )][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image4.png
312
438
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 11, and 22 are allowable.
Claims 12 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the above rejected claim(s) using prior art have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 KIMBERLY T WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-6826. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 9:00am-5:30pm flexible schedule.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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.
/KIMBERLY T WOOD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631