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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 23 July 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Specifically the translation of the NPL item labeled C2 is not legible (i.e. it appears it was provided as a greyscale image and not a black and white image with sufficient quality for reproduction), and the purported translation of the NPL item labeled C3 does not appear to correspond to the foreign language document (i.e. instead it appears to be some sort of generic explanation of what certain reference types (X, Y, A, etc.) mean to the foreign office and is not a translation of the present NPL document or a brief explanation of relevance thereof. Please submit a legible version of NPL document C2 and please provide a translation or brief explanation of relevance of NPL document C3, else they may not be considered and could affect the validity of any patent issued from this application.
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 groove-delimitation sides, the radial inner side, and the axial end sides having an abutment that can abut against the holding part and the structural part (claim 11), and the projections having an exactly triangular or trapezoidal cross section (claim 19) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Examiner notes that overcoming the related 112(a) rejections of these claim should obviate these drawing objections.
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 Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: there should be a comma before the “and” in line 7, “on the one hand” in line 8 should be removed, “that is” in line 9 should read “and”, and “on the other hand” in line 10 should be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: the first “and” in line 3 should be removed and replaced with a comma, and there should be a comma before the second “and” on line 3. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the opening” in line 4 should read “the central opening”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 12-21 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Claim” in line 1 od claims 12-19 and 21 and in line 3 of claim 20 should read “claim”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation that “the groove-delimitation sides, the radial inner side and the axial end sides define abutments against a holding part…and against a structural part” in lines 7-8. Though this limitation has literal antecedent basis in the claims it is not considered sufficiently described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically this limitation requires that the listed portions have an abutments that are for abutting against the holding part and the structural part, which is not described or shown in the specification and figures, as instead only the groove-delimitation sides, the radial inner side, and one axial end side are disclosed as having abutments and none of such abutments are capable of abutting against both the holding part and the structural part. Appropriate correction is required. Examiner recommends claiming “the groove-delimitation sides, the radial inner side and one of the axial end sides define abutments for abutting against a holding part…or against a structural part…”.
Additionally note the below 112(b) rejection as well. Furthermore as Examiner notes that as this part of the limitation is definite Examiner may not interpreted it in a manner other than claimed and it must be interpreted as literally written.
Claim 19 recites the limitation that “the projections have…a triangular or trapezoidal cross section”. Though this limitation has literal antecedent basis in the claims it is not considered sufficiently described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically this limitation requires that the projections be triangular or trapezoidal, which is not described or shown in the specification and figures, as instead only being substantially triangular or trapezoidal is shown/described. Appropriate correction is required. Examiner recommends claiming “the projections have…a substantially triangular or substantially trapezoidal cross section”.
Claims 12-18 and 20-21 fail to meet the written description requirement at least b virtue of depending, directly or indirectly on a claim that fails to meet such, as identified above.
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 11-21 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 11 recites the limitation “define abutments against a holding part, on the one hand, and against a structural part…on the other hand” in lines 8-10. These limitations are indefinite as the preamble only recites a vibration decoupling-sleeve and it is unclear whether Applicant is claiming (and thus requiring for infringement) that the vibration-decoupling sleeve be present/installed with the holding part and the structural part (e.g. a vibration-decoupling assembly), or if Applicant is merely reciting the intended use/capabilities of the sleeve. Appropriate clarification and correction is required. For examination purposes Examiner assumes Applicant intended to claim “define abutments for abutting against a holding part or against a structural part”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “wherein at least one of the abutments is formed as an annular projection which runs around annularly in a closed manner”. This limitation is indefinite as it is unclear if it can be one of the prior claimed “one or more projections” that formed one of the prior claimed abutments or is in addition to such. Appropriate clarification and correction is required. For examination purposes Examiner assumes Applicant intended to claim “wherein at least one of the abutments is formed by one of the one or more projections, the one of the projections being annular and running circumferentially in a closed manner”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “wherein at least one of the abutments is formed by multiple circumferentially spaced-apart projections, wherein the projections are situated along an imaginary circular ring”. This limitation is indefinite as it is unclear if the projections can be some of the prior claimed “one or more projections” that formed one of the prior claimed abutments or is in addition to the prior claimed projections. Additionally it is unclear if the “projections” in line 3 are inclusive or exclusive of the prior claimed projections of claim 11 and/or 13. Appropriate clarification and correction is required. For examination purposes Examiner assumes Applicant intended to claim “wherein at least one of the abutments is formed by multiple of the one or more projections in a circumferentially spaced-apart manner situated along an imaginary circular ring”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “wherein the radially inner side has multiple narrowing projections”. This limitation is indefinite as it is unclear if it can be one of the prior claimed “one or more projections” or are in addition to such. Appropriate clarification and correction is required. For examination purposes Examiner assumes Applicant intended to claim “wherein the radially inner side has multiple of the one or more projections configured as narrowing projections”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “wherein provision is made of one more more narrowing projections an on axial end side”. This limitation is indefinite as it is unclear if it can be one of the prior claimed “one or more projections” or are in addition to such. Additionally it is unclear what the metes and bounds of “provision is made of” are (i.e. does this require the following structure or just that it has been designed to allow for such structure to be added, etc.), and unclear whether the “axial end” is one of the prior claimed axial ends or an additional such end. Appropriate clarification and correction is required. For examination purposes Examiner assumes Applicant intended to claim “wherein one of the axial end sides has at least one of the one or more projections configured as a narrowing projection”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “elastomer material”. This limitation is indefinite as claim 11 recites the core section comprises an elastomer material and claim 16 later recited that the base part comprises the core section, thus it is unclear whether this elastomer material is the same of claim 11 or if Applicant is attempting to claim plural different elastomer materials (which would appear to necessitate a 112(a) rejection). Appropriate clarification and correction is required. For examination purposes Examiner assumes Applicant intended to claim “the elastomer material”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the narrowing projections”. This limitation is indefinite as it is unclear as claim 11, on which this claim refers, does not recite such, and it is unclear whether Applicant intended this limitation to be newly claimed here or if Applicant intended this claim to depend on claim 15. Additionally if this claim was intended to depend on claim 15 it would be unclear as to whether it refers to the one or more narrowing projection or now required plural narrowing projections. Appropriate clarification and correction is required. For examination purposes Examiner assumes Applicant intended this claim to depend on claim 15 and to claim “the one or more narrowing projections”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the protective disk consists of a material harder than…”. This limitation is indefinite as it is unclear how a physical structure can consist of just a material (e.g. as it also has other features such as geometry, various portions and surfaces, etc.). Appropriate clarification and correction is required. For examination purposes Examiner assumes Applicant intended to claim “a material of the protective disk is harder than…”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “provision is made at least on one axial groove-delimitation sides of one or more narrowing projections which extend…”. This limitation is indefinite as it is unclear what the metes and bounds of “provision is made…of” are (i.e. does this require the following structure or just that it has been designed to allow for such structure to be added, etc.). Additionally it is unclear whether these projections are inclusive or exclusive of the projections claimed in claim 11. Appropriate clarification and correction is required. For examination purposes Examiner assumes Applicant intended to claim “at least one of the projections on one of the axial groove-delimitation sides is a narrowing projection which extends…”.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “wherein one axial groove-delimitation side has multiple narrowing projections” and “the other groove-delimitation side has a circumferentially encircling annular projection”. This limitation is indefinite as it is unclear if they can be one of the prior claimed “one or more projections” or are in addition to such. Appropriate clarification and correction is required. For examination purposes Examiner assumes Applicant intended to claim “wherein one axial groove-delimitation side has multiple of the one or more projections configured as narrowing projections” and “the other groove-delimitation side has one of the one ore more projections configured as a circumferentially encircling annular projection”.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “a respective supporting surface on the structural part and on the holding part” in line 8. This limitation is indefinite as claim 11, on which this claim incorporates appears to recite the structural part and the holding part as part of the capabilities/intended use of the sleeve and it is unclear whether Applicant is claiming (and thus requiring for infringement) that the fastening device structural and holding parts be present/installed with the sleeve, bolt, and latching ring (e.g. a vibration-decoupling assembly), or if Applicant is merely referencing the intended use/capabilities of the sleeve and thus claim/require a fastening device with only a sleeve, bolt, and latching ring. Additionally it is unclear how two parts can have a singular supporting surface. Appropriate clarification and correction is required. For examination purposes Examiner assumes Applicant intended to claim/require the structural and holding parts and thus to claim “the structural part with a supporting surface thereon, and the holding part with a supporting surface thereon”.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the projection(s) is/are”. This limitation is indefinite as it is unclear if it refers to all of the “one or more projections” of claim 11 (on which this claim incorporates), at least one such projection, or more than one but less than the entirety. Appropriate clarification and correction is required. For examination purposes Examiner assumes Applicant intended to claim “the one or more projections are”.
Claim 19 is indefinite at least by virtue of depending on an indefinite claim identified above.
Examiner’s Comments
Examiner notes that the claims currently must be interpreted to require that the groove-delimitation sides, the radial inner side, and the axial end sides each must have an abutments that are for abutting against the holding part and the structural part, which fails to meet the written description requirement (see above). As such is possible from a technical standpoint this limitation cannot be considered indefinite (and thus Examiner may not interpret the claims in a manner consistent with the rest of Applicant’s disclosure) and as the prior art of record does not teach/make obvious such (as such would appear to be a very complicated device without any sort of clear benefit (e.g. in that it would not work as it is believed Applicant desires as it would have to have a very convoluted shape)) no prior art rejections have been presented. However Examiner notes that many of the cited references, upon Applicant amending to overcome the above 112 rejections, would anticipate and/or make obvious one or more of the claims. Specifically see Stewart et al. (US 3,350,042) which would at least reject claim 11, 12, etc., Dull et al. (US 2020/0355238) which would reject claims 11, 13, etc., etc.
In the interest of advancing prosecution Examiner recommends claiming all of the projections in the independent claim (e.g. the bottom axial end having a plurality of circumferentially spaced apart projections, the groove base having a closed circular/annular projection, the radial inner side having two axially spaced apart closed circular/annular projections), one oppositely situated axial groove-delimitation side having a closed circular/annular projection, and the other oppositely situated axial groove-delimitation side having a plurality of circumferentially spaced apart projections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and provides many examples of similar vibration-decoupling sleeves with various similar projection portions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS L FOSTER whose telephone number is (571)270-5354. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at (571) 272-7376. 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.
/NICHOLAS L FOSTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights