DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because different reference characters have been used to designate the same parts. Note 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) states “The same part of an invention appearing in more than one view of the drawing must always be designated by the same reference character, and the same reference character must never be used to designate different parts.” Applicant appears to use different numbers for each figure, even though the same parts are being illustrated. If a figure shows a modification of a part, a different reference number is required, however, if the part is the same as in other figures, the same reference number should be used for the part. 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. 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 3-19 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 “the concaved middle portion”, “the first bushing component” and “the second bushing component”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is also unclear if the “bushing component” is intended to correspond to the bushing pillars or the bushings of parent claim 1.
Claim 3 recites “an exterior bracket component secured to the first bushing component via a first bushing bolt and secured to the second bushing component via a second bushing bolt; and an interior bracket component secured to the first bushing component via the first bushing bolt and secured to the second bushing component via the second bushing bolt.” Parent claim 1 recites “a bracket assembly comprising a first bracket secured to an exterior surface of the first and second
bushings and a second bracket secured to an exterior surface of the first and second bushings ”. It is not clear from the claim language if the interior bracket component and the exterior bracket component correspond to the first and second brackets of parent claim 1, or are additional elements.
Claim 4 recites “the exterior bracket component”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this
limitation in the claim. It is also not clear from the claim language if the exterior bracket component corresponds to one of the first and second brackets of parent claim 1, or is an additional element.
Claim 4 recites “a leaf spring interface plate disposed below and parallel to the base assembly component.” It is not clear if this is the same leaf spring interface plate as recited in parent claim 1, or an additional plate.
Claim 5 recites “the interior bracket component”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is also not clear from the claim language if the interior bracket component corresponds to one of the first and second brackets of parent claim 1, or is an additional element.
Claim 6 recites “the hangar component”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites “the first rubber bushing”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites “the second rubber bushing”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites “the interior hangar component is secured to a second exterior surface of the
first bushing component and a second exterior surface of the second bushing component ”. It is not clear from the claim language if the first and second exterior surfaces of claim 10 correspond to the two “exterior surface of the first and second bushings” of parent claim 1, or are different surfaces.
Claim 10 recites “the first bushing component” and “the second bushing component”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is also unclear if the “bushing component” is intended to correspond to the bushing pillars or the bushings of parent claim 1.
Claim 11 recites “the concaved middle portion between the first bushing component and the
second bushing component”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is also unclear if the “bushing component” is intended to correspond to the bushing pillars or the prior recited first and second bushings.
Claim 11 recites “an exterior bracket component secured to the first bushing component via a first bushing bolt and secured to the second bushing component via a second bushing bolt; and an interior bracket component secured to the first bushing component via the first bushing bolt and secured to the second bushing component via the second bushing bolt.” The claim previously recites “a
bracket assembly comprising a first bracket secured to an exterior surface of the first and second bushings and a second bracket secured to an exterior surface of the first and second bushings ”. It is not clear from the claim language if the interior bracket component and the exterior bracket component correspond to the prior recited first and second brackets, or are additional elements.
Claim 13 recites “a leaf spring interface plate disposed below and parallel to the base assembly component.” It is not clear if this is the same leaf spring interface plate as recited in parent claim 11, or an additional plate.
Claim 17 recites “the first rubber bushing”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites “the second rubber bushing”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this
limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2 are allowed.
Claims 3-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Machens et al (US# 2002/0015616) is the closest prior art of record and discloses an articulating leaf spring suspension apparatus, comprising: a bushing assembly comprising: a base component 14; a first bushing pillar 45 having a first bushing 41/42/43/44, the first bushing pillar secured to a first end of a base component 14; and a second bushing pillar 45 having a second bushing 41/42/43/44, the second bushing pillar secured to a second end of the base component 14 and distally opposed from the first end
of the base component; a cap 30 secured to a top portion of the first and second bushing pillars 45 and extending along a length of the bushing assembly, the cap comprising an arch middle portion 31 between a gap defined between the first and second bushing pillars, the arch middle portion, the first and second bushing pillars, and the base component forming an opening to receive an end of an axle housing 1. Machens et al lack a bracket assembly comprising a first bracket secured to an exterior surface of the first and second bushings and a second bracket secured to an exterior surface of the first and second bushings; and a leaf spring interface plate disposed below and parallel to the base component and secured to the first and second brackets against a bottom surface of the base component.
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