DETAILED ACTION
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 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, 2, 4, 9, 10, 13, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 3904226 to Smalley in view of US Patent 6427965 to McCracken.
Re: claims 1, 2, 13, 18, and 19. Smalley shows in figure 2 an isolation mount for reducing transmission of vibrations between a first surface and a second surface, comprising: a housing including: a rigid body 6 defining a hole for receiving a fastener 12 to couple the rigid body to the second surface 13; wherein the rigid body includes a side wall and an inner flange 10 extending inwardly from an interior side of the side wall, the inner flange 10 dividing an interior of the rigid body into a top cavity surrounding element 22 having an open top end and a bottom cavity surrounding element 21; a flange 4 connected to the rigid body, the flange 4 for coupling the isolation mount to the first surface or surface of the bumper attached via elements 5; and one or more elastomeric isolators 21, 22 (see claim 2 of Smalley) having through holes for receiving the fastener 12 as shown, wherein at least one of the one 22 or more rubber isolators is disposed in the top cavity and extends beyond the open top end of the top cavity when pulled enough in direction A as shown in figure 5, and at least one 21 of the one or more rubber isolators is disposed in the bottom cavity, but is silent with regard to the elastomeric isolators specifically being crumb rubber.
McCracken teaches in claim 11 the use of an isolating system comprising shock absorbing pads made of crumb rubber.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the isolators of Smalley to have been crumb rubber, in view of the teachings of McCracken, in order to provide a material that exhibits excellent vibration damping as the crumb structure adds internal friction between particles which helps to convert vibration energy into heat more efficiently.
[AltContent: textbox (First end)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval]
PNG
media_image1.png
296
422
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re: claim 4. Smalley, as modified, teaches in figure 2 of Smalley the limitation wherein the crumb rubber isolators, as modified, are constructed of rebound crumb rubber or crumb rubber with the ability to recover to its original state after being deformed since elastomers exhibit this elastic property.
Re: claim 9. Smalley, as modified, teaches in figure 2 of Smalley a top washer 19a disposed on a top surface of a top isolator 22 of the one or more crumb rubber isolators, as modified.
Re: claim 10. Smalley, as modified, teaches in figure 2 of Smalley a bottom washer 18 disposed on a bottom surface of a bottom isolator 21 of the one or more crumb rubber isolators, as modified.
Re: claim 17. Smalley, as modified, teaches in figures 2 and 3 of Smalley wherein the one or more crumb rubber isolators, as modified, are cylindrically shaped since they are described in col. 2 lines 29-30 as bushings which are cylindrical by definition according to Merriam Webster Online.
Claim(s) 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 3904226 to Smalley in view of US Patent 6427965 to McCracken, as applied above and further in view of JP-2013525134 (JP’134).
Smalley, as modified, is silent with regard to the crumb rubber being at least 94% recycled.
JP’134 teaches in the paragraph beginning “However, for the first time, the method” a rubber good made of 100% recycled crumb rubber.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the crumb rubber of Smalley, as modified, to have been at least 94% recycled crumb rubber, in view of the teachings of JP’134, in order to provide a means of being more sustainable and environmentally-friendly.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 3904226 to Smalley in view of US Patent 6427965 to McCracken, as applied above and further in view of US Patent 2458351 to Cukierski.
Smalley, as modified, is silent with regard to the crumb rubber being soft.
Cukierski teaches in claim 3 the use of crumb rubber being soft.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the crumb rubber of Smalley, as modified, to have been soft, in view of the teachings of Cukierski, in order to provide a means of better absorbing shock.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 3904226 to Smalley in view of US Patent 6427965 to McCracken, as applied above and further in view of US Patent 5361878 to Borsati.
Smalley, as modified, teaches in figure 2 of Smalley the flange 4 being shaped with a plurality of holes 5 configured to allow the flange to be secured to the first surface, but is silent with regard to the flange being triangular.
Borsati teaches in figure 3 the use of a flanged base 14 being shaped as a triangle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the shape of the flange of Smalley, as modified, to have been triangular, in view of the teachings of Borsati, in order to provide a base using less material than a rectangular flange to result in a cost savings.
Since there is no criticality associated with the shape of the flange, also see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 3904226 to Smalley in view of US Patent 6427965 to McCracken, as applied above and further in view of DE-4414218 (DE’218).
Smalley, as modified, is silent with regard to the bottom washer having at least one protrusion to grip the bottom isolator.
DE’218 teaches in figure 1 the use of a bottom washer 4 having at least one protrusion 10 to grip a bottom isolator 5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the bottom washer of Smalley, as modified, to have included at least one protrusion, in view of the teachings of DE’218, in order to provide a means of better connecting the isolator to the bottom washer.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 3904226 to Smalley in view of US Patent 6427965 to McCracken and DE’218, as applied above and further in view of US Patent Application 2228284 to Olson.
Smalley, as modified, teaches in figure 2 of Smalley wherein the fastener 12 is a bolt, wherein the bolt includes a threaded shank 16 between a first end, as labeled, and a second end opposite the first end, wherein the first end has a head 17 that interacts with the bottom washer 18, but is silent with regards the interaction being an interlocking of the head with the bottom washer to prevent relative rotation between the head and the bottom washer.
Olson teaches in figures 1 and 2 the use of a head 20, 30 of a fastener interlocking with a washer 22 to prevent relative rotation between the head and the washer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the interaction of the fastener head of Smalley, as modified, to have been interlocking with the bottom washer, in view of the teachings of Olson, in order to prevent the relative rotation between the two components and maintain clamp load.
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 3904226 to Smalley in view of US Patent 6427965 to McCracken, as applied above and further in view of US Patent Application 2002/0171220 to Pazdirek.
Re: claims 15 and 16. Smalley, as modified, is silent with regard to the recited threaded shaft.
Pazdirek teaches in figure 3 wherein a threaded shaft 51 running along a center, and wherein the one or more isolators 21, 22 supports the threaded shaft as shown, and wherein the threaded shaft 51 is configured to receive a fastener 31.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the isolation mount of Smalley, as modified, to have included a threaded shaft supported by the isolators wherein the threaded shaft receives the fastener, in view of the teachings of Pazdirek, in order to provide a means of coupling the components of the mount together while providing added protection to the fastener to improve the overall life of the mount. Examiner notes that the combination results in the threaded shaft running along a center of the housing since the components of the mount of Smalley, as modified, are centered within the housing 6. With regard to claim 16, the combination also results in an inner circumferential edge of the inner flange being connected to an exterior wall of the threaded shaft since the inner circumferential edge of the inner flange 10, 11 of Smalley is connected to the exterior wall of the central component of the mount of Smalley, as modified.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner notes that Smalley, as modified, shows or suggests the at least one or rubber isolator extending beyond the open top end of the top cavity particularly under sufficient travel in the A direction as shown in figure 5. Accordingly, the above rejections using Smalley, as modified, have been maintained. The drawing objection and 112 rejections have been withdrawn in light of the most recent submission.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MELODY M BURCH whose telephone number is (571)272-7114. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:30AM-3PM, generally.
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.
mmb
September 23, 2026
/MELODY M BURCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
