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 statements (IDS) submitted on 11/22/2024 and 10/09/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
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 1-4 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 1 recites "for the four rubber legs, a difference in cross-sectional areas each in a leg transverse cross section orthogonal to a length direction, which is a connection direction of the inner shaft member and the outer tube member, is 20% or less." This limitation is indefinite because the claim does not define where the cross-sectional areas are measured, which areas are compared, or how the “20% or less” difference is calculated. ¶¶ 0043 and 0056 identify different possible measurement methods but provide no formula. Claims 2-4 depend from claim 1 and do not cure this indefiniteness.
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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schemer et al. (EP 3992491 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Schemer discloses, or renders obvious as set forth below, a tubular vibration-damping device for a motor mount (bearing bush 2 for supporting a motor vehicle assembly) comprising:
an inner shaft member (inner core 4);
an outer tube member (outer tube 6); and
a plurality of rubber legs (four elastomer webs 12) extending between a surface of the inner shaft member (circumferential side 14 of inner core 4) and a surface of the outer tube member (inner side 16 of outer tube 6) which face each other in a radial direction and connecting them (webs 12 spanning intermediate region 10) (see ¶ 0032 and Fig. 1), wherein
the plurality of rubber legs include four rubber legs (four webs 12 spaced 90° apart) which mutually separate wider apart in a circumferential direction as they go to a periphery in an up-down direction and in a left-right direction (four circular sector webs 12 whose outer flanks 26 diverge radially outward) (see ¶ 0032),
the four rubber legs have mutually different shapes (webs 12 having respective different arrangements O1-O4) and resonant states of the four rubber legs against a vibration input in the up-down direction are mutually different (different resonance behavior produced by the different elastomer geometries and masses) (see ¶¶ 0025, 0042, and Figs. 2-3).
Schemer's circular four-web arrangement corresponds to upper left, upper right, lower left, and lower right legs when installed 45° from the orientation depicted in Figure 1. Schemer expressly states that its positional information is transferred analogously when the position changes (see ¶ 0031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select that angular installation orientation in order to align Schemer's differently tuned webs with the vehicle’s up-down vibration direction while retaining the disclosed four-web vibration isolating function (see ¶¶ 0025 and 0031).
Schemer does not expressly disclose for the four rubber legs, a difference in cross-sectional areas each in a leg transverse cross section orthogonal to a length direction, which is a connection direction of the inner shaft member and the outer tube member, is 20% or less.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Schemer's four elastomer webs 12 to have equal leg transverse cross-sectional areas while retaining the different arrangements O1-O4 in order to preserve substantially unchanged static stiffness while independently varying the self-resonance of webs (see ¶¶ 0016-17).
Regarding claim 3, Schemer as modified discloses the tubular vibration-damping device for the motor mount according to claim 1, wherein
two upper rubber legs of the four rubber legs (the two upper-positioned webs 12) have a first common cross-sectional area part with a same cross-sectional area in the leg transverse cross section orthogonal to the length direction, which is the connection direction of the inner shaft member and the outer tube member (equal-area transverse portions of the upper webs 12), and
two lower rubber legs of the four rubber legs (the two lower-positioned webs 12) have a second common cross-sectional area part with a same cross-sectional area in the leg transverse cross section (equal-area transverse portions of the lower webs 12) (see ¶ 0032 and Fig. 1 for the four-web positions).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schemer et al. (EP 3992491 A1) in view of Bucksbee et al. (EP 1132244 A2).
Regarding claim 2, Schemer as modified discloses the tubular vibration-damping device for the motor mount according to claim 1.
Schemer does not expressly disclose two upper rubber legs of the four rubber legs have a same length dimension in the connection direction of the inner shaft member and the outer tube member, two lower rubber legs of the four rubber legs have a same length dimension in the connection direction of the inner shaft member and the outer tube member, and the length dimension of the two upper rubber legs in the connection direction of the inner shaft member and the outer tube member is different from that of the two lower rubber legs.
Bucksbee teaches two upper rubber legs of the four rubber legs (two upper elastomeric components 732U) have a same length dimension in the connection direction of the inner shaft member and the outer tube member (common length L1),
two lower rubber legs of the four rubber legs (two lower elastomeric components 732L) have a same length dimension in the connection direction of the inner shaft member and the outer tube member (common length L2), and
the length dimension of the two upper rubber legs in the connection direction of the inner shaft member and the outer tube member is different from that of the two lower rubber legs (L1 different from L2) (see ¶ 0022 and Fig. 7A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the four-web bearing bush of Schemer to include Bucksbee's common upper-pair length L1 and different common lower-pair length L2 in order to provide the lower elastomer sections with a greater spring rate than the upper elastomer sections (see Bucksbee ¶ 0023).
The different O1-O4 longitudinal projection arrangements would be retained. Accordingly, the common upper-pair and lower-pair lengths would not eliminate the four different overall web shapes or their different resonant states.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schemer et al. (EP 3992491 A1) in view of Asano et al. (US 2003/0107163 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Schemer as modified discloses the tubular vibration-damping device for the motor mount according to claim 1.
Schemer does not expressly disclose wherein an upper left rubber leg and a lower right rubber leg of the four rubber legs have a same shape in the leg transverse cross section, an upper right rubber leg and a lower left rubber leg of the four rubber legs have a same shape in the leg transverse cross section, and the shape in the leg transverse cross section of the upper left rubber leg and the lower right rubber leg is different from that of the upper right rubber leg and the lower left rubber leg.
Asano teaches two diametrically opposed segment pairs having pairwise common transverse profiles, with the transverse profile of one pair differing from that of the other pair. Applied to Schemer’s 45°-oriented web positions, Asano's pairwise arrangement teaches that an upper left rubber leg and a lower right rubber leg of the four rubber legs (first diametrically opposed pair corresponding to segments 30a and 30c) have a same shape in the leg transverse cross section (common first transverse profile),
an upper right rubber leg and a lower left rubber leg of the four rubber legs (second diametrically opposed pair corresponding to segments 30b and 30d) have a same shape in the leg transverse cross section (common second transverse profile), and
the shape in the leg transverse cross section of the upper left rubber leg and the lower right rubber leg is different from that of the upper right rubber leg and the lower left rubber leg (different transverse profiles defined by the smaller first width and larger second width) (see ¶¶ 0046-47 and Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schemer's four webs to include Asano’s pairwise transverse profile arrangement, with a common profile within each diametrically opposed pair and different profiles between the two pairs, and to orient the pairs along Schemer’s diagonal web directions in order to establish different spring characteristics in two orthogonal vibration-input directions (see Asano ¶¶ 0047 and 0049).
Asano does not specify the magnitude of the difference between the first and second widths. Accordingly, the pair profiles would be selected so that their cross-sectional areas remain within the 20% relationship established for claim 1, while Schemer’s different O1-O4 longitudinal projection arrangements would be retained to preserve the four different overall web shapes and their different resonant states.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Karem Akram Algarash whose telephone number is (571)272-5789. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am-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, 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.
/K.A.A./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/DAVID R MORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights