DETAILED ACTION
This is a first Non-Final Office Action on the merits in response to the application filed 10/03/24. Domestic priority to a provisional application filed 03/18/24 is proper. Claims 1-20 are currently pending yet all are rejected as detailed below. 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 § 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.
Hoppert
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoppert (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0216659). Hoppert is directed to a spherical ball joint assembly. See Abstract.
Claim 1: Hoppert discloses an isolated spherical shock/strut mount assembly [Figs. 11, 13] comprising: an isolator (55, 56) [see para. 0052-54 (“vibrational isolation sleeve”)]; a spherical bearing (4, 6) coupled within the isolator; a bearing housing (58) receiving the isolator and spherical bearing within the bearing housing; and a mounting plate (52 or 54), wherein the isolator and the spherical bearing are retained within the bearing housing in response to coupling the mounting plate to the bearing housing. See Figs. 11, 13.
Claim 2: Hoppert discloses that the isolator is a spherical bearing mount coupled within an over-molding portion. See para. 0034, 0042.
Claim 3: Hoppert discloses that the over-molding portion is formed of rubber.
Claim 5: Hoppert discloses that the spherical bearing mount comprises a spherical bearing mount aperture extending through the spherical bearing mount. See Fig. 11 (hole in 55/56).
Claim 8: Hoppert discloses that the spherical bearing mount comprises a protrusion (56) extending radially from an outer surface of the spherical bearing mount to couple the over-molding portion to the spherical bearing mount. See Fig. 11.
Claims 15-17: see claims 1-3 above, respectively.
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.
Hoppert in view of Choi
Claim(s) 4, 9-12 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoppert in view of Choi et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0381545). Choi is directed to a vehicle suspension induction device to be used with a spherical bearing. See para. 0002-04, 0037.
Claim 4: Hoppert is relied upon as in claims 1-3 above but does not discuss the use of “stiffeners” in the isolator. Choi disclose a vehicle suspension in connection with a spherical bearing [see para. 0002-04; Figs. 1-2], comprising one or more stiffeners (81, 82) removably coupled to the over-molding portion (30) of the isolator, wherein the coupling the one or more stiffeners to the over-molding portion of the isolator increases an effective durometer of the over-molding portion. See Figs. 1-2, 7, 10; para. 0075, 0086-91. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use stiffeners because the use of inserts to increase stiffness in isolators is commonly employed to ensure the longevity and integrity of the device.
Claim 9: Choi discloses that the over-molding portion comprises one or more stiffener recesses (between 83 and 84) formed on a top surface and/or a bottom surface of the over-molding portion of the isolator and configured to receive the one or more stiffeners. See Fig. 10.
Claim 10: Choi discloses that the one or more stiffeners are provided with a pair of vertical wall members (at h2) interconnected via a bridge portion (at lowest height). See Fig. 10.
Claim 11: Choi discloses that the one or more stiffeners are press fit into the one or more stiffener recesses. See Fig. 10.
Claim 12: Choi discloses that the one or more stiffeners are invertible in order to be positioned in the top surface and/or the bottom surface of the over-molding portion of the isolator. See Figs. 7, 10.
Claims 18-20: see claims 4, 9 and 10, respectively.
Hoppert in view of Gaumer
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoppert in view of Gaumer (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2009/0252443). Gaumer is directed to a spherical bearing. See Abstract.
Claims 6-7: Hoppert is relied upon as in claim 5 but does not disclose the “lip” and “lock washer channel” at the opposite end. Gaumer discloses a spherical bearing mount [Fig. 1] wherein the mount comprises a lip (right side of 36) on one end of the spherical bearing mount and extending radially into the aperture, and a lock washer channel (portion of 36 containing 46) formed in the spherical bearing mount and located in an inner surface and at another end of the spherical bearing mount opposite the one end of the spherical bearing mount having the lip. See Fig. 1. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide this feature because Hoppert already employs a retaining ring (14) and this is simply a well-known means of ensuring secure connectivity between these annular components.
Hoppert in view of Chambers
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoppert in view of Chambers a (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2017/0282664). Chambers is directed to a vehicle suspension system strut with an isolator spring. See Abstract.
Claim 13: Hoppert is relied upon as in claims 1 and 2 above but does not disclose the connection means of “channels” and “receivers” between the isolator and housing. Chambers discloses the use of channels (76) [see Fig. 2A] and coupler receivers (96) [see Fig. 3A] to connect the isolator to the housing. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use this connection means because this provides a removable way of attaching the components while also ensuring a proper/aligned fit.
Hoppert in view of Chambers and Voisine
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoppert in view of Chambers and Voisine (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2014/0158016). Voisine is directed to a spherical bearing. See Abstract.
Claim 14: Hoppert and Chambers are relied upon as in claim 13 above but does not disclose the use of “bolts” to couple the mounting plate and housing. Voisine discloses a spherical bearing assembly, wherein one or more bolts (88) extending through one or more mounting plate apertures in the mounting plate (87) and received by the one or more coupler receivers in the bearing housing (12). See Fig. 2. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use this connection means because Hoppert relies on a screw/threaded attachment and this is another well-known way of providing a secure and removable connection between components.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL R SAHNI whose telephone number is (571)270-3838. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3pm PST.
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.
VISHAL SAHNI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657
/VISHAL R SAHNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616 July 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights