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 .
This correspondence is in response to applicant’s reply filed on 06/24/2026. Claims 1-11 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collazo (U.S. Pat. 7537226) in view of Wieczorek et al. (U.S. Pub. 20200047578).
Regarding claim 1, Collazo discloses a bracket 10 for a leaf spring 18 on a vehicle frame 16 comprising: a leaf spring linkage 12,14 via which an eye 44 of the leaf spring 18 is held; a spring eye bearing 58 which is inserted into the eye 44 of the leaf spring 18; a connecting portion 38 which connects the leaf spring linkage 12,14 to the vehicle frame 16; and at least one connection bushing 24 via which the connecting portion 38 can be mounted on the vehicle frame 16, where the spring eye bearing 58 forms a first vibration damping system.
Regarding claim 1, Collazo is discussed above, and teaches the bracket 10. However, Collazo fails to teach where the connection bushing 24 comprises a damping sleeve 42 which is interposed between the connecting portion 38 and the vehicle frame 16, and forms a second vibration damping system, and where the first vibration system and the second vibration damping system are configured to jointly reduce transmission of vibrations from the leaf spring 18 to the vehicle frame 16 across a frequency range. Wieczorek teaches a bracket 10 for a leaf spring 14, comprising a damping sleeve 46,47,48 that is able to be interposed between the vehicle frame 16 and the connecting portion 38 of Collazo, where the first vibration system 58 and the second vibration damping system 46,47,48 are configured to jointly reduce transmission of vibrations from the leaf spring 18 to the vehicle frame 16 across a frequency range.
Regarding claims 1, 3-4 and 11, Collazo is discussed above, and teaches the bracket 10. However, Collazo fails to teach where the bracket 10 further comprises a support sleeve, to which the connecting portion 38 is attached and which rests on the connection bushing 24, an abutting sleeve which the connecting portion 38 laterally rests on and which laterally rests on the connection bushing 24, or where the spring eye bearing 58 comprises an intermediate sleeve and at least one of the intermediate sleeve or the damping sleeve is made of a vibration-damping material. Wieczorek teaches a bracket 10 for a leaf spring 14, comprising a support sleeve 54, an abutting sleeve 48, and an intermediate bearing 61,63.
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 connection bushing of Collazo to have a support sleeve, damping sleeve, an abutting sleeve, and an intermediate bearing, in order to provide a bushing with selected axial and conical stiffness so as to open the door to new materials that may be used in forming vehicle suspension components, as taught to be desirable by Wieczorek (see discussion in para. [0003], lines 9-12).
Regarding claim 2, Collazo discloses the bracket 10, where the damping sleeve 42 is embodied to be vertically and/or laterally resilient (as seen in Fig. 4).
Regarding claims 5-6, Wieczorek is discussed above, and teaches the bracket comprising the support sleeve 54 and abutting sleeve 48. However, Wieczorek fails to explicitly disclose the dimensions of the sleeves 54,48.
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 sizes of the sleeves of Wieczorek because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense (see MPEP 2141, III.(E)).
With regards to claim 7, Collazo and Wieczorek teach the bracket 10, further comprising a gap laterally between the support sleeve and the vehicle frame 16 and/or between the support sleeve and an outer flange (see Fig. 4 of Collazo).
With regards to claim 8, Collazo and Wieczorek teach the bracket 10, further comprising a gap vertically between the abutting sleeve and the vehicle frame 16 and/or between the abutting sleeve and an outer flange (see Fig. 4 of Collazo).
Regarding claim 9, Collazo discloses the bracket 10, where the leaf spring linkage 12,14 is arranged at least substantially vertically below the at least one connection bushing 24 in such a way that the center of the leaf spring linkage 12,14 lies approximately vertically below the connecting portion 38 (as seen in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10, Collazo discloses the bracket 10, where at least one of the leaf spring linkage 12,14 or the spring eye bearing 58 is embodied to be substantially symmetrical with respect to the vertical direction (Y), such that the leaf spring eye 44 is at least approximately equally extended in a lateral direction (X) with respect to the vertical (Y) (as seen in Fig. 4).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL D MCDUFFIE whose telephone number is (571)272-3832. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8AM-4:30PM.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
/Michael McDuffie/Examiner, Art Unit 3632 10-Sep-26
/TERRELL L MCKINNON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights