DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 23, 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, 4 – 6, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans (US 10,570,976) in view of Seminara (WO 2015/040078).
Evans discloses in figures 7A – 7C, 10B – 10F a vehicle body; and a vehicle axle, wherein the vehicle body is lifted relative to the vehicle axle and ground; a vehicle suspension system, the vehicle suspension system (method) consisting of: a preload collar (24) formed of shaped aluminum (column 9, starting at line 29) and having an annular ring comprising an abutment lip; a shock absorber (16); and a vehicle suspension spring (14), wherein the preload collar is fixedly coupled directly to the shock absorber in an unmovable location and directly engages the vehicle suspension spring during use and the abutment lip catches a bottom end of the vehicle suspension spring keeping the vehicle suspension spring from rotating on the shock absorber (claims 1, 9, 10). Evans does not explicitly disclose the preload collar as amended in one embodiment. However, Seminara discloses in figure 1 a bottom spring plate (22) comprising an annular ring having an upper inclined surface and a lower planar surface extending transversely and perpendicular to a longitudinal axial direction of the preload collar, wherein an abutment lip extends vertically with respect to the lower planar surface and connects a first end portion and a second end portion of the upper inclined surface of the annular ring (claims 1, 9, 10). At the time of filing PHOSITA would have found it obvious to modify the shape of Evans in view of Seminara. The motivation would have been to ensure firm engagement of the spring on the spring plate. the shock absorber extends through the annular ring (claim 4). the preload collar stops a bottom end of the vehicle suspension spring to extend to a lower end of the shock absorber (claim 5). the preload collar compresses the vehicle suspension spring away from a lower end of the shock absorber, and wherein the vehicle suspension spring is forced towards an upper end of the shock absorber (claims 6, 10). the annular ring comprises a lip (54).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 23, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues “Evans does not disclose that this multi-piece assembly is "formed of shaped aluminum" as now recited by amended claims 1, 9, and 10”. The Applicant disagrees Evans discloses “the preload spacer 100 is made from metal, such as steel or aluminum, although other types of metals as well other non-metal materials can also be used. In one embodiment, the preload spacer 100 is made from 6061-T6 aluminum. In another embodiment, the preload spacer is CNC machined 6061 billet aluminum.”
Applicant further argues “The proposed combination lacks proper motivation to modify Evans' multi-piece bolted assembly with Seminara's hydraulic actuator components to arrive at a unitary preload collar formed of shaped aluminum as recited by claims 1, 9, and 10”. This is also not found persuasive. The claim language as currently presented does not recite that the preload spacer is unitary, nor is there support in the specification equating “shaped aluminum” with a unitary or single-piece construction. Accordingly, the term “shaped as an annular ring of shaped material” is interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification to mean that the component is made of aluminum material that has been formed or machined into a desired shape.
Applicant continues to argue “neither Evans nor Seminara teaches the specific structural arrangement of an abutment lip extending vertically with respect to the lower planar surface and connecting a first end portion and a second end portion of the upper inclined surface of the annular ring in combination with the preload collar being formed of shaped aluminum” this is also not persuasive see figure 1 of Seminara, in combination the claimed structure is disclosed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Baker et al. (US 2014/0239567).
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 Nicole Verley whose telephone number is (571)270-3542. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6PM.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached on (571) 270-5985. 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.
/NICOLE T VERLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614