DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection.
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.
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
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