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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-3528648 (JP’648) in view of US Patent 2621922 to Watson, KR-0137440 (KR’440), and DE-2421224 (DE’224).
Re: claim 1. JP’648 shows in figures 1-3 an anti-noise element for a spring bundle formed by an assembly of spring blades 2, 3 mounted superimposed with each other and having end portions of each two adjacent spring blades separated by a respective anti-noise element comprising a metal plate 5 as described in paragraph [007], with a width and a with a length preventing direct contact between the superimposed end portions of two adjacent spring blades 2, 3, the metal plate 5 incorporating a median protrusion 8 defined by a median drawn in the plate defined by a at least one elongated rib 8 with parallel rib side portions extending in a longitudinal direction of the spring bundle as shown in figure 3, the longitudinal direction, as annotated, of the spring bundle extending between opposite end portions of a respective spring blade, wherein the at least one elongated rib 8 is fitted into a corresponding hole 10 provided in the end portion of the spring blade 3 against which the anti-noise element is seated and retained, but is silent with regards to the at least one elongated rib with parallel rib side portions comprising a pair of parallel ribs, is silent with regards to the width being a width adjusted to a total width of the spring bundle, and is silent with regards to the coating being thermoplastic polyamide-11 resin and the entire plate including the median protrusion being covered with the coating.
Watson teaches in figures 1, 4, and 5 the use of a plate defined by a pair of parallel ribs as annotated on pg. 5 of the instant Office action.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the parallel sides of the elongated rib of JP’648 to have been a pair of parallel ribs, in view of the teachings of Watson, in order to provide a protrusion that engages with the bottom spacer to provide a connection without using as much material by having spaced apart ribs instead of a solid rib portion with unnecessary central material. Examiner notes that modifying the parallel sides of the elongated rib of JP’648, in view of the teachings of Watson, would result in the spaced apart ribs extending in the longitudinal direction of the spring bundle just as the parallel sides of the elongated rib extend in the longitudinal direction.
KR’440 teaches in figure 3 a spacer 80 in the environment of a leaf spring assembly 2 having a width adjusted to a total width of the spring bundle as shown.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the width of the plate of JP’648, as modified, to have been adjusted to a total width of the spring bundle, in view of the teachings of KR’440, in order to provide separation along the entire width of the leaf spring assembly to help prevent wear from adjacent leaves contacting each other during use.
DE’224 teaches in the English machine translation the use of a bearing being made of thermoplastic polyamide-11 resin.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the material of the coating of JP’648, as modified, to have been made of thermoplastic polyamide-11 resin, in view of the teachings of DE’224, in order to provide a material that is not only durable but also exhibits high chemical resistant properties and high and low temperature performance all characteristics useful in the environment of a leaf spring assembly.
With regards to the entirety of the metal plate being covered with the coating in polyamide-11 Examiner notes that there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success regarding the coating application: 1. Apply coating to some parts of the plate or 2.) Apply coating to all or the entirety of the plate including its extremities (i.e. protrusion and side flaps). See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398 (2007).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the plate of JP’648, as modified, to have been entirely covered with coating, in view of the teachings of KSR, in order to protect all parts of the spacer or insert plate from the environment to improve the overall reliability of the component.
Re: claim 3. JP’648, as modified, teaches in figure 1 of JP’648 the limitation wherein the metal plate 5 has a thickness smaller than a thickness of the spring blades 2, 3 as shown in figure 1. See figure 5 of Watson below.
[AltContent: textbox (Longitudinal direction)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
165
495
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Spaced apart parallel ribs)]
Claim(s) 2 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’648 in view of Watson, KR-0137440 (KR’440), and DE-2421224 (DE’224) as applied above, and further in view of AT-12101 (AT’101).
Re: claim 2. JP’648, as modified, is silent with regards to the thickness of the polyamide-11 resin layer.
AT’101 teaches in the paragraph starting “This object is achieved in a generic spring” the limitation of a leaf in the environment of a spring having a coating defined by a layer of material with a thickness from 0.01mm to 2mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the coating of JP’648, as modified, to have been defined by a layer with a thickness from 0.01mm to 2mm, in view of the teachings of AT’101, in order to provide a coating with sufficient material to provide effective wear resistance and durability without compromising the overall thickness and size of the leaf assembly to maintain a compact assembly.
Re: claim 8. JP’648, as modified, teaches in figure 5 of JP’648 the limitation wherein the metal plate 5 has a thickness smaller than a thickness of the spring blades 2, 3.
Claim(s) 6, 14, 15, 18, 19, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’648 in view of Watson, KR-0137440 (KR’440), and DE-2421224 (DE’224) as applied above and further in view of US Patent 2028299 to Swinton.
Re: claims 6, 14, 15, and 21. JP’648, as modified, is silent with regards to a side flap being seated against an adjacent side of the spring blade.
Swinton teaches in figures 1, 7, and 9 the limitation wherein a leaf spring spacer 6 in the form of a plate which incorporates at each longitudinal edge, a side flap 9, 10 to be seated against an adjacent side edge of a spring blade 1 immediately adjacent in a spring bundle shown in figure 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the plate of JP’648, as modified, to have incorporated at each longitudinal edge a side flap, in view of the teachings of Swinton, in order to provide a means of helping to prevent the plate from shifting from its position. With regards to claim 21, the combination results in the side flaps extending parallel to the pair of parallel ribs.
Re: claims 18 and 19. With regards to the entirety of the metal plate being covered with the coating in polyamide-11 Examiner notes that there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success regarding the coating application: 1. Apply coating to some parts of the plate or 2.) Apply coating to all or the entirety of the plate including its extremities (i.e. protrusion and side flaps). See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398 (2007).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the plate of JP’648, as modified, to have been entirely covered with coating, in view of the teachings of KSR, in order to protect all parts of the spacer or insert plate from the environment to improve the overall reliability of the component.
Claim(s) 13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’648 in view of Watson, KR-0137440 (KR’440), DE-2421224 (DE’224), and AT-12101 (AT’101) as applied above, and further in view of Swinton.
Re: claim 13. JP’648, as modified, is silent with regards to a side flap being seated against an adjacent side of the spring blade.
Swinton teaches in figures 1, 7, and 9 the limitation wherein a leaf spring spacer 6 in the form of a plate which incorporates at each longitudinal edge, a side flap 9, 10 to be seated against an adjacent side edge of a spring blade 1 immediately adjacent in a spring bundle shown in figure 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the plate of JP’648, as modified, to have incorporated at each longitudinal edge a side flap, in view of the teachings of Swinton, in order to provide a means of helping to prevent the plate from shifting from its position.
Re: claim 17. With regards to the entirety of the metal plate being covered with the coating in polyamide-11 Examiner notes that there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success regarding the coating application: 1. Apply coating to some parts of the plate or 2.) Apply coating to all or the entirety of the plate including its extremities (i.e. protrusion and side flaps). See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398 (2007).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the plate of JP’648, as modified, to have been entirely covered with coating, in view of the teachings of KSR, in order to protect all parts of the spacer or insert plate from the environment to improve the overall reliability of the component.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/12/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that JP’648, as modified, teaches laterally extending ribs rather than a pair of ribs extending in a longitudinal direction. Upon further review, Examiner notes that while a majority of each rib of JP’648, as modified, extends laterally, a portion of the rib also extends longitudinally. As shown in annotated figure 5 of Watson on pg. 5 of the instant Office action a portion of each rib extends in the longitudinal direction particularly shown at the curved bottom portions of each rib, as broadly recited. Accordingly, the above rejections have been maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MELODY M BURCH whose telephone number is (571)272-7114. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:30AM-3PM, generally.
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 on 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.
mmb
September 8, 2025
/MELODY M BURCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616