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
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arakawa (JP 2002276714 A) in view of Kato et. al. (US 20040108639 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Arakawa discloses a motor vehicle mount, comprising: a mount receptacle (31); and a central longitudinal axis, wherein the mount receptacle (31) has a receiving eye (32) having an inner surface with at least one first conical inner surface portion (33), and a plastics collar outer sleeve (13) (see [0012]) held in the mount receptacle (31); wherein the plastics collar outer sleeve (13) has a radially oriented collar (15); wherein the collar (15) bears, in an installed state on the mount receptacle (31), around the receiving eye (32), a core (11), which extends substantially axially, and an elastomer body (21), which is arranged between the plastics collar outer sleeve (13) and the core (11); wherein the plastics collar outer sleeve (13) has an outer contour (16a) that is substantially complementary to the at least one first conical inner surface portion of the receiving eye (33); wherein the first conical inner surface portion tapers (33), from a side facing away from the collar (13), toward the collar (13); and wherein the first conical inner surface portion (33) that corresponds to the outer contour of the plastics collar outer sleeve (16a) forms a conical undercut (X) (see Fig. 2, Fig. 4, Fig. 5, Annotated Fig. 5 below)
Arakawa does not explicitly disclose wherein the plastics collar outer sleeve is secured against sliding out with respect to the central longitudinal axis in a first direction by the collar, and in a second direction opposite the first direction by the conical undercut.
Kato teaches a motor vehicle mount comprising collar outer sleeve (18) secured against sliding out with respect to the central longitudinal axis in a first direction by the collar (24), and in a second direction opposite the first direction by the conical undercut (48) (see Fig. 9C).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention, to combine the teaching of Kato with the motor vehicle mount of Arakawa in order to improve the retaining of the collar within the mount eye (see US 20040108639 A1 [Kato]; [0015]).
PNG
media_image1.png
393
324
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 5
Regarding Claim 2, Arakawa modified by Kato teaches wherein the inner surface of the receiving eye (13) has at least one second conical inner surface portion (32) (see US 20040108639 A1 [Kato]; Fig. 7A), wherein the first conical inner surface portion (33) (see JP 2002276714 A [Arakawa]; Fig. 4) and second conical inner surface portion (32) taper or widen toward an inside of the receiving eye (13), and wherein the outer contour of the plastics collar outer sleeve (see US 20040108639 A1 [Kato]; Fig. 9C, Fig. 11 and see JP 2002276714 A [Arakawa]; Fig. 4) is substantially complementary to the inner surface of the receiving eye (13) (see US 20040108639 A1 [Kato]; Fig. 7A).
Regarding Claim 3, Arakawa modified by Kato teaches wherein the mount receptacle (31) comprises metal (see JP 2002276714 A [Arakawa]; [0010]).
Regarding Claim 4, Arakawa modified by Kato teaches wherein the mount receptacle (12) comprises cast metal (see US 20040108639 A1 [Kato]; [0072]).
Regarding Claim 5, Arakawa modified by Kato teaches wherein the mount receptacle comprises die cast aluminum (see US 20040108639 A1 [Kato]; [0072]).
Regarding Claim 6, Arakawa modified by Kato teaches wherein the inner surface of the receiving eye is unmachined (see US 20040108639 A1 [Kato]; [0072]). It should be noted that this claim is a structural claim and only requires an instance where the limitation is true. Thus, while paragraph 72 of Kato teaches cutting (a machining process) after die casting, there is an intermediate structure between the casting and cutting processes that teaches the limitations of Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 8, Arakawa modified by Kato teaches wherein the plastics collar outer sleeve (13) has an increasing radial extent in the first direction at least partially in a region facing away from the collar (15) and corresponding to the first conical inner surface portion (16a) (see Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 9, Arakawa modified by Kato teaches wherein an uninstalled plastics collar outer sleeve (13) has a larger contour diameter than a diameter of the inner surface of the receiving eye (32) at the same axial height, such that, in the installed state of the plastics collar outer sleeve (13), the plastics collar outer sleeve (13) is compressed (see JP 2002276714 A [Arakawa]; [0004], [0012]).
Regarding Claim 14, Arakawa modified by Kato teaches wherein the outer contour, which corresponds to the first conical inner surface portion (33), of the sleeve body (13) encloses an obtuse angle with the collar (15) in a longitudinal section (see JP 2002276714 A [Arakawa]; Fig. 4, [0011]).
Regarding Claim 15, Arakawa modified by Kato teaches a motor vehicle having at least one motor vehicle mount as claimed in claim 1 (see JP 2002276714 A [Arakawa]; [0001] and (see US 20040108639 A1 [Kato]; [0063]).
Regarding Claim 16, Arakawa modified by Kato teaches a mounting arrangement for a motor vehicle mount as claimed in claim 1 (see JP 2002276714 A [Arakawa]; [0001]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arakawa (JP 2002276714 A) as modified by Kato et. al. (US 20040108639 A1), in Claim 1 above, further in view of Oji (US 20050254888 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Arakawa modified by Kato teaches the motor vehicle mount as recited in Claim 1.
Arakawa modified by Kato does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one first conical inner surface portion of the receiving eye is a demolding contour.
Oji teaches a motor vehicle mount wherein the at least one first conical inner surface portion (42) of the receiving eye (16) is a demolding contour (see Fig. 3B).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Oji with the motor vehicle mount of Arakawa modified by Kato in order to easily remove the receiving eye from the mold (see US 20050254888 A1 [Oji]; [0026], [0045]).
Claim 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arakawa (JP 2002276714 A) as modified by Kato et. al. (US 20040108639 A1), in Claim 1 above, further in view of Nakamaru (US 20190234476 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Arakawa modified by Kato teaches the motor vehicle mount as recited in Claim 1.
Arakawa modified by Kato does not explicitly teach wherein the plastics collar outer sleeve has a rib structure on an outer lateral surface.
Nakamaru teaches a motor vehicle mount wherein the outer sleeve (12) has a rib structure on an outer lateral surface (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Nakamaru with the motor vehicle mount of Arakawa modified by Kato in order to enhance the durability of the elastic body (see US 20190234476 A1 [Nakamaru]; [0012]).
Regarding Claim 11, Arakawa modified by Kato and Nakamaru teaches wherein the plastics collar outer sleeve (12) has at least one annular clearance on its outer lateral surface (see US 20190234476 A1 [Nakamaru]; Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 12, Arakawa modified by Kato and Nakamaru teaches wherein the annular clearance corresponds to the smallest inner diameter of the receiving eye with respect to its axial position (see US 20190234476 A1 [Nakamaru]; Fig. 1, Fig. 2a, [0039-0041]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arakawa (JP 2002276714 A) as modified by Kato et. al. (US 20040108639 A1), in Claim 1 above, further in view of Arthur (US 5846014 A).
Regarding Claim 13, Arakawa modified by Kato teaches the motor vehicle mount as recited in Claim 1.
Arakawa modified by Kato does not explicitly teach wherein the plastics collar outer sleeve has at least one axial compression slot.
Arthur teaches a motor vehicle mount wherein the outer sleeve (1) has at least one axial compression slot (5a) (see Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Arthur with the motor vehicle mount of Arakawa modified by Kato in order to increase and control the stiffness of the elastomer body (see US 5846014 A [Arthur]; 5: 6-24]).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tomida et. al. (US 20100065998 A1) discloses a motor vehicle mount similar to the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shea Irvin whose telephone number is (571)272-9952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 - 17:00.
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, 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.
/S.W.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/DAVID R MORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights