DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argue that Naganathan et al. fail to teach that the stiffness of the stiffening element is less than the spring unit when deactivated, and greater than the deactivated state when activated, as newly recited in claim 1.
Applicant's arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. The examiner further points out that, although the written description of Naganathan et al. does not verbatim recite applicant’s claim limitations, the reference does explicitly recite “The piezoelectric material regulates the stiffness of the elastic members when the piezoelectric material is controllably excited” (col. 3, lines 34-36); which phrase specifies that the piezoelectric material does not alter the spring stiffness when deactivated, thus encompassing the claim limitation of being less than that of the spring unit. Naganathan et al. further discloses “By modulating the voltage applied to the control elements, both the stiffness and damping of a piezoelectric regulated spring are regulated” (col. 3, lines 38-46; further see claim 8), which encompasses applicant’s claimed “greater than in the deactivated state”.
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 (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 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 1-4, 7, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Naganathan et al. (US 5,390,949).
In Re claim 1, Naganathan et al. discloses a spring device for a motor vehicle (see figs. 11 and 12), comprising: a spring unit (110); a stiffness adjusting unit (113, 120), comprising: a stiffening element (120) attached to the spring unit and enclosing the spring at least in sections (see fig. 12); and a control apparatus (113) for actuating the stiffening unit, wherein the stiffening element does not alter the spring stiffness when deactivated (i.e. the stiffness of the stiffening element is far less than the spring unit) (col. 3, lines 34-36), and wherein the when activated, the stiffening element alters the spring stiffness of the spring (i.e. the stiffness of the stiffening element is greater than in the deactivated state) (col. 3, lines 38-46; further see claim 8).
In Re claim 2, col. 1, lines 43-45 disclose the known use of a fiber reinforced composite spring material.
In Re claim 3, figs. 1 and 2 depict a leaf spring with a stiffness adjusting unit.
In Re claim 4, see layered leaf spring configuration (16) and surrounding stiffness adjusting elements (18).
In Re claim 7, see stiffness adjusting element (120) in fig. 12.
In Re claim 12, see col. 3, lines 38-46.
In Re claim 13, the piezoelectric stiffness adjusting element is controlled by an electrical current.
In Re claim 14, the stiffness adjusting element is a piezoelectric material.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 9, 10, and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicants are 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 THOMAS W IRVIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3095. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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 at 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.
/THOMAS W IRVIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights