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 .
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 12-17 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.
Regarding Claim 12, the limitation “for a bushing according to claim 1” is recited. As the bushing according to Claim 1 is recited in functional language it is unclear if Claim 12 is intended to be dependent on Claim 1 and include all of the respective limitations. For purposes of examination, Claim 12 will be interpreted as depending on Claim 1 and including all the respective limitations, because if the functional language does not inherently include all of the limitations of claim 1, then the invention of claim 12 would fail to include all of the limitations of the previous claim. Claims 13-17 are rejected for depending on a rejected base Claim 12.
Regarding Claims 15 and 16, the limitations “a bracket body” and “a bushing” are recited. As the claim tree of Claims 15 and 16 include both Claim 12 and Claim 1 it is unclear if these limitations as recited in Claim 15 and 16 are intended to refer to the same structure already established in Claims 12 and 1 respectively. If they are not intended to refer to the same structure the limitation recitation should be altered to reflect this. For purpose of examination the limitations will be interpreted as referring to the same structures of Claim 12 and Claim 1 respectively such that the limitations will read “the bracket body” and “the bushing”. Claim 17 is rejected for depending on a rejecting base Claim 15.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 8 recites, “the blades are equally distributed around a circumference of the inner sleeve, or wherein the blades have an unequal distribution of blades around the circumference of the inner sleeve”. Claim 1 previously recited, “the connecting structure comprises at least two blades connected to the inner sleeve.. wherein the at least two blades have a helically extending structure relative to an axis of the through hole”. Therefore, the limitations of claim 8 cover all possibilities in the alternative, namely either the blades are equally or unequally distributed about the inner sleeve. As such, claim 8 fails to further limit claim 1, because infringement cannot occur on claim 1 without also necessarily infringing on claim 8.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ikeda (JP H026208 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Ikeda discloses a bushing for an anti-vibration bracket, the bushing (10) comprising: an outer structure (11); and an inner sleeve (12), wherein the outer structure (11) comprises a connecting structure (13), wherein the connecting structure (13) comprises at least two blades connected to the inner sleeve (12), and wherein the outer structure (11) is adapted to connect to an opening of the anti-vibration bracket (see Fig. 1), wherein the inner sleeve (12) comprises a through hole adapted to connect to an at least partially tube-shaped member (7), and wherein the at least two blades have a helically extending structure relative to an axis of the through hole (see Fig. 1, Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 2, Ikeda discloses wherein the outer structure (11) comprises an outer sleeve, wherein the connecting structure (13) is connected to the outer sleeve (see Fig. 4, [0001] Text Block 2).
Regarding Claim 3, Ikeda discloses wherein the connecting structure (13) consists of the blades or at least one blade arrangement comprising blades (see Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 6, Ikeda discloses wherein the at least two blades (13) have a path length of at least 1.1 times a distance between the inner sleeve (12) and an outer sleeve (11) or between the inner sleeve (12) and the opening of the anti-vibration bracket (see Fig. 3, Fig, 4).
Regarding Claim 7, Ikeda discloses wherein the number of blades (13) is between 2 and 12 (see Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 8, Ikeda discloses wherein the blades (13) are equally distributed around a circumference of the inner sleeve (12) (see Fig. 2, Fig. 4), or wherein the blades have an unequal distribution of blades around the circumference of the inner sleeve.
Regarding Claim 9, Ikeda discloses wherein the blades have smooth transition sections to an outer sleeve (11) and/or the inner sleeve (12) (see Fig. 4)
Regarding Claim 10, Ikeda discloses wherein the blades (13) have a curved cross-sectional shape with essentially parallel or substantially parallel side walls along at least 50% of an extension path of the side walls (see Fig. 2, Fig. 4). It should be noted that “cross-sectional shape” is a broad limitation as there could be several different cross-sectional shapes in each 3D object depending on where the cross section is taken in the object.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda (JP H026208 A) as applied to Claim 1, above, in view of Ley et. al. (US 20150119153 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Ikeda discloses the bushing according to claim 1.
Ikeda does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least two blades have a pitch within a range of 30 mm to 300 mm.
However, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” (See MPEP 2144.05.II.A) (citing In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). Additionally, "a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation." (See MPEP 2144.05.II.B). In the instant case Ley recognizes helical pitch of a dampening member as a result-effective variable effecting the damping characteristics of the member (see [0034]).
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 Ley with the bushing of Ikeda to achieve the structure of at least two blades having a pitch within a range of 30mm to 300mm in order to modulate the dampening characteristics of the two blades as desired (see US 20150119153 A1 [Ley]; [0034]).
Claims 5 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda (JP H026208 A) as applied to Claim 1, above, in view of Gassen et. al. (US 5884892 A).
Regarding Claim 5, Ikeda discloses the bushing according to Claim 1.
Ikeda does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least two blades cover a slope angle between 0° and 80°.
Gassen teaches wherein a bushing coupling element cover a slope angle between 0 degrees and 80 degrees (see 5:12-34, Fig. 4).
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 Gassen with the bushing of Ikeda in order to control the spring rigidity of the coupling element to have a desired vibration reduction effect (see US 5884892 A [Gassen]; 4:29-38).
Regarding Claim 18, Ikeda modified by Gassen teaches wherein the at least two blades cover a slope angle between 1° and 80° (see US 5884892 A [Gassen]; 5:12-34, Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 19, Ikeda modified by Gassen teaches wherein the at least two blades cover a slope angle between 10° and 50° (see US 5884892 A [Gassen]; 5:12-34, Fig. 4).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda (JP H026208 A) as applied to Claim 1, above, in view of Kramer et. al. (US 20220397175 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Ikeda discloses the bushing according to Claim 1.
Ikeda does not explicitly disclose where wherein the bushing is comprised of a thermoplastic elastomer or a spring element of the bushing is comprised of a thermoplastic elastomer.
Kramer teaches wherein the bushing is comprised of a thermoplastic elastomer or a spring element of the bushing is comprised of a thermoplastic elastomer (see [0026]).
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 Kramer with the bushing of Ikeda in order to modulate elastic behavior of the bushing and improve ease of manufacturability (see US 20220397175 A1 [Kramer]; [0026-0028]).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda (JP H026208 A) as applied to Claim 1, above, in view of Blanchet (FR 2855478 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Ikeda discloses the bushing according to Claim 1 with a bracket body (6) (see Fig. 1).
Ikeda does not explicitly disclose the bracket body (12) comprising an opening (28) for a bushing according to Claim 1.
Blanchet teaches an anti-vibration bracket (10), with a bracket body (12), the bracket body (12) comprising an opening (28) for a bushing (50), wherein the bushing (50) is connected to the opening (28) via the outer structure (see Fig. 1, Fig. 2).
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 Blanchet with the bushing of Ikeda in order to facilitate the filtering of vibrations coming from a vehicle the bracket is mounted on and improve the ease of manufacturability (see FR 2855478 A1 [Blanchet]; Para. 4, Para. 8-9).
Regarding Claim 13, Ikeda modified by Blanchet teaches wherein the bushing (50) is made via overmolding the bracket body (12) (see FR 2855478 A1 [Blanchet]; Fig. 1, Para. 14).
Regarding Claim 14, Ikeda modified by Blanchet teaches wherein the bracket body (12) comprises attachments for attaching the bracket (10) to an object (see FR 2855478 A1 [Blanchet]; Fig. 1, Para. 20-21).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda (JP H026208 A) as modified by Blanchet (FR 2855478 A1) in Claim 12 above, further in view of Pierrat (FR 3086331 A1) and Kramer et. al. (US 20220397175 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Ikeda modified by Blanchet teach a method of manufacturing an anti-vibration bracket according to Claim 12 the method comprising: overmolding the bracket body with an elastomer to form a bushing, or a spring element of said bushing (see FR 2855478 A1 [Blanchet]; Para. 14, Fig. 1).
Ikeda modified by Blanchet does not explicitly teach wherein, the method comprises placing a bracket body in an injection mold, the elastomer is a thermoplastic elastomer, and de-molding the bracket after the thermoplastic elastomer has sufficiently cured.
Pierrat teaches a method of manufacturing an anti-vibration bracket, the method comprising: placing a bracket body in an injection mold, overmolding the bracket body to form part of a bushing (see [0003] Text Block 7-8), and de-molding the bracket after the thermoplastic elastomer has sufficiently cured. It should be noted that while the method does not explicitly disclose de-molding steps, merely “de-molding the bracket after the thermoplastic elastomer has sufficiently cured” is inherently taught by the method of Pierrat explicitly placing the bracket body in an injection mold, because the body would have to be de-molded before use and one of ordinary skill in the art would not perform this before the thermoplastic elastomer has “sufficiently” cured. Sufficiently is also a broad term leaving ample room for interpretation to one of ordinary skill in the art.
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 Pierrat with the method of Ikeda modified by Blanchet in order to achieve a strong cohesive connection between the overmolded body and the bracket body (see FR 3086331 A1 [Pierrat]; [0003], Text Block 8).
Ikeda modified by Blachet and Pierrat does not explicitly teach wherein the elastomer material is a thermoplastic elastomer.
Kramer teaches a method of manufacturing a bushing using thermoplastic elastomer (see [0026]).
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 Kramer with the method of Ikeda modified by Blanchet and Pierrat in order to modulate elastic behavior of the bushing and improve ease of manufacturability (see US 20220397175 A1 [Kramer]; [0026-0028]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda (JP H026208 A) as modified by Blanchet (FR 2855478 A1) in Claim 12 above, further in view of Thibault (US 20070210534 A1) and Kramer et. al. (US 20220397175 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Ikeda modified by Blanchet teaches a method of manufacturing an anti-vibration bracket according to claim 12, the method comprising overmolding the bracket body with an elastomer to form a bushing or a spring element of said bushing (FR 2855478 A1 [Blanchet]; Para. 14, Fig. 1).
Ikeda modified by Blanchet does not explicitly teach the method comprising: providing a two-component injection mold, injecting a first plastic material to form a bracket body, letting the first plastic material sufficiently cure, and de-molding the bracket after the thermoplastic elastomer forming the bushing or the spring element of said bushing has sufficiently cured.
Thibault teaches a method of manufacturing an anti-vibration bracket comprising 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 an elastomer 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 (see [0057-0063]). It should be noted that while Thibault does not explicitly disclose de-molding steps or waiting until a plastic material “sufficiently” cures, merely “de-molding the bracket after the thermoplastic elastomer” has “sufficiently cured” is inherently taught by the method of Thibault explicitly placing the bracket body in a two-component injection mold, because the body would have to be de-molded before use and one of ordinary skill in the art would not perform this before the thermoplastic elastomer has “sufficiently” cure. Additionally, “letting the first plastic material sufficiently cure” is also inherent to the method of Thibault because one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes the outer elements would not be created (see [0062]) if the first plastic material does not “sufficiently cure”. Sufficiently is also a broad term leaving ample room for interpretation to one of ordinary skill in the art.
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 Thibault with the method of Ikeda modified by Blanchet in order to reduce cost of manufacturing (see US 20070210534 A1 [Thibault]; [0023]).
Ikeda modified by Blanchet and Thibault does not explicitly teach wherein the elastomer a thermoplastic elastomer.
Kramer teaches a method of manufacturing a bushing using thermoplastic elastomer (see [0026]).
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 Kramer with the method of Ikeda modified by Blanchet and Thibault in order to modulate elastic behavior of the bushing and improve ease of manufacturability (see US 20220397175 A1 [Kramer]; [0026-0028]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 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.
Regarding Claim 17, DE 212020000254 U1 discloses a method of manufacturing featuring injecting molding, and de-molding using springs, and guide grooves. It does not explicitly teach wherein an inner mold forming the blades of the bushing is deformed using a spring and a helical guide groove guiding the inner mold.
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