Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 18/922,689

STABILIZER BUSHING

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Oct 22, 2024
Priority
Nov 16, 2023 — JP 2023-195478
Examiner
SAHNI, VISHAL R
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Toyota Motor Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
7m
Est. Remaining
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allowance Rate
756 granted / 1003 resolved
+15.4% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+18.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
1028
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
41.6%
+1.6% vs TC avg
§102
31.0%
-9.0% vs TC avg
§112
25.3%
-14.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1003 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION This is a first Non-Final Office Action on the merits in response to the application filed 10/22/24. The request for foreign priority to a corresponding JP application filed 12/16/23 has been received and is proper. Claims 1-4 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 § 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. Kato in view of Krause Claim(s) 1-2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,292,312) in view of Krause (U.S. Patent No. 6,241,225). Kato is directed to a stabilizer bushing for a vehicle. See Abstract. Krause is directed to a rubber bearing for the bearing support of a stabilizer in a motor vehicle. See Abstract. Claim 1: Kato discloses a stabilizer bushing [Fig. 1] comprising: a bushing body (16) formed of a tubular rubber elastic body with an inner hole (18) and including a low-friction sliding liner (42) disposed on an inner circumferential surface of the inner hole, the bushing body being configured to receive a stabilizer bar (12) inserted through the inner hole without being bonded thereto while an outer peripheral surface of the bushing body being configured to receive a bracket (44) such that the bushing body is attached to a vehicle body (14) via the bracket; two intermediate members (26) having rigidity and fastened to the bushing body on opposite sides of the inner hole to be arranged facing each other, the two intermediate members including respective first facing plate parts (28b) and respective second facing plate parts (28a) protruding radially outward from opposite ends in a circumferential direction of the bushing body; and a slit dividing (24) the bushing body in the circumferential direction, the slit being formed between the first facing plate parts facing each other. Kato disclose all the limitations of this claim except for the “cut” opposite the slit. Krause similarly discloses a stabilizer bushing for a vehicle including a rubber bushing body (2) with the two intermediate members (4) and a slit between the first ends of the intermediate members, wherein a cut (at 3) extending radially outward from the inner hole to a radially middle part of the bushing body is formed between the second ends of the intermediate members facing each other. See Figs. 1, 3. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to include the Krause “cut” in the Kato stabilizer bushing because this facilitates the ease of opening the bushing body for insertion of the stabilizer bar, and also ensures longevity of the bushing body such that it is not subject to unnecessary stresses or compromised at the hinge point due to repeated opening/use. This feature is well-known and commonly employed in the art. See, e.g., KR 2017-0044813; US 9,074,715; KR 2013-0046044; KR 2012-0110512; KR 100872292; KR 2005-0006805; EP 1391333; JPH 07-91473 Claim 2: Krause discloses that an end of the cut opposite the inner hole is located at the same position or outside in a radial direction with respect to distal ends of the second facing plate parts. See Fig. 1. Claim 4: Kato discloses that a distance between the second facing plate parts is larger than a radius of the inner hole. See Fig. 1. Kato in view of Krause and Jang Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato in view of Krause and Jang (KR 2012-0110512). Jang is directed to a stabilizer bar bush. See Abstract. Claim 3: Kato and Krause are relied upon as in claim 1 above but it is not entirely clear whether the Krause bushing body, when in the mounted position, is capable of having the inner surfaces of the cut be in contact with each other. Jang discloses another stabilizer bushing with a bushing body (110) with an inner hole (112) and both a slit (114) and a cut (116), wherein at least in a state where the bushing body is mounted onto a vehicle, inner surfaces of the cut are configured to be in contact with each other. See Fig. 5. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention for the cut inner surfaces to be in contact with each other for a host of reasons. First, this is the simplest configuration, so purely out of ease in manufacturing and ease in design, this would be an obvious choice. Second, having the inner surfaces contact each other may ensure the longevity of the bushing body since the cut is less likely to be compromised over time since the opposing surfaces can support each other during compression. Third, it would be obvious to try, since limited possibilities exist here – either the surfaces contact each other or they don’t. 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 September 9, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 22, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 14, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12746905
BRAKE SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING A BRAKE SYSTEM
4y 2m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12735868
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
3y 3m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12736105
DAMPER
3y 0m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12736102
VALVE SEAT FOR DAMPER WITH EXTERNALLY MOUNTED VALVE
2y 9m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12716461
DAMPER FOR A WIND TURBINE
4y 3m to grant Granted Aug 25, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+18.9%)
2y 6m (~7m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1003 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month