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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 inner mold, spring and a helical guide groove of clam 17 must be shown 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 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “wherein inner sleeve and/or outer sleeve are made from a second plastic material”. It is not clear from the claim language if “inner sleeve and/or outer sleeve” correspond to the prior recited sleeves, or are additional sleeves.
Claims 15-16 each recite “A method of manufacturing an anti-vibration bracket according to claim 12”, however elements of the bracket according to claim 12 such as the bracket body are recited in the manner of new elements such as “a bracket body”. It is therefore unclear if the method of claims 15-16 require all the components and features of the bracket recited in claim 12, or just the elements defined in claims 15 and 16.
Claim 17 recites “an inner mold forming at least two blades of the bushing is deformed using a spring and a helical guide groove guiding the inner mold.” It is not clear what is meant by this recitation. It is not clear if the “a helical guide groove guiding the inner mold” is part of the deforming of the inner mold, or a separate operation. It is not clear if the helical guide groove is a feature of one of the claimed components, or a separate structure having a groove. It is also not clear if “deformed” refers to a deformation (changing of shape) of the mold, or to remove from a form or demold.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-6, 8-14, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kramer et al (US# 2022/0397175).
Kramer er al disclose all the limitations of the instant claim including; a bushing for an anti-vibration bracket, the bushing comprising: an outer structure 2; and an inner sleeve 3, wherein the outer structure comprises a connecting structure 4 connected to the inner sleeve 2 and the outer structure 2 is designed adapted to connect to an opening of said anti-vibration bracket 10, wherein the inner sleeve 12 comprises a through hole 33 adapted to connect to an a least partially tube-shaped member, and wherein the connecting structure comprises a thermoplastic elastomer (TPE) [0026].
Regarding claim 2, the outer structure comprises an outer sleeve 2, and wherein the connecting structure 4 is connected to the outer sleeve 2.
Regarding claim 3, inner sleeve 3 and/or outer sleeve 2 are made from a second plastic material [0023][0024].
Regarding claim 4, the bushing is entirely comprised of TPE (note the outer layer elastomer adjacent 2 and the inner layer surrounding 3 are readable on the recited inner and outer sleeves) or a spring element 4 of the bushing is comprised of TPE.
Regarding claim 5, the connecting structure comprises at least two blades connecting the outer structure and the inner sleeve. Note four blades are shown.
Regarding claim 6, the at least two blades have a helically extending structure relative to an axis of the through hole [0029], wherein the at least two blades are equally distributed around a circumference of the inner sleeve ([0065] “asymmetrically and/or helically” suggests symmetrically helically).
Regarding claims 8, 18 and 19, wherein the at least two blades cover a slope angle between 0/1° and 50/80°. Note the blades have a slope angle of 45 degrees relative to the horizontal.
Regarding claim 9, the number of blades is between 2 and 12. Note four blades are shown.
Regarding claim 10, the at least two blades are equally distributed around a circumference of the inner sleeve (figure 1), or the blades have an unequal distribution of blades around the circumference of the inner sleeve [0065].
Regarding claim 11, the at least two blades have smooth transition sections to the outer sleeve and/or the inner sleeve.
PNG
media_image1.png
602
782
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Kramer et al disclose an anti-vibration bracket, with a bracket body 2, the bracket body comprising an opening for a bushing according to claim 1, wherein the bushing is connected to the opening via the outer structure 4.
Regarding claim 13, the bushing is made via overmolding the bracket body. [0066]
Regarding claim 14, the bracket body comprises attachments 11 for attaching the bracket to an object. Figure 8.
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.
Claims 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kramer et al (US# 2022/0397175) in view of Thibaulet (US# 2007/0210534)
Regarding claim 15, Kramer et al disclose a method of manufacturing an anti-vibration bracket according to claim 12, but lack the disclosure of the steps of placing a bracket body in an injection mold, overmolding the bracket body with a thermoplastic elastomer (TPE) to form a bushing or a spring element of said bushing, and de-molding the bracket after the thermoplastic elastomer material has sufficiently cured. Kramer et al does disclose injection moulding TPE to a bracket body 2 [0066], but does not disclose specifically disclose placing the bracket body in an injection mold. Thibaulet teach injection molding of a similar device, including placing a bracket component 2 in an injection mold, then overmolding the elastomer to form the device [0067]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the bracket body of Kramer et al in an injection mold and overmolding with the elastomer, as taught by Thibaulet, as an obvious means of performing the injection moulding suggested by Kramer et al, and would yield the expected results of an appropriately formed device.
Regarding claim 16, Kramer et al disclose a method of manufacturing an anti-vibration bracket according to claim 12, but lack the disclosure of the steps of providing a two-component injection mold, injecting a first plastic material to form a bracket body, letting the first plastic material sufficiently cure, overmolding the bracket body with a thermoplastic elastomer (TPE) to form a bushing or a spring element of said bushing, and de-molding the bracket after the thermoplastic elastomer forming the bushing or the spring element of said bushing has sufficiently cured. Kramer et al does disclose injection moulding TPE to a bracket body 2 [0066], but lack any molding details. Thibaulet teach injection molding of a similar device, providing a two-component injection mold, injecting a first plastic material to form a bracket body [0062], letting the first plastic material sufficiently cure, overmolding the bracket body with a thermoplastic elastomer (TPE) to form a bushing or a spring element of said bushing [0063], and de-molding the bracket [0071] after the thermoplastic elastomer forming the bushing or the spring element of said bushing has sufficiently cured. [0060] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the bi-injection method taught by Thibaulet, to form the device of Kramer et al in an efficient manner that does not require separate forming or molding of the bracket.
Claim(s) 1-12 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H026208 in view of Kramer et al (US# 2022/0397175).
JP ‘208 discloses a bushing for an anti-vibration bracket, the bushing comprising: an outer structure 11; and an inner sleeve 12, wherein the outer structure comprises a connecting structure 13 connected to the inner sleeve 12 and the outer structure is designed adapted to connect to an opening of said anti-vibration bracket, wherein the inner sleeve 12 comprises a through hole adapted to connect to an a least partially tube-shaped member 7. JP ‘208 lack the disclosure of the connecting structure comprises a thermoplastic elastomer (TPE) . Kramer et al disclose a similar device and further teaches the use of TPE for a connecting structure 4 [0026]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use TPE for the elastomer of JP ‘208, as taught by Kramer et al, as a suitable and easily formed elastomer material.
Regarding claim 2, the outer structure comprises an outer sleeve 11, and wherein the connecting structure 13 is connected to the outer sleeve.
Regarding claim 4, as modified, a spring element 13 of the bushing is comprised of TPE.
Regarding claim 5, the connecting structure comprises at least two blades connecting the outer structure and the inner sleeve. Note four blades are shown.
Regarding claim 6, the at least two blades have a helically extending structure relative to an axis of the through hole, wherein the at least two blades are equally distributed around a circumference of the inner sleeve. Figures 2 and 4.
Regarding claim 7, the at least two blades have a curved cross-section (note cross-sections taken adjacent 12 or 13 would exhibit curves) with parallel or substantially parallel side walls along at least 50% of an extension path of the side walls.
Regarding claims 8, 18 and 19, wherein the at least two blades cover a slope angle between 0/1° and 50/80. Note the blades have a slope angle of approximately 45 degrees relative to the axis of 12. Figure 3. The blades also have a path length of at least 1.1 times a distance between the inner sleeve and the outer sleeve or between the inner sleeve and the opening of the anti-vibration bracket. Figures 3-4.
Regarding claim 9, the number of blades is between 2 and 12. Note four blades are shown.
Regarding claim 10, the at least two blades are equally distributed around a circumference of the inner sleeve (figure 2).
Regarding claim 11, the at least two blades have smooth transition sections to the outer sleeve and/or the inner sleeve. Note the interface between blades 13 and sleeves 12 and 13 appear to be smooth.
Regarding claim 12, JP ‘208 disclose an anti-vibration bracket, with a bracket body 11, the bracket body comprising an opening for a bushing according to claim 1, wherein the bushing is connected to the opening via the outer structure 13.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-19 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 18/832010 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference application claims are different obvious combinations of the application claims.
Reference claim 11 anticipates application claims 1 and 4-5.
Application claim 2 corresponds to the combination of reference claims 2+11.
Application claim 3 corresponds to claim 11 with the obvious specification of plastic for one of the sleeves.
Application claim 6 corresponds to the combination of reference claims 8+11.
Application claim 7 corresponds to the combination of reference claims 10+11.
Application claim 8 corresponds to the combination of reference claims 4+11, 5+11 or 6+11.
Application claim 9 corresponds to the combination of reference claims 7+11.
Application claim 10 corresponds to the combination of reference claims 8+11.
Application claim 11 corresponds to the combination of reference claims 9+11.
Application claim 12 corresponds to the combination of reference claims 12+11.
Application claim 13 corresponds to the combination of reference claims 13+11.
Application claim 14 corresponds to the combination of reference claims 14+11.
Application claim 15 corresponds to the combination of reference claims 15+11.
Application claim 16 corresponds to the combination of reference claims 16+11.
Application claim 17 corresponds to the combination of reference claims 17+11.
Application claim 18 corresponds to the combination of reference claims 4+11, 18+11 or 6+11.
Application claim 19 corresponds to the combination of reference claims 4+11, 19+11 or 6+11.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY T KING whose telephone number is (571)272-7117. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-5:00 PM.
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.
/BRADLEY T KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
BTK
Prosecution Insights