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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/26/2026 has been entered.
Status of claims
Claims 1-21 have been cancelled; claims 45-50, 58, and 60 are withdrawn as non-elected claims; claims 22-44, 51-57, and 59 remain for examination, wherein claims 1 and 37 are independent claims. There is no amendment since last office action dated 12/30/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 22-36 and 43-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Hashimura et al (US-PG-pub 2009/0205753 A1, thereafter PG’753) alone or further evidenced by Tarasov et al (RU 2093589 C1, with on-line translation, thereafter RU’589).
Regarding claims 22-34, 36, and 43-44, PG’753 teaches a spring-use heat treated steel which is cold coiled, can achieve both sufficient atmospheric strength and coiling workability and manufacturing process for automobile application (Abstract, par.[0001]-[0002], examples, and claims of PG’753), which reads on the steel for leaf spring (cl.22-36), manufacturing process (cl.43), and part (cl.44). The comparison between the claimed alloy composition ranges, microstructures, and properties and those disclosed by the working example #45 in table 4-5 of PG’753 has been listed in following table. All of the alloy composition ranges, microstructures, and properties and those disclosed by the working example #45 in table 4-5 of PG’753 are within the claimed alloy composition ranges. Since PG’056 teaches the same alloy composition with the same microstructures and properties as claimed in the instant claims, Claims 22-36 and 43-44 are anticipated by PG’753. The working example #45 in table 4-5 of PG’753 does not provides fatigue property as claimed in the instant claim 35. The claimed “for leaf spring” is recognized as an intended use for the claimed steel alloy. which does not add patentable weight for the instant application. MPEP 2111 02 II. In alternately, this position further evidenced by RU’589. RU’589 teaches that “A known method of quenching and tempering of ring-shaped leaf springs, including laying the spring in a special matrix, heating together with a matrix of heat-resistant alloy or steel” (Page 3, left Col., lins.20-24 of RU’589).
Element
From instant Claim 22-32 (wt %)
Example #45 in table 4 of PG’753 (wt %)
within range
(wt %)
C
0.4-0.7 (cl.22)
0.4-0.6 (cl.24)
0.58
0.58
Mn
0.5-1.5(cl.22)
0.6-1.4 (cl.26)
0.70
0.70
Si
1-2.5 (cl.22)
1.2-2.4 (cl.23)
2.39
2.39
Al
0.001-0.1 (cl.22)
0.001-0.09 (cl.25)
0.002
0.002
Ni
0.1-1 (cl.22)
0.1-0.9 (cl.28)
0.3
0.3
Cr
0.2-1.5 (cl.22)
0.3-1.4 (cl.27)
0.61
0.61
P
0-0.09
0.011
0.011
S
0-0.09
0.003
0.003
N
0-0.09
0.0034
0.0034
Optional one or mor of
Mo: 0-0.5;
V: 0-0.2;
Nb: 0-0.1;
Ti: 0-0.1;
Cu: 0-1;
B: 0-0.008;
Sn: 0-0.1;
Ce: 0-0.1;
Mg: 0-0.1;
Zr: 0-0.1
Mo: 0.14;
V: 0.20;
Mo: 0.14;
V: 0.20;
Fe
Balance and impurities
Balance and impurities
Balance and impurities
Example #45 in table 5 of PG’753
Microstructures
(area%)
M: 75-98 (cl.22)
M: 80-97 (cl.29)
RA: 2-20 (cl.22)
RA: 3-18 (cl.30)
Optional B+F: 0-5 (cl.22)
B+F: 0-4 (cl.31);
B+F: 0-1 (cl.32)
M: Remain
RA: 6.7
M: Remain
RA: 6.7
From claims 33-36
Example #45 in table 5 of PG’753
Properties
TS: > 1650 MPa (cl.33)
Hardness: ≥ 480 HV (cl.34)
Fatigue: (cl.35)
Striction: > 25% (cl.36)
TS: 1835 MPa;
Hardness: 520 HV;
Fatigue: inherent;
Darwing: 45%
TS: 1835 MPa;
Hardness: 520 HV;
Fatigue: inherent;
Darwing: 45%
Regarding claim 35, the working example #45 in table 4-5 of PG’753 does not provides the fatigue property as claimed in the instant claim. However, the fatigue property is recognized as an alloy property fully depends on the alloy composition and microstructure. Since the working example #45 in table 4-5 of PG’753 teaches the same alloy with the same microstructures as discussed above, the claimed fatigue property would be inherently exist in the alloy of PG’753. MPEP 2112 III&IV.
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 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.
Claims 37-42, 51-54, 57 and 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PG’753 in view of Tarasov et al (RU 2093589 C1, with on-line translation, thereafter RU’589).
Regarding claims 37, as discussed in the rejection for the instant claim 22, all of the alloy composition ranges disclosed by the working example #45 in table 4-5 of PG’753 are within the claimed alloy composition ranges. PG’753 teaches reheating, patenting, quenching, and tempering (table 5 of PG’753), which reads on the essential process steps including re-heating, mechanical operation, quenching, and tempering treatment as claimed in the instant claim. The comparison between the claimed process parameters and those disclosed by the working example #45 in table 5 of PG’753 has been listed in following table.PG’753 teaches parameters including patenting temperature, QT, TT, and holding time within the claimed parameters as claimed in the instant claims 37-40.
From claim 37
Example #45 in table 5 of PG’753
Within range
Reheating and mechanical operation temperature (oC)
Ac3-Ac3+300 (cl.37)
Ac3+30-Ac3+300 (cl.38)
950
950
Quenching with cooling rate < 50oC/s
Ms-10 to 20oC (cl.37)
Ms-50 to 20oC (cl.40)
Ms-Mf in cooling medium (water or oil) at temperature 40oC or lower
Reads on
Tempering temperature (oC)
250-500 (cl.37)
300-475 (cl.39)
470
470
Holding in TT (time sec.)
10-10000
several minutes to 1 hour (par.0174])
Reads on
Still regarding claim 37, PG’753 teaches a spring-use heat treated steel which is cold coiled, can achieve both sufficient atmospheric strength and coiling workability and manufacturing process for automobile application (Abstract, par.[0001]-[0002], examples, and claims of PG’753). PG’753 does not specify a leaf of a leaf spring as claimed in the instant claim. However, applying steel and alloy for a leaf of a leaf spring application is well-known as demonstrated by RU’589. RU’589 teaches that “A known method of quenching and tempering of ring-shaped leaf springs, including laying the spring in a special matrix, heating together with a matrix of heat-resistant alloy or steel” (Page 3, left Col., lins.20-24 of RU’589). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to manufacturing the leaf spring leaf with the steel and alloys as demonstrated by RU’589 in the spring manufacturing process of PG’753 since both RU’589 and PG’753 teaches the same Fe-based alloy for spring application as claimed throughout whole disclosing range. RU’589 specify that the tempering was carried out at a temperature of 320oC at a heating rate of 50oC/min, the exposure was 30 minutes, cooling at a speed of 70oC/min (Example 1 on Page 3 of RU’589), which reads on the heating and cooling rate in the tempering process as claimed in the instant claim. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the heating and cooling rate in the tempering process as demonstrated by RU’589 in the spring manufacturing process of PG’753 since both RU’589 and PG’753 teaches the same Fe-based alloy for spring application as claimed throughout whole disclosing range.
Regarding claims 41-42, PG’753 in view of RU’589 teaches a spring-use heat treated steel which is cold coiled, can achieve both sufficient atmospheric strength and coiling workability and manufacturing process for automobile application (Abstract, par.[0001]-[0002], examples, and claims of PG’753), which reads on the manufacturing process for the structure part of vehicle (cl.41), and vehicle part (cl.42).Regarding claims 51-52, PG’753 teaches forming basically comprised of a tempered martensite structure with 15 mass% or less residual austenite (par.[0131], [0133] of PG’753), which overlaps the claimed microstructure distributions as claimed in the instant claims. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the martensite and austenite amount from the disclosure of PG’753 in view of RU’589 in order to obtain the desired properties of the spring (abstract, examples, and claims of PG’753).
Regarding claim 53, PG’753 teaches adjusting Mn in range 0.1-2.0wt% (par.[0037]-[0038] of PG’753), which overlaps the claimed 0.81-1.5wt% Mn as claimed in the instant claim. Overlapping in Mn range creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144 05 I. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize amount of Mn in the steel as claimed from the disclosure of PG’753 in order to deoxidation or immobilization of the S in the steel as MnS and improves the quenching ability to obtain sufficient hardness after heat treatment (par.[0038] of PG’753).
Regarding claim 54, PG’753 teaches adjusting Si in range 1-3wt% (par.[0034]-[0035] of PG’753), which overlaps the claimed 1-2.3wt% Si as claimed in the instant claim. Overlapping in Mn range creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144 05 I. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize amount of Si in the steel as claimed from the disclosure of PG’753 in order to secure the strength of the spring steel.
Regarding newly added claims 57 and 59, claim 57 depends on independent claim 22 and claim 57 depends on independent claim 37. Since vanadium is an optional element in the independent claims 22 and 37, the claimed V in the instant claims 57 and 59 is still considered as an optional element. Furthermore, PG’753 teaches adjusting V in range over 0.1-1.0wt% ([0039] of PG’753). The over 0.1 wt%V disclose by PG’753 is very close to the claimed up limit 0.95wt% V in the instant claim. Being close to the claimed range of V amount creates a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144 05 I. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize amount of V in the steel as claimed from the disclosure of PG’753 in order to hardening the steel wire (par.[0039]-[0040] of PG’753).
Claims 55-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PG’753 in view of RU’589, and further in view of Riley et al (US-PG-pub 2015/0151187 A1, updated as US 9283469 B2, thereafter PG’187).
Regarding claims 55-56, PG’753 in view of RU’589 does not specify the claimed dimension of the steel spring leaf (cl.55) and the bar form semi-finished product (cl.56). PG’187 teaches manufacturing process of spring steel bar-spring comprises two or more separate leaves of spring steel (claim 1 of PG’187), which reads on the bar form product (cl.56). PG’187 indicates that the dimensions of the spring are: a thickness of 5 mm to 10 mm; a width of 25 mm to 38 mm (par.[0058] of PG’187), which is within the claimed leaf dimension as claimed in claim 55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjusting the leaf dimensions and including bar for product as claimed from the disclosure of PG’187 in the process PG’753 in view of RU’589 in order to obtain the desired spring application (Abstract, figs, and par.[0058] of PG’187).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments to the art rejection to Claims 22-44, 51-57, and 59 have been considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the arguments related to the amended features in the instant claims, the Examiner’s position has stated as above.
The Applicant’s arguments are summarized as following:
1, the “Requirement for Election/restriction” is not roper since the listed different Species in Office Action dated 12/30/2025 have overlapped composition ranges and there is no burden for all Species in examination.
2, PG’753 does not specify the claimed microstructure as claimed in the instant claim 22 since PG’753 desired to provide “ferrite-pearlite structure” and “to suppress the formation of a martensite structure” (par.[0087] of PG’753) and example #45 in table 4-5 of PG’753 does not specify martensite amount as claimed.
3, PG’753 teaches forming a nitride layer for improve the surface hardness of the spring steel, which different to the instant application, since the present specification does not describe any nitridation process.
4, regarding the rejection of the instant claim 35, since there is different microstructure as discussed in the argument 1, the inherency rejection should be withdrawn,
5, PG’753 in view of RU’589 does not teach or suggest a method of production a leaf of a leaf spring of steel as claimed in the instant claim 37 since coil process in PG’753 is contrary to the manufacturing of a leaf of leaf spring of steel.
6, regarding the rejection of claims 41-42, 51-52, 57, and 59, the leaf of a leaf spring of steel is not a coiled spring as disclosed in PG’753 in view of RU’589.
7, regarding the rejection of claims 55-56, PG’187 is not cure the deficiencies of PG’753 in view of RU’589.
In response,
Regarding the argument 1, as pointed in the Office action dated 12/30/2025, Claims 29 and 45-48 depend on claim 22 separately and the Specifies 1-5 indicate different amount of martensite and austenite. Searching the broadest phase ranges does not necessary to consider the narrow phase ranges. Similar case for the Species 6-7; Species 8-9, Species 10-11; and Species 12-13. Therefore, the “Requirement for Election/restriction” in Office Action dated 12/30/2025 is still proper.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments 2 and 4, as noted by the Applicant, the “ferrite-pearlite structure” and “to suppress the formation of a martensite structure” (par.[0087] of PG’753) is for the process of rolling and drawing process. PG’735 specify heat treatment after patenting, drawing, including quenching and tempering (part.[0155] of PG’753). And PG’753 specify the forming martensite and residual austenite in the steel (par.[0131], [0134], and [0139] of PG’735). More specifically, PG’753 indicates that “Specifically, control becomes necessary to maintain the cooling medium at a low temperature, maintain an extremely low temperature even after cooling, secure a long transformation time to martensite”. Therefore, there is no evidence to show the PG’753 teaches away to form martensite in the spring steel. Actually, the high TS (1835 MPa) high hardness (530HV), and drawing-ability (45%) (as showing in the comparison table of the previous office action dated 6/10/2025) should corresponding to the alloy’s composition and microstructures.
Regarding the argument 3, there is no evidence in the instant specification to intendedly avoid further nitridation or other treatment.
Regarding the argument 5-6, Firstly, applying proper techniques to manufacture a known spring steel for different type of spring would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. ). There is no disclosure in PG’753 to teach away forming a leaf of leaf spring from the spring steel. Secondly, as pointed out in the rejection for the instant claim 37 in the previous office action dated 6/10/2025, RU’589 teaches that “A known method of quenching and tempering of ring-shaped leaf springs, including laying the spring in a special matrix, heating together with a matrix of heat-resistant alloy or steel” (Page 3, left Col., lins.20-24 of RU’589. It is noted that the Applicant’s arguments are against the combined prior arts individually, one should not show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the instant case, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PG’753 in view of RU’589 is applied to the instant claims 37-42. The reason and motivation for the combination can further refer to the rejection for in the office action above and previous office action dated 6/10/2025.
Regarding the argument 7, PG’187 indicates that the dimensions of the spring are: a thickness of 5 mm to 10 mm; a width of 25 mm to 38 mm (par.[0058] of PG’187), which is within the claimed leaf dimension as claimed in claim 55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjusting the leaf dimensions and including bar for product as claimed from the disclosure of PG’187 in the process PG’753 in view of RU’589 in order to obtain the desired spring application (Abstract, figs, and par.[0058] of PG’187).
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 JIE YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1884. The examiner can normally be reached on IFP.
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, Jonathan J Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1177. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JIE YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights