DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement has been received and considered.
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 “inlet opening”, “outlet opening”, and “end surface” as claimed in claims 1 and 20 must be shown and numerically identified 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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 20 it is unclear from the specification and drawings what structure exactly applicants consider as , the “inlet opening”, “outlet opening”, and “end surface”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4,15,19,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodecker 8,646,761 in view of Rodecker 7,644,911, Cerri, III or Arciero et al. U.S. 2003/0057348.
Regarding claims 1 and 20 subject to the 112 1st and drawing objections above (and as best understood) Rodecker ‘761 shows in figures 1,2 and 5 a fixing device 34 for connecting a first component (i.e. exhaust system- fig 5) to a second component (i.e. vehicle chassis), the fixing device 34 comprising an elastic main body 70,72 which includes a connecting area 54 having an inner housing with ‘inlet’ and ‘outlet’ openings (as per applicant’s) and being configured to receive a securing element 60 having a widened head, the connecting area including an ‘end surface’, in the area of 50, as broadly claimed, outside the inner housing 54 adjacent the outlet opening of the inner housing that is configured to face at least a portion of the widened head, the connecting area 54 including an outer circumferential surface (in the area of 76—as per applicant’s) surrounding at least a part of the inner housing.
Lacking in Rodecker ‘761 is a specific statement that element 76 can be considered to be a reinforcement arranged on the outer circumferential surface of the connecting area and surrounding the at least part of the inner housing, the reinforcement increasing the rigidity of the connecting area such that upon the securing element extending entirely through the inner housing, the resistance to the passage of the widened head through the inner housing in a direction opposite the direction of insertion is increased.
However Rodecker ‘911 in figure 8 shows a structurally similar fixing device to Rodecker ‘761 with elements 94 and 96 acting as ‘reinforcement’. See the discussion in cols 5 and 6.
The reference to Cerri, III also shows a fixing device for an exhaust system and shows in figure 5 that the sleeve 46—or ‘reinforcement’, as broadly claimed, may be located on the outer circumferential surface of the connecting area of the inner housing.
The reference to Arciero et al. also shows a fixing device for an exhaust system and indicates in figures 8 and 11 that the hollow bosses 28 or 94 may be placed either on the outer circumferential surface of the connecting area 36,40 (fig 8), or embedded therein (fig 11).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would realize that element 76 in Rodecker ‘761 could act as a ‘reinforcement’, as claimed, due to the location an inherent structure of this element, as taught by Rodecker ‘911 via elements 94,96.
Further to have located 76 in Rodecker ‘761 on the outer circumferential surface of the inner housing 54 would have been obvious in light of either Cerri, III or Arciero, since these references indicate such a placement would not affect the intended function and/or operation of the device and is simply a matter of obvious engineering choice of location of this element.
Regarding claim 2, as broadly claimed, the reinforcement element 76 in Rodecker ‘761, as modified, would be at least capable of being detached.
Regarding claims 3,4, as readily apparent from the drawings, and as broadly claimed, Rodecker ‘761 as modified meets the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 15, these limitations are capable of being met by Rodecker ‘761, in view of the combined teachings of the references above.
Regarding claim 19 these limitations are met.
Claim(s) 5,6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodecker ‘761/Rodecker ‘911/Cerri, III or Arciero as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chakko 5,286,014.
Regarding claim 5 Rodecker ‘761, as modified above, lacks specifically making the ‘reinforcement’ sleeve 76 from an ‘elastic material’.
The reference to Chakko shows a bushing which can use a thermoplastic sleeve at 8—(see col 2 “The first intermediate sleeve 8, closest to the inner sleeve 6, is composed of any appropriate engineering thermoplastic material, such as…”).
It would have been obvious to have formed the sleeve 76 from a thermoplastic/elastics material in Rodecker ‘761 simply as an obvious choice of known materials or simply dependent upon a specific vehicle or application.
Regarding claim 6, as broadly claimed, these limitations are considered to be capable of being met.
Claim(s) 16,17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodecker ‘761/Rodecker ‘911/Cerri, III or Arciero as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view Wahl U.S. 2020/0256239.
Regarding claim 16 Rodecker ‘761 lacks showing a retaining ring on the securing element 60 in the area claimed.
The reference to Wahl also shows a fixing device for an exhaust system with a similar securing element to that of Rodecker at 40 with a retaining ring at 42.
It would have been obvious to have placed a retaining ring on the securing element 60 of Rodecker, as taught by Wahl at 42, simply to avoid an unwanted movement or rattling between the securing element and fixing device.
Regarding claim 17, as broadly claimed, these limitations are capable of being met.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-14,18 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7123. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 A.M.-7:00P.M..
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, Rob 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
2/8/26