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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 16-22, 24-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kompa (US 9,909,636).
Regarding claim 16: Kompa teaches a coil spring comprising a longitudinal component located within the coil spring (see Fig. 22), wherein the longitudinal component runs generally along the direction of a longitudinal axis of the coil spring (Fig. 22), and the longitudinal component is closed or configured for being closed, wherein the longitudinal component has at least one straight section (see Fig. 22, Col. 5, lines 26-36 and Col. 12, lines 26-29).
Regarding claim 17: Kompa teaches all the limitations of claim 16 and further teaches wherein the longitudinal component has at least two straight sections (see Fig. 22).
Regarding claim 18: Kompa teaches all the limitations of claim 16 and further teaches wherein the longitudinal component has the general shape of a trapezium, a parallelogram or a rectangle (see Fig. 22), wherein the corners may be rounded.
Regarding claim 19: Kompa teaches all the limitations of claim 16 and further teaches wherein
wherein the longitudinal component is a simple loop (see Fig. 22 for loop).
Regarding claim 20: Kompa teaches all the limitations of claim 16 and further teaches wherein the longitudinal component biases the coil spring into a shape different from the coil spring's natural shape (see Figs. 17-22 and Col. 12, lines 30-42).
Regarding claim 21: Kompa teaches all the limitations of claim 16 and further teaches wherein the longitudinal component comprises a first end and a second end which are connected to or connectable with each other (Col. 5, lines 38-41).
Regarding claim 22: Kompa teaches all the limitations of claim 21 and further teaches wherein the first end and the second end and the longitudinal component are in the same plane throughout the entire length of the longitudinal component (see Fig. 22 for same plane).
Regarding claim 25: Kompa teaches all the limitations of claim 21 and further teaches wherein the first end and the second end are materially connected to each other (see Claim 1).
Regarding claim 26: Kompa teaches all the limitations of claim 16 and further teaches wherein the longitudinal component is a metal wire (Col. 5, lines 26-38).
Regarding claim 27: Kompa teaches all the limitations of claim 16 and further teaches wherein the longitudinal component is formed as a single piece (see Fig. 22).
Regarding claim 28: Kompa teaches all the limitations of claim 16 and further teaches a connector part configured for being connected with a mating connector part (see Figs. 11-12), wherein the connector part comprises a coil spring according to claim 16 (see Col. 9, lines 16-25).
Regarding claim 29: Kompa teaches a connector part configured for being connected with a mating connector part (see Figs. 11-12), wherein the connector part has a coil spring, the coil spring comprising a longitudinal component located within the coil spring (Figs. 11-12), wherein the longitudinal component runs generally along the direction of a longitudinal axis of the coil spring and wherein the connector part comprises a groove in which the coil spring is accommodated (Figs. 11-12) and the longitudinal component of the coil spring is closed or configured for being closed and has at least one straight section (see Figs 21-22).
Regarding claim 30: Kompa teaches all the limitations of claim 28 and further teaches a connector comprising a connector part according to claim 28 and a mating connector part (see Figs. 11-12).
Regarding claim 31: Kompa teaches a method of shaping a coil spring, the method comprising locating a longitudinal component within the coil spring, wherein the longitudinal component runs generally along the direction of a longitudinal axis of the coil spring, wherein the longitudinal component is closed or configured for being closed and has at least one straight section (see Fig. 22, Col. 5, lines 26-36 and Col. 12, lines 26-29).
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.
Claim 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kompa (US 9,909,636), in view of Ivanov (US 2021/0344153).
Regarding claim 24: Kompa teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches the longitudinal component 14.
Kompa does not explicitly teach wherein at least the first locking element comprises a recess and at least the second locking element comprises a protrusion, wherein the recess accommodates the protrusion or is configured for accommodating the protrusion.
Ivanov teaches at least the first locking element comprises a recess and at least the second locking element comprises a protrusion, wherein the recess accommodates the protrusion or is configured for accommodating the protrusion (see Figs. 2B-2C of Ivanov).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be able to modify the invention with at least the first locking element comprises a recess and at least the second locking element comprises a protrusion, wherein the recess accommodates the protrusion or is configured for accommodating the protrusion as taught by Ivanov into the coil spring of Kompa in order to achieve the advantage of ensuring the longitudinal components locks with each other and maintains the desired shape and location.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 16, 29, and 31 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Reference Kompa (US 9,909,636) teaches a coil spring comprising a longitudinal component located within the coil spring (see Fig. 22), wherein the longitudinal component runs generally along the direction of a longitudinal axis of the coil spring (Fig. 22), and the longitudinal component is closed or configured for being closed, wherein the longitudinal component has at least one straight section (see Fig. 22, Col. 5, lines 26-36 and Col. 12, lines 26-29).
Conclusion
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 OSCAR C JIMENEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0272. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-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, Jessica Han can be reached at (571) 272-2078. 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.
/OSCAR C JIMENEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896