DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 18, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 – 3, 7 – 9, 11, 12, and 16 - 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spinks (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2015/0230621) in view of DeFranks ‘755 (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2013/0270755) and Grothaus (German Patent Number DE 10 2016107746 A1), and further evidence by DeFranks ‘066 (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2005/0056066).
Because Grothaus is published in German, all citations to Grothaus will actually cite U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0222749, which claims priority from Grothaus.
As to claim 1, Spinks teaches a method to manufacture a steel wire spring core for a mattress (abstract), comprising the steps of: providing a plurality of coiled steel wire springs (figure 3, element 22 being the ‘plurality of coiled steel wire springs’; paragraphs 62 and 19); connecting a series of the coiled steel wire springs to each other (figure 3, elements 22; paragraphs 62 - 64).
However, while Spinks teaches providing the plurality of coiled steel wire springs, Spinks does not teach how to manufacture the coiled steel wire springs. DeFranks ‘755 teaches a method of manufacturing coiled steel wire springs for a mattress (abstract), comprising the steps of: providing a carrier comprising steel wire having a diameter between 0.04 and 0.11 inches (1.02 and 2.79 mm) (figure 5, step 508; paragraphs 51 and 28), wherein the steel wire has been subject to a heat treatment such that the steel wire on the carrier has a drawn pearlitic microstructure (figure 5, step 512; paragraphs 50 – 51), wherein the steel wire comprises a steel alloy having a carbon content between 0.65 wt% and 0.75 wt% (paragraph 29). Examiner notes that this can be found because DeFranks ‘755 teaches the steel wire comprising AISI 1069 high carbon steel (paragraph 29), which is known in the art to have a carbon content between 0.65 wt% and 0.75 wt%. DeFranks ‘755 further teaches repeatedly coiling a plurality of steel wire springs from the steel wire taken from the carrier (figure 5, step 514; paragraph 52). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to manufacture the plurality of coiled steel wire springs of Spinks from the steel wire and the heat treating and coiling methods of DeFranks ‘755, because DeFranks ‘755 teaches that such a material and method provides the benefit of forming steel wire springs having sufficient strength, fatigue life, and corrosion resistance for use in a mattress (paragraphs 4, 5, 8, 9, 36, and 47 - 51).
Examiner recognizes that DeFranks ‘755 teaches that the heat treatment is performed immediately after the steel wire is provided on the carrier (figure 5, steps 508 and 512; paragraph 51), rather than immediately before being provided on the carrier. However, it is the position of the Examiner that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the process of DeFranks ‘755, such that the heat treatment is performed onto the drawn steel wire immediately prior providing the steel wire onto the carrier, rather than immediately after providing the steel wire onto the carrier, because one skilled in the art would have recognizes that heat treating the drawn steel wire either immediately prior to or immediately after providing the steel wire onto the carrier would provide the same benefit of increasing the ductility, strength and flexibility of the drawn steel wire, as desired by DeFranks ‘755 (paragraph 51).
Regarding the limitation of ‘cold coiling’ the plurality of steel wire springs from the steel wire, it is the position of the Examiner that the coiling step of DeFranks ‘755 is a cold coiling process. This can be found because DeFranks ‘755 teaches that the coiling is performed by the method and apparatus of DeFranks ‘066 (paragraph 52). DeFranks ‘066 teaches a step of repeatedly coiling a plurality of steel wire springs from a steel wire taken from a carrier (figure 2, element 214 being the ‘steel wire springs,’ element 213 being the ‘steel wire,’ and element 211 being the ‘carrier’; paragraphs 38 – 41). It is the position of the Examiner that the coiling of DeFranks ‘066 may reasonably be considered to be ‘cold coiling’ because Applicant’s Specification teaches that ‘cold coiling’ is coiling that is performed when the wire is not heated during coiling (paragraph 7) and neither DeFranks ‘066 or DeFranks ‘755 teaches heating the wire during the coiling step.
However, while Spinks in view of DeFranks ‘755 teaches heat treating the steel wire, DeFranks ‘755 does not teach the heat treatment process. Grothaus teaches a method of manufacturing a steel wire spring core for a mattress (abstract), comprising the steps of: heat treating a steel wire (paragraph 40); coiling a plurality of steel wire springs from the steel wire to provide coiled steel wire springs (paragraph 38); and then connecting a series of the coiled steel wire springs to each other (paragraph 42). Grothaus further teaches that the heat treating is performed by heating the steel wire to a temperature of 280°C (paragraphs 24 and 40). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to heat treat a drawn steel wire, as taught by Spinks in view of DeFranks ‘755, by heating the steel wire to 280°C, as taught by Grothaus, because Grothaus teaches that heat treating at 280°C provides the benefits of increased toughness and deformation properties (paragraphs 19 and 48) as desired by DeFranks ‘755 (paragraphs 49 and 51).
Regarding the limitation of the steel wire on the carrier having a ratio of a yield strength Rp0.2 over a tensile strength Rm higher than 85%, Examiner notes that the steel wire of Spinks in view of DeFranks ‘755 and Grothaus has the same composition, structure, and method of manufacturing as that of the claim. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists for the steel wire having a ratio of a yield strength Rp0.2 over a tensile strength Rm higher than 85%. MPEP 2112.01.
It is further the position of the Examiner that the steel wire of Spinks in view of DeFranks ‘755 and Grothaus is not subjected to heat treatment after being provided on the carrier. This is because, as explained above DeFranks ‘755 makes obvious the step of heat treating the drawn steel wire immediately prior to providing the steel wire onto the carrier. Examiner recognizes that DeFranks ‘755 teaches an additional heat treatment step, which is performed after the steel wire is provided on the carrier (figure 5, element 518; paragraph 52). However, DeFranks ‘755 expressly teaches that this heat treatment is optional, and is not a required step of the taught method (paragraph 52).
As to claim 2, the discussion of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
As to claim 3, DeFranks ‘066 teaches that the carrier is a bobbin onto which the steel wire is wound (figure 2, element 211).
As to claim 7, while not expressly taught by either Spinks, DeFranks ‘755, or DeFranks ‘066, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to manufacture more than 120 of the steel wire springs per minute, so as to increase production and decrease overall costs.
As to claim 8, Examiner notes that the steel wire of Spinks in view of DeFranks ‘755 has the same composition and structure as that of the claim. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists for the tensile strength of the steel wire being higher than a value obtained by the formula 2200 – 390.71*ln(d); wherein d is the diameter of the steel wire in mm. MPEP 2112.01.
As to claim 9, DeFranks ‘755 teaches that the steel wire does not comprise a metallic coating layer (paragraph 29).
As to claim 11, Spinks further teaches that the step of connecting a series of the coiled steel sire springs to each other is performed by inserting the coiled steel wire springs in compressed state in pockets made from a cloth, wherein a linear string of pocketed springs is obtained (figure 3, elements 24b; paragraph 62).
As to claim 12, Spinks further teaches that the pockets are formed from one single piece of cloth and wherein pockets are closed and linearly bonded to each other by means of welded bonds (figure 3, elements 26 being the ‘welded bonds’; paragraph 63).
As to claim 16, DeFranks ‘755 teaches the use of a steel alloy having a carbon content higher than 0.7% wt%. This can be found because DeFranks ‘755 teaches the use of AISI 1069 as the steel alloy (paragraph 29), which is known to have a carbon content between 0.65 wt% and 0.75 wt%, which anticipates a carbon content of 0.75 wt%.
As to claim 17, Examiner notes that the steel wire of Spinks in view of DeFranks ‘755 and Grothaus has the same composition, structure, and method of manufacturing as that of the claim. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists for the steel wire having a ratio of a yield strength Rp0.2 over a tensile strength Rm higher than 87%. MPEP 2112.01.
As to claim 18, Examiner notes that the steel wire of Spinks in view of DeFranks ‘755 and Grothaus has the same composition, structure, and method of manufacturing as that of the claim. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists for the steel wire having a ratio of a yield strength Rp0.2 over a tensile strength Rm higher than 90%. MPEP 2112.01.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 18, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 6 – 8, that the prior art does not teach the limitation of ‘subjecting the steel wire to a heat treatment prior to being provided on the carrier’ and ‘wherein the steel wire is not subject to heat treatment after being provided on the carrier’ as recited by claim 1. Examiner disagrees. DeFranks ‘755 teaches heat treating a drawn steel wire (figure 5, step 512; paragraph 51). However, Examiner recognizes that DeFranks ‘755 teaches that the heat treatment is performed immediately after the drawn steel wire is provided on the carrier (figure 5, steps 508 and 512; paragraph 51), rather than immediately before being provided on the carrier. However, it is the position of the Examiner that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the process of DeFranks ‘755, such that the heat treatment is performed onto the drawn steel wire immediately prior providing the steel wire onto the carrier, rather than immediately after providing the steel wire onto the carrier, because one skilled in the art would have recognizes that heat treating the drawn steel wire either immediately prior to or immediately after providing the steel wire onto the carrier would provide the same benefit of increasing the ductility, strength and flexibility of the drawn steel wire, as desired by DeFranks ‘755 (paragraph 51).
It is further the position of the Examiner that the steel wire of Spinks in view of DeFranks ‘755 and Grothaus is not subjected to heat treatment after being provided on the carrier. This is because, as explained above, DeFranks ‘755 makes obvious the step of heat treating the drawn steel wire immediately prior to providing the steel wire onto the carrier. Examiner recognizes that DeFranks ‘755 teaches an additional heat treatment step, which is performed after the steel wire is provided on the carrier (figure 5, element 518; paragraph 52). However, DeFranks ‘755 expressly teaches that this heat treatment is optional, and is not a required step of the taught method (paragraph 52).
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 CHRISTOPHER BESLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:30 am - 7:30 pm (EST).
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, Sunil Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J. BESLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726