DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on 12/05/2023 , is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. The following is a Non-Final Office Action on the merits in response to applicant’s filing from 12/05/2023 . Claims 1-10 are pending and have been considered below. Claim Objections Claim 1, lines 7-8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the rod ends” should read, “the rod end” . Appropriate correction is required. Claim 10, line 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the aperture of the shear plate” should read, “an aperture of the shear plate” . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: the “ coupling system ” in claim 1, because A) the word “ system ” is used as a generic placeholder for “means”, since “ system ” is a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning, B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“ couples a rod end of a radius rod between the vehicle member and the double shear bracket to supply shear force resistance on two sides of the rod ends ”), C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function; Therefore, the phrase will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The “ coupling system ” will be interpreted as, “ a pin 32, a spacer 34, a washer 36 and a bolt 38” [0016] . If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim s 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 FILLIN "Insert either \“(a)(1)\” or \“(a)(2)\” or both. If paragraph (a)(2) of 35 U.S.C. 102 is applicable, use form paragraph 7.15.01.aia, 7.15.02.aia or 7.15.03.aia where applicable." \d "[ 2 ]" (a)(1) as being FILLIN "Insert either—clearly anticipated—or—anticipated—with an explanation at the end of the paragraph." \d "[ 3 ]" anticipated by Smith (US 9,988,083) . Regarding claim 1, Smith discloses a double shear radius rod mounting system { Fig. 5: “FIG. 5 illustrates a conventional joint/ball joint on the steering mechanism of a UTV. The tie rod 510 is pivotally connected at the tie rod end 512 to the pin 520 mounted to the double-sheer type carrier” (Col. 5, lines 27-30) } comprising: a double shear bracket { 530: “double-sheer type carrier having an upper extension 532 and lower extension 534 integrally formed as part of the wheel carrier 530” (Col. 5, lines 30-32)}; a coupling system { 520+540+washer+bolt (Fig. 5) }; and a vehicle member {530} adjacent a wheel of a vehicle {“wheel carrier 530”} , wherein: the double shear bracket {530} is coupled {integrally coupled} to the vehicle member {530: “double-sheer type carrier having an upper extension 532 and lower extension 534 integrally formed as part of the wheel carrier 530”}; and the coupling system {520+540+washer+bolt (Fig. 5)} couples a rod end {512} of a radius rod {510} between the vehicle member {530 (532 or 534 portion)} and the double shear bracket {530 (other of 532 or 534 portion)} to supply shear force resistance on two sides {provides “double-sheer” resistance via grommets 540 on two sides (Fig. 5)} of the rod end {512 (Fig. 5)}. Regarding claim 2, Smith discloses the double shear bracket {530} comprises a base plate {532}, a shear plate {534}, and connector plates {portion of 530 connecting 532 and 534 (Fig. 5)} coupled between the base plate {532} and the shear plate {534} to retain the shear plate {534} parallel with the base plate {532 (Fig. 5)}. Regarding claim 3, Smith discloses the coupling system {520+540+washer+bolt (Fig. 5)} comprises a pin {520}, a spacer {540}, a washer {unlabeled washer directly under the head of the bolt in Fig. 5} and a bolt {unlabeled bolt shown in Fig. 5}. Regarding claim 4, Smith discloses the vehicle member {530} comprises a hub, or an upright {“double-sheer type carrier having an upper extension 532 and lower extension 534 integrally formed as part of the wheel carrier 530” (Col. 5, lines 30-32)}. Regarding claim 5, Smith discloses a method of using a double shear radius rod mounting system { Fig. 5: “FIG. 5 illustrates a conventional joint/ball joint on the steering mechanism of a UTV. The tie rod 510 is pivotally connected at the tie rod end 512 to the pin 520 mounted to the double-sheer type carrier” (Col. 5, lines 27-30)}, the method comprising: {integrally} coupling a double shear bracket {530: “double-sheer type carrier having an upper extension 532 and lower extension 534 integrally formed as part of the wheel carrier 530” (Col. 5, lines 30-32)} to a vehicle member {530} adjacent a wheel of a vehicle {“wheel carrier 530”}; coupling a rod end {512} of a radius rod {510} between the vehicle member {530 (532 portion)} and a shear plate {534} of the double shear bracket {530}; and providing resistance to shear forces {provides “double-sheer” resistance via grommets 540 on two sides (Fig. 5)} in response to the coupling to the vehicle member {530 (532)} and the shear plate {534} of the double shear bracket {530}. Regarding claim 6, Smith discloses the vehicle member {530} comprises a hub, or an upright {“double-sheer type carrier having an upper extension 532 and lower extension 534 integrally formed as part of the wheel carrier 530” (Col. 5, lines 30-32)}. Regarding claim 7, Smith discloses the double shear bracket {530} comprises a base plate {532}, a shear plate {534}, and connector plates {portion of 530 connecting 532 and 534 (Fig. 5)} coupled between the base plate {532} and the shear plate {534} to retain the shear plate {534} parallel with the base plate {532 (Fig. 5)}. Regarding claim 8, Smith discloses coupling the rod end {512} of the radius rod {510} between the vehicle member {530 (532 portion)} and the shear plate {534} of the double shear bracket comprises using a coupling system {520+540+washer+bolt (Fig. 5)}. Regarding claim 9, Smith discloses the coupling system {520+540+washer+bolt (Fig. 5)} comprises a pin {520}, a spacer {540}, a washer {unlabeled washer directly under the head of the bolt in Fig. 5} and a bolt {unlabeled bolt shown in Fig. 5}. 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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Trotter (US 7,261,306) . Regarding claim 10 , Smith discloses all the aspects of claim 9. Smith further discloses using the coupling system {520+540+washer+bolt (Fig. 5)} comprises: coupling the pin {520} to the vehicle member {530 (Fig. 5)}; coupling the rod end {512} to the pin {520} in response to the pin {520 (525)} extending into an aperture of the rod end {512 (Fig. 5)}; coupling the spacer { grommet 540} through an aperture of the shear plate {534 (Fig. 5)}; and coupling the washer {unlabeled washer directly under the head of the bolt in Fig. 5} to the shear plate {534} with the bolt {unlabeled bolt shown in Fig. 5} that extends through an aperture of the spacer { grommet 540} and coupling to a recess in the pin {520 (Fig. 5)}. However, Smith does not explicitly disclose coupling the spacer through an aperture of the shear plate with a reduced diameter portion of the spacer extending into the aperture of the rod end (emphasis added) . Trotter teaches {Fig. 3} a reduced diameter portion {120} of a spacer { grommet 100} extends into an aperture {190} of a rod end {180: “a rod 180 (e.g., control arm, stabilizer bar) with an eyelet 190 is positioned between two grommet devices 100 such that the respective dome ends 120 engage the eyelet 190” (Col. 5, lines 3-6)}. In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the grommet spacer s , as disclosed by Smith , to each includ e a reduced diameter portion extending into the aperture of the rod end , as taught by Trotter , in order to provide “improved grommets that decrease the amount of stress load upon the bolts within suspension systems” (Col. 1, lines 59-61) . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Daniel M Keck whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5947 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon - Fri 8:00-4:00 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jason Shanske can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5985 . 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. /Daniel M. Keck/ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614