DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed 02/11/26 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-18 are still pending, with claim 2 being moved up into claim 1. Despite Applicant’s arguments, the previous rejections are maintained as detailed below. 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
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.
Rosenmeyer in view of Akhtar and Leonhard
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 10-15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenmeyer et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0379948) in view of Akhtar et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2003/0122293) and Leonhard et al. (DE 4038429). Rosenmeyer is directed to an x-spring device for a motor vehicle wheel suspension. See Abstract. Akhtar is directed to a variable rate multi-arc composite leaf spring assembly. See Abstract. Leonhard is directed to a leaf spring made of fiber composite. See Abstract.
Claim 1: Rosenmeyer discloses a leaf spring device for a suspension system [Fig. 4] for a vehicle, the leaf spring device comprising: a center leaf spring (17); side leaf springs (11) respectively disposed at two opposite sides of the center leaf spring; and bracket modules (13), each of the bracket modules comprising a center bracket (portion of 13 connected to 17) configured to accommodate an end of the center leaf spring, and a side bracket (portion of 13 connected to 11b) connected to the center bracket and configured to accommodate an end of the side leaf spring, wherein the center bracket and the side bracket are rigidly coupled to prevent relative movement between the center bracket and the side bracket. See Fig. 4.
Rosenmeyer further discloses that the center bracket comprises: a center bracket body (center of 13) connected to the side bracket; a center accommodation part (opening in 13 for 17) disposed on the center bracket body and configured to accommodate the center leaf spring, the center accommodation part having a first side opened so that the center leaf spring is inserted into the center accommodation part; and a center cover (32) coupled to the center accommodation part to close the first side of the center accommodation part. See Figs. 1, 4.
Rosenmeyer discloses all the limitations of this claim except for: (1) the center and side brackets of the bracket modules being “separate and rigidly coupled by a fastener;” and (2) the “center shim” in the center accommodation part.
First, Akhtar discloses a leaf spring assembly spring device for a vehicle wheel suspension, with a bracket module [see Fig. 4] composed of two separate brackets (52) that are rigidly coupled to each other by a fastener (54), with each bracket configured to accommodate its own leaf spring (10, 40). See Fig. 4. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the Rosenmeyer bracket module with two separable brackets because replacing a unitary/integral component with 2 separable components is a design choice with numerous advantages – ease in replacement of parts, and importantly in this case, permits modification of the module for attachment to different leaf spring sizes, thereby increasing the versatility of the bracket. For example, if a different center leaf spring (with a larger/smaller width) needs to be installed in the Rosenmeyer assembly, only the center bracket would need to be replaced instead of the entire module.
Second, Leonhard discloses a leaf spring device [Figs. 1-3] with a leaf spring (1) and a bracket module (3) with a bracket body (4, 5) having an accommodation part (space between 4 and 5), a cover (9) coupled to the accommodation part to close the side of the accommodation part, and a shim (7) in the accommodation part and configured to adjoin the leaf spring. See Figs. 1-3. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to include a shim because this provides support for the leaf spring in the accommodation part and also ensures a proper and secure fit in the accommodation part, which provides enhanced functionality and stability. It would be further be obvious in light of Akhtar’s use of a shim (50) in the coupling of leaf springs (10, 40) with brackets (52). See Fig. 4.
Claim 3: Leonhard discloses that the center bracket further comprises a center shim fastening part (10) configured to penetrate the center accommodation part and be fastened to the center shim so that the center shim presses the center leaf spring. See Figs. 1-3.
Claim 4: Leonhard discloses that the center accommodation part comprises: a center upper plate (4); a center lower plate (5) disposed to be spaced apart from the center upper plate; and a center connection plate (portion connecting 4 and 5) configured to connect the center upper plate and the center lower plate, and wherein the center shim is disposed on the center lower plate. See Figs. 1-3.
Claim 5: Leonhard discloses that an interval between an upper surface of the center shim (6) and a lower surface of the center upper plate is smaller at an inlet of the center accommodation part than at an inner side of the center accommodation part. See Figs. 1-2.
Claim 6: Leonhard discloses that a vertical thickness of a portion of the center leaf spring, which is adjacent to the inner side of the center accommodation part, is larger than a vertical thickness of a portion of the center leaf spring that is adjacent to the inlet of the center accommodation part. See Figs. 1-2.
Claim 7: Leonhard discloses that a vertical thickness of a portion of the center shim, which is adjacent to the inlet of the center accommodation part, is larger than a vertical thickness of a portion of the center shim that is adjacent to the inner side of the center accommodation part. See Figs. 1-2.
Claims 10-15: see claims 1 and 3-7 above, respectively.
Claim 18: Rosenmeyer discloses that at least one of the center leaf spring, the side leaf spring, and a combination thereof includes glass fiber reinforced plastic (GFRP). See para. 0027.
Rosenmeyer in view of Akhtar, Leonhard and Rochell
Claim(s) 8-9 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenmeyer in view of Akhtar, Leonhard and Rochell et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0061454). Rochell is directed to a leaf spring arrangement. See Abstract.
Claim 8: Rosenmeyer, Akhtar and Leonhard are relied upon as in claims 1 and 4 above. Leonhard technically discloses the limitations of this claim, namely, that the bracket further comprises a stopper formed on the connection plate and configured to prevent the leaf spring from moving toward an inner side of the accommodation part. See Fig. 2 (inner wall of 3 between 4 and 5 juts out slightly toward one, hence constitutes a “stopper”). However, the Rochell reference more clearly discloses this feature of a bracket (3) comprising a stopper (protrusion between 18 and 19) formed on the connection plate and configured to prevent the leaf spring (1) from moving toward an inner side of the accommodation part (13). See Figs. 3-6. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to include this stopper because the feature is already contemplated by Leonhard, and this may prevent unnecessary abrasion/friction between the connection plate and the end of the leaf spring.
Claim 9: Rochell discloses that the center stopper comprises: a center protrusion protruding from the center connection plate toward the center leaf spring; and center grooves (24-26) respectively formed in a connection portion between the center upper plate (18) and the center connection plate and a connection portion between the center lower plate (19) and the center connection plate. See Figs. 3-6.
Claims 16-17: see claims 8-9 above, respectively.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/11/26 with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3-18 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant traverses the former claim 1 rejection because of alleged deficiencies with the proposed combination of Rosenmeyer and Akhtar. Specifically, Applicant (correctly) points out that the Akhtar brackets couple the two leaf springs “in a different way from Rosenmeyer” and how if the Akhtar brackets were used in Rosenmeyer that the modified device would have structural problems, including alignment and load distribution issues. See Remarks, pages 5-6. In response to applicant's argument that the physical use of Akhtar’s brackets in Rosenmeyer, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, Akhtar is used solely for the teaching that a large bracket designed to hold two leaf springs can be composed of two “separate and rigidly coupled” components. It is well-known and common in a variety of arts to make a single integral component into a plurality of separable parts (or vice versa, to make a plurality of rigidly coupled parts into a single integral component). The decision to make a component into one or more than one part is the ‘design choice’ referred to in the obviousness statement. Akhtar is used to teach that brackets for leaf springs can be composed of two separable pieces that are rigidly coupled to each other, and need not disclose more. The rejection does NOT propose inserting the identical configuration of Akhtar Figure 4 into the configuration of Rosenmeyer Figure 4. Akhtar is used to teach that Rosenmeyer’s bracket 13 can, instead of being a single integral component, be composed of two separable parts that are rigidly coupled to each other.
For the foregoing reasons, all pending claim remain rejected as detailed above.
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 VISHAL R SAHNI whose telephone number is (571)270-3838. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3pm PST.
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.
VISHAL SAHNI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657
/VISHAL R SAHNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616 February 23, 2026