DETAILED ACTION
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 “reinforcements or inserts” of claim 13 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 7 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.
Re claim 7, Applicant claims a “peripheral portion”. It is unclear to which limitation applicant refers since peripheral portions are previously claimed for both the filter block lower support and filter block cover in claim 1 from which claim 7 depends.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the intermediate support part" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanahashi (US 4486028) in view of Krishnan et al. (US 2018/0105010 A1).
Re claim 1, Tanahashi teaches a top mount assembly of a motor vehicle suspension strut, the assembly comprising: a sliding or rolling bearing (54) and a filtering sub-assembly in direct or indirect abutment against the bearing, the bearing defining an axis of rotation, the filtering sub-assembly comprising: a filter block (42) made of elastomeric material, the filter block extending along a reference axis and having an interface for securing one end of a rod (16) of a damper of the suspension strut; a filter block lower support (40) located between the filter block and the bearing and having an annular central portion abutting a lower face of the filter block and traversed axially by a passage (50) for the end of the rod of the damper, the filter block lower support (40) having an annular peripheral portion (53) surrounding the central portion (51), the filter block lower support further having an upper face facing the filter block and an opposing lower face for a shock pad (18) of the suspension strut; a filter block cover (38) comprising a central portion (43) abutting an upper face of the filter block, a peripheral portion (45) surrounding the central portion and abutting the annular peripheral portion of the lower support, the peripheral portion of the filter block cover being provided with fastening openings (for bolts 46) arranged radially outside the bearing and configured to fasten the filtering sub-assembly to a body element of the motor vehicle; and fastening means (46, See also column 2, lines 65-68 : “spot welding or bolts and nuts”) that secure the filter block cover to the filter block lower support independently of the fastening openings.
Tanahashi does not teach wherein the filter block being pre-stressed between the lower support and the filter block cover. Krishnan et al. teach wherein the filter block (56, 57) is pre-stressed between a lower support (51) and a filter block cover (52). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to pre-stress the filter block to mitigate or cancel the effect of static loads applied to a component connecting the structures as taught by Krishnan et al. (Abstract)
Re claim 3, Tanahashi teaches wherein the filter block lower support (40) is made of a single piece. Tanahashi is silent with regard to the material of the lower support. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the lower support from metal since it is a well-known material for use in struts and capable of welding. (See citation in claim 1 above re welding.)
Re claim 4, Tanahashi teaches wherein the filter block cover (38) is without reinforcements or inserts. (Fig. 1) Tanahashi is silent with regard to the material of the filter block cover. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the filter block cover from plastic since it is a well-known material for use in struts and capable of welding. (See citation in claim 1 above re welding.)
Re claim 6, Tanahashi teaches wherein the fastening means (46) for securing the filter block cover with the filter block lower support comprise at least one fastening per threading.
Re claim 7, the limitation is unclear (See Par. 3 above). However,Tanahashi teaches wherein the peripheral portion of the lower support surrounds the central portion of the lower support (40).
Re claim 13, Tanahashi does not teach wherein the filter block cover comprises a plastic material with reinforcements or inserts. Tanahashi is silent with regard to the material of the filter block cover. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the filter block cover from plastic since it is a well-known material for use in struts and capable of welding. (See citation in claim 1 above re welding.) Further, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide reinforcement such as fiber reinforcement as is well known for providing strength to plastics.
Re claim 15, Tanahashi suspension strut for a motor vehicle, comprising a coil spring (22), a telescopic damper (10), a shock pad (18), and a top mount assembly as described above re claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5, 8, 10-12, and 14 are 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.
Claim 9 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bishop et al., Gruber, JP ‘332 and DE ‘723 teach similar top mount assemblies.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELANIE TORRES WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-7127. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday - Friday 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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.
/MELANIE TORRES WILLIAMS/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3616
MTWDecember 4, 2025