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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 26, 2026 have been fully considered.
The drawing objection is withdrawn as claim 13 is now cancelled.
The 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection of claim 14 is withdrawn based on the amendments.
The examiner updates the 35 U.S.C 103 rejections to address the amended limitations in claim 1.
All changes to the rejections are necessitated by amendment and are therefore final.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as unpatentable over Yilmaz et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20170343153) hereinafter Yilmaz.
Regarding claim 1, Yilmaz discloses:
A contact body for at least one liquid pump in motor vehicles {[0016], [0031]; Figure 2 (10) is a pump},
the contact body comprising:
a damping element {Figure 6 (20) and (70)} which has:
an inner surface, within which a liquid pump can be held {Figure 3, an inner surface which defines (22) holds pump (10)},
an outer surface {Figure 3, the radially outer surface of (20) and (70)}, and
a target body {Figures 7/9 (50); [0034]},
wherein the damping element has on its outer surface at least one projection with at least one receiving contour for the target body {Figure 9 (70) is a projection with receiving contour (78) for the target body (50)}, and
wherein the at least one projection rests flat on a region of the target body {Figures 7/9, (78) rests flat on both the mating surface inserted into (78) as well as the upper of (50) in the figures. It is noted that “rests flat” under a broadest reasonable interpretation is not necessarily something being supported by a horizontal surface with respect to the gravitational direction. The examiner finds that as long is something is being supported and is not angled relative to the other part then it can be found to be “resting flat”}
wherein at least one second receiving contour is provided, which is formed in two parts by a first and second contour element {Figures 3 and 9, (28) has a receiving contour which has separate first and second contour elements}.
The first and second contour elements of Yilmaz appear symmetric and to have the same shape.
Yilmaz does not teach:
wherein the two contour elements have shapes different from and asymmetrical to one another.
Yilmaz does not teach the full geometric details of every dimension of the contour elements of (28).
Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the two contour elements have shapes that are different from and asymmetrical to one another. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for the following reasons. First the claim essentially only requires that all the dimensions of the two contours are not identical. This claim may be thought of as requiring precise correspondence between the dimensions of two contours. Therefore to satisfy the claim, the geometry of the first and second contours only have to vary by a very small amount. The examiner therefore finds that the disclosed symmetrical first and second contours effectively infinitesimally approaches the claimed asymmetry. The examiner finds that if the first and second contours differ by a very small amount, they would still function the same and have the same properties as a system where they are identical. See MPEP 2144.05 I. It is also noted that these contours are used to simply receive fastening arms for connecting the damper and target body. Therefore there would not be any unexpected behavior.
Yilmaz is silent regarding the exact details of how (50) attaches to the motor vehicle and therefore does not disclose in the inventive embodiment:
wherein wing elements with screw eyes for fastening to a counter contour on a motor vehicle are formed on the target body
wherein the target body is a intermediate element between the damping element and the counter contour in the vehicle
Yilmaz does teach in the prior art embodiment of Figure 1:
wherein wing elements with screw eyes for fastening to a counter contour on a motor vehicle are formed on the target body {Figure 1, the upper portion of (150) has three distinct wing elements / flanges that each have as screw eye to attach to a counter contour on the motor vehicle; [0029]}
wherein the target body is an intermediate element between the damping element and the counter contour in the vehicle {Figure 1 target body (50) is an intermediate element between damping element (120) and vehicle (5)}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the mounting device of the inventive embodiment of Yilmaz have the wing and screw eye structure of the prior art configuration of Yilmaz One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to attach the mounting device to the vehicle {Yilmaz [0029]}.
Yilmaz as modified above also therefore teaches:
wherein the target body is an intermediate element between the damping element and the counter contour in the vehicle {Figure 7, target body (50) is an intermediate element between damping element (20)/(70) and the counter contour in the vehicle based on (5) in Figure 1}
Regarding claim 2, Yilmaz further teaches:
wherein the damping element has on its inner surface an uninterrupted annular contour with chamfers and/or roundings {Figure 3, the inner surface of which forms (22) is an uninterrupted circular/annular contour that is completely round and is therefore considered to have roundings}.
Regarding claim 4, Yilmaz further teaches:
wherein at least one first receiving contour is provided which has legs which are symmetrically connected to one another via a connecting bridge {Figure 5 (78) has two U-shaped portions of the receiving contour that are connected by a bridge that extends left to right}.
Regarding claim 6, Yilmaz further teaches:
wherein an axial undercut is formed within the projection {Figure 9, (78) and (50) connecting via the connections listed in [0034] implicitly means there is an undercut in the projection (28), see MPEP 2112}.
Regarding claim 7, Yilmaz further teaches:
wherein roundings and/or insertion bevels are formed on at least one receiving contour {Figure 9, (50) has many roundings and/or insertion bevels which implicitly correspond to the receiving contour formed in (78) due to the connection described in [0034], see MPEP 2112}.
Regarding claim 8, Yilmaz further teaches:
wherein the target body has at least one balcony which corresponds to the projection {Figure 8 (50) overhangs the projection (78), this portion that overhangs is considered to be a balcony}.
Regarding claim 9, Yilmaz further teaches:
wherein the target body comprises fastening arms which are connected to the at least one receiving contour in a form-fit and/or force-fit manner {Figure 9, the portion of (50) that fits into (78) is a fastening arm that connects to the receiving contour which is a part of (78) in a force fit manner implicitly based on the description of the connection methods in [0034]. Also see MPEP 2112 for implicit disclosure}.
Regarding claim 10, Yilmaz further teaches:
wherein the fastening arms on the axial end faces have substantially the shape of the corresponding receiving contour {Figure 9, for the fastening arms of (50) to insert into the receiving contour of (78) the axial end face has to be substantially the shape of the receiving contour; this is shown in Figure 9}.
Regarding claim 11, Yilmaz further teaches:
wherein a liquid pump is received in a force- and/or form-fit manner in the inner surface of the damping element {Figure 3 (10) is received in (22) by a force fit as the diameter of the pump is greater than the inner surface of the damping element; [0032]}.
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yilmaz et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20170343153) hereinafter Yilmaz in view of Findeisen et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20210388852) hereinafter Findeisen.
Regarding claim 3, Yilmaz teaches the contact body of claim 1, but does not disclose:
wherein the damping element comprises at least one recess extending from the inner surface to the outer surface.
Findeisen pertains to supporting pumps in motor vehicles. Findeisen teaches:
wherein the damping element comprises at least one recess extending from the inner surface to the outer surface {Figure 2 and 3, some instances of (42) extend from the inner surface to the outer surface; [0031]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have recesses as taught by Findeisen in the damping element of Yilmaz. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to be able to securely fit the pump into the damping element {Findeisen [0031]/[0036]}.
Regarding claim 14, Yilmaz further teaches:
wherein the damping element is formed from an elastomer {Figure 3 at least (20) is formed from an elastomer which is an elastic material which is found to satisfy the limitation; [0042]}.
Yilmaz does not disclose the material of the target body and is therefore silent regarding:
the target body is formed from a plastic or metal.
Findeisen pertains to supporting pumps in motor vehicles. Findeisen teaches:
the target / mounting body is formed from a plastic or metal {Figure 3 (28)/(33) is made of SEBS and acts as both the damping element and the target body as (28)/(33) also is the part which couples to the vehicle via (34); [0017]/[0030]/[0032]. SEBS is a plastic}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a rubber material as taught by Findeisen for the material of the target body of Yilmaz. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as this material is a material that is known to be used to attach the pump to the vehicle for its soft and elastic properties {Findeisen [0017]/[0030]/[0032]}.
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 K. REITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1387. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 a.m. -5:30 p.m.
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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at 5712703508. 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 K. REITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights