DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement has been received and considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in figure 2 the descriptions such as “CNC Machined fit..” and “Delrin bushing insert” , etc. should be removed and described in the specification.
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 § 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) 1,3,4,6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hutton 2,728,593 in view of Choate 4,477,197 and Maughan 5,961,219.
Regarding claim 1 Hutton shows in figure 4 a bushing comprising inner and outer sleeves at B but lacks showing providing them with flanges and lips as claimed. Note the inserts at C.
The reference to Choate shows a similar type of bushing in figure 3 with inner and outer sleeves 24,26 provided with flanges 28, as shown.
The reference to Maughan also shows a bushing similar in both structure and function to the aforementioned references above in figures 1,2 and 3 but in figure 3 shows it is known to provide the sleeves 22 with ‘lips’ (not labeled but the same as applicant’s).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have made the inner and outer sleeves at B in figure 4 of Hutton in the shape of the sleeves 24,26 with flanges 28, as taught by Choate simply to adapt the bushing to a slightly different vehicle or application that demands a more secure connection.
Further, to have provided the sleeves with lips, as taught in figure 3 of Maughan would have been obvious for the same reason.
Regarding claim 3 since stainless steel is a commercially available and widely used material in the art of bushings for its strength, durability and resistance to corrosion it would have been obvious to have constructed the sleeves in Hutton from this material.
Regarding claims 4,6 as readily apparent from the drawings these limitations are capable of being met.
Regarding claim 13 note Hutton indicates it is known that the
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hutton/Choate/Maughan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Elterman 10,155,424..
Regarding claim 2 Hutton, as modified, lacks the specific structural arrangement of the inserts as claimed with respect to the lip and flange arrangement.
The reference to Elterman shows in figure 2 a similarly structure bushing to the aforementioned reference but shows the inserts 34 in a nearly identical arrangement to that claimed. Note the sleeve(s) at 44.
One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have further modified Hutton with an insert and sleeve arrangement as taught by Elterman in figure 2 (i.e. providing the inserts with flanges at lead line 32) that lie within the flanges 28 of the sleeves 24,26 in Hutton as modified by Choate, simply to adapt the bushing to a slightly different vehicle or application that demands a more secure or rigid connection.
Regarding claims 7-10,12- see the discussion above.
Claim(s) 5,11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hutton/Choate/Maughan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kingsley 6,082,721
Regarding claims 5,11 Hutton, as modified above, is silent as to the Shore D hardness of the inserts.
The reference to Kingsley shows a bushing with an annular elastomeric interface at 24 that can use a Shore D hardness in the range of 85-95.
It would have been obvious to have used a material for the inserts in Hutton, as modified, having a Shore D hardness in the claimed range for the reasons above (i.e. application specific).
Claim(s) 13-15,17,18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elterrman 10,155,424 in view of Maughan 5,961,219.
Regarding claim 13 Elterman shows in figure 2:
A bushing system capable of use with a vehicle track bar, comprising: a casing subassembly, the casing subassembly further comprising: an integral sleeve 36, an inner casing member 40 ‘above said integral sleeve 36’ (inner casing member40 extends ‘above’ the sleeve), and an outer casing member 24,40—as per applicant’s-- above said integral sleeve opposite said inner casing member;
and, a bushing subassembly, the bushing subassembly further comprising: a pair of inserts 30,34, each said insert packed within said casing subassembly over said integral sleeve; each said insert respectively captured by each said inner casing member and said outer casing member (even if indirectly) thereby indirectly abutting said integral sleeve.
However lacking in Elterman is a specific showing of each said inner casing member 40 and said outer casing member 24,40 forming a flange ‘over’ the integral sleeve.
The reference to Maughan also shows a bushing similar in both structure and function to Elterman in figures 1,2 and 3 but in figure 3 shows it is known to provide the sleeves 22 with ‘lips’ or flanges (not labeled but the same as applicant’s).
It would have been obvious to have provided the inner and outer casing members 40 with lips or flanges, as taught in figure 3 of Maughan, so that the bend over the L-shaped portions of the inserts simply for a more secure connection of these elements. Since no specific dimension of the inner and outer casing members 40 is given the diameters of these members could be shortened to provide the more secure connection above without affecting the intended function of the bushing.
Regarding claim 14 since stainless steel is a commercially available and widely used material in the art of bushings for its strength, durability and resistance to corrosion it would have been obvious to have constructed the sleeves in Hutton from this material.
Regarding claims 15,17,18 as readily apparent from the drawings these limitations are capable of being met.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elterman /Maughan as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Kingsley 6,082,721
Regarding claims 5,11 Elterman, as modified above, is silent as to the Shore D hardness of the inserts.
The reference to Kingsley shows a bushing with an annular elastomeric interface at 24 that can use a Shore D hardness in the range of 85-95.
It would have been obvious to have used a material for the inserts in Elterman, as modified, having a Shore D hardness in the claimed range for the reasons above (i.e. application specific).
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