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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/10/25 has been entered.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3,5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger et al(US5009386) in view of Varga(US20160333906).
[claim 1] Berger teaches a hanger(fig 1) for reducing transmission of vibrations between a surface and an apparatus, comprising: a housing(30) including: a first surface(36) defining a first hole for receiving a first fastener(16); a second surface(upper surface with bore 42) defining a second hole(42) for receiving a second fastener(14); one or more side walls(32) connecting the first and second surface; and one or more rubber isolators(38,40) having through holes(48,58) for receiving one or both of the first fastener and the second fastener, the one or more rubber isolators serving as a primary structure for reducing transmission of vibrations between the surface and the apparatus(at least isolator 38 serves as the primary structure for reducing vibrations between the hanger with attached apparatus and the support surface).
Berger however does not teach that the rubber isolators are crumb rubber isolators. The use of recycled crumb rubber to make isolators is well known in the art, with Varga teaching an example of isolators(26) formed from recycled crumb rubber, and further teaches the isolators are resilient and retain their shape(para[0030]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to use recycled crumb rubber to form the isolators, as this would be using known materials for their known functions, and would provide an isolator that is resilient and retains its shape, as taught by Varga.
[claim 2] further comprising the first fastener(16) for coupling the hanger to a surface.
[claim 3] further comprising the second fastener(14) for coupling the hanger to a vibration source.
[claim 5] when arranged as above, the crumb rubber isolators are constructed of recycled crumb rubber.
[claim 6] Berger in view of Varga teach a hanger as detailed above, where the crumb rubber isolators are constructed with recycled rubber content. However neither Berger nor Varga provide a percentage of recycled content used in the isolators. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation, to make the crumb rubber isolators with any percentage, including 94% of recycled rubber content, as a matter of simple design choice.
[claim 7] wherein the crumb rubber isolators are generally disposed within the housing(fig 1).
[claim 8] wherein the crumb rubber isolators are adjacent to one or both of the first surface of the housing and the second surface of the housing(fig 1).
[claim 9] wherein the crumb rubber isolators are adjacent to an interior side of the side walls of the housing(fig 1).
[claim 10] further comprising a first rubber grommet(46) positioned in the first hole and a second rubber grommet(56) positioned in the second hole.
[claim 11] wherein the first and second surfaces and two side walls includes a first(left side of housing 30 fig 2) and second(right side of housing 30 in fig 2) housing bracket and wherein each of the first and second housing brackets includes a first face(34), a second face(upper face with bore 42) and a side face(32) connecting the first face and second face.
[claim 12] It should be noted the claim contains a product by process limitation, in which only the final product, and not the method of making the product is given patentable weight. Wherein the first faces of the first and second housing bracket are welded together(welded to plate 36) and the second faces of the first and second housing brackets are welded together(integrally joined) to couple the first and second housing brackets.
[claim 13] Berger in view of Varga teaches a hanger as detailed above with crumb rubber isolators. However neither Berger nor Varga detail the density range of the isolators, or that they are between 700 and 1000 kg/m3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date, without undue experimentation, to use crumb rubber isolators of any desired density, such as between 700 and 1000 kg/m3 to provide the desired vibration control, as a matter of simple design choice.
[claim 14] wherein the first hole of the first surface, the second hole of the second surface, and the through holes of the crumb isolators are centered and aligned(fig 1).
[claim 15] wherein the first and second fasteners include washer(52,72), nuts(28,74) and threaded rods(14,16).
[claim 16] Berger in view of Varga teaches a hanger as detailed above. However neither Berger nor Varga teach that the housing has gussets, with the crumb rubber isolators fitting therebetween. It is well known in the art to use gussets as a means of strengthening components, as such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to provide gussets to the housing side walls, as a means of providing additional strength to the device.
[claim 17] wherein when arranged as above, the one or more crumb rubber isolators interlock with the housing and gussets.
[claim 18] wherein the first surface has a larger surface area than the second surface of the housing, and wherein the one or more side walls near the second surface are tapered(fig 1).
[claim 19] Berger in view of Varga teach a hanger as detailed above, where the housing is generally rectangularly shaped. However Berger in view of Varga does not teach that the crumb rubber isolators are rectangularly shaped. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to make the crumb rubber isolators rectangularly shaped, or any other reasonable shape as a matter of simple design choice, as this would primarily affect the appearance and not the functionality of the device.
[claim 20] Berger teaches a hanger assembly for reducing transmission of vibrations, comprising: a surface(building structure attached to 14); a vibration source(12); a hanger(fig 1), comprising: a first fastener(14) for coupling the hanger to the surface; a second fastener(16) for coupling the hanger to the vibration source; a housing(30) including: a first surface(upper surface with bore 42) defining a first hole(42) for receiving the first fastener; a second surface(36) defining a second hole for receiving the second fastener; two or more side walls(32) connecting the first and second surface; and one or more rubber isolators(38,40) having through holes(48,58) for receiving one or both of the first fastener and the second fastener(fig 1), the one or more rubber isolators serving as a primary structure for reducing transmission of vibrations between the surface and the apparatus(at least isolator 38 serves as the primary structure for reducing vibrations between the hanger with attached apparatus and the support surface).
Berger however does not teach that the rubber isolators are crumb rubber isolators. The use of recycled crumb rubber to make isolators is well known in the art, with Varga teaching an example of isolators(26) formed from recycled crumb rubber, and further teaches the isolators are resilient and retain their shape(para[0030]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to use recycled crumb rubber to form the isolators, as this would be using known materials for their known functions, and would provide an isolator that is resilient and retains its shape, as taught by Varga.
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berger in view of Varga as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Martin(US3477216).
[claim 21] Berger in view of Varga teaches a hanger as detailed above, however Berger in view of Varga may not teach that the hanger does not include a spring. Martin teaches a similar hanger(90) which only utilizes rubber isolators and does not use a spring. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to use the hanger of Berger in view of Varga without a spring as taught by Martin, as this would simplify the construction of the hanger by reducing the number of required parts.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regards to claims 1 and 20, applicant argues that Berger in view of Varga does not teach the claimed hanger as amended. Applicant argues that the isolators of Berger do not serve as a primary structure for reducing vibrations between the surface and the apparatus as recited in amended claims 1 and 20. The examiner disagrees. As detailed above at least isolator 38 of Berger serves as the primary structure for reducing vibrations between the surface and the hanger with the attached apparatus. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Berger teaches the use of a vibration control hanger with isolator elements formed of “neoprene or other rubberlike material which is effective to dampen noise and mechanical vibrations within the system and at the same time allow for some vertical deflection under varying load(see Berger C2 L42-46)”, thus clearly teaching the use of “other rubberlike material” in the vibration control hanger. Varga teaches a known rubber material as crumb rubber and further teaches that crumb rubber is resilient and retains its shape(see Varga para[0030]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation, to use known rubber materials, such as the crumb rubber taught by Varga, with the vibration isolation hanger of Berger, as this would merely be using known elements for their known functions. Applicant’s arguments regarding the use of vulcanized rubber is not relevant to the present rejection, as the use of vulcanized rubber is not mentioned in the above rejection or applied references.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY H DUCKWORTH whose telephone number is (571)272-2304. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 5712724979. 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.
/BRADLEY DUCKWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632