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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 10, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10, 12, and 14-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The originally filed specification fails to disclose or show what features are considered “a C-shaped cutout with opposing non-circular bulbous ends”. The C-shaped cutout configuration is shown in the figures and mentioned in the specification. However, the opposing non-circular bulbous ends is not explicitly stated, nor identified in the instant figures. The instant figures show a variety of shapes that the stress-relieving sections 28a/28b may have, each appears to include curved or circular surfaces. As such the figures would appear to not support the non-circular bulbous ends recitation.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10, 12, and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 15 and 19, it is unclear what specific shape the applicant is intending to seek coverage for with the recitation “a C-shaped cutout with opposing non-circular bulbous ends”. In particular, it would seem that a C-shaped cutout would have circular surfaces, and as such conflicts with the non-circular bulbous ends recitation. In short, does the C-shaped cutout have circular or curved surfaces, or non-circular bulbous ends.
Claims 2-10, 12, 14, 16, 17, and 20-22 are rejected due to their dependence upon claims 1, 15 and 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-10, 12, and 14-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the admitted prior art (instant figure 1) in view of US 4,625,847 to Maucher.
Re-claims 1, 12, 15 and 17, the admitted prior art teaches a spring element (as part of an electrical heater, see background discussion) comprising: a first mounting section 3a/3b to mount the body on a housing; a first leaf spring including a first portion and a second portion, the first portion 7a/7b is secured to the body, at least a part (such as combined parts 6 or 9) thereof extends angularly with respect to a plane of the body, the first leaf spring exerts a predetermined urging pressure on an element disposed between the body and the housing as the body is mounted on the housing; a stress relieving section (curved end 2a) is formed along both lateral sides of the first leaf spring and proximal to the first portion, the stress relieving section in the form of a C-shaped cutout (i.e. the curved surfaces reduce stress concentrations) and is proximal to a mounting hole formed on the first mounting section 3a, a connecting part 9a/9b of the first portion of the first leaf spring is secured to the body and protrudes from the plane of the body and a remaining part 6a/6b of the first portion angularly extends with respect to the plane of the body along a straight line. However, the prior art fails to show the C-shaped cutout having opposing non-circular bulbous ends.
Maucher teaches a C-shaped cutout 8 at the end of a slot 6 having opposing non-circular bulbous ends (see figure below). This feature serves to reduce stress concentrations at the end of the slit (see at least column 7 lines 62-68). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have looked to Maucher and their C-shaped cutout having opposing non-circular bulbous ends for variations in design of a stress relieving section for use in the spring element of the admitted prior art, as this shape yields the same expectant result of reducing fatigue and stress at the slot end.
Re-claims 2, 3 and 10, the body has opposing first and second mounting sections co-planer with respect to each other and offset from the plane of the body (see raised mounting sections 3a and 3b); the first leaf spring protrudes away from the body and away from the mounting section.
Re-claims 4 and 5, the mounting hole receives a mounting bolt (see page 2 line 23), the mounting hole is aligned to a longitudinal axis of the leaf spring, see figure 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
749
589
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re-claims 6, 7 and 9, the spring element has two leaf springs and a central bridge between the leaf springs, spaced apart openings disposed on opposite sides of the bridge are co-planer with each other; the leaf springs are smaller than the openings.
Re-claims 8 and 16, as modified with the bulbous shaped cutouts, the first leaf spring would have a varying width along its length, as the C-shaped cutout would define a first width and the remaining extension would define at least a second width.
Re-claims 14 and 18, the admitted prior art fails to teach a range of 1-5 mm for the C-shaped cutout. It is noted that this is merely one of engineering or design choice based upon the overall size of the spring element. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as a matter of design choice have chosen as a size range for the C-shaped cutout a range between 1 to 5 mm, as this would have optimized the cutout size relative to the overall dimension of the spring element.
Re-claim 19, the admitted prior art teaches a spring element comprising: a first mounting section 3a/3b to mount the body on a housing, a first leaf spring is secured to the body, at least a part (such as combined parts 6 or 9) thereof extends angularly with respect to a plane of the body, the first leaf spring exerts a predetermined urging pressure on an element disposed between the body and the housing as the body is mounted on the housing; a stress relieving section (curved end 2a) is formed along both lateral sides of the first leaf spring and proximal to the first portion, the stress relieving section in the form of a C-shaped cutout (i.e. the curved surfaces reduce stress concentrations) and is proximal to a mounting hole formed on the first mounting section 3a, a connecting part (such as 9) of the first portion of the first leaf spring is secured to the body and protrudes from the plane of the body. However, the prior art fails to show the C-shaped cutout having opposing non-circular bulbous ends.
Maucher teaches a C-shaped cutout 8 at the end of a slot 6 having opposing non-circular bulbous ends. This feature serves to reduce stress concentrations at the end of the slit (see at least column 7 lines 62-68). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have looked to Maucher and their C-shaped cutout having opposing non-circular bulbous ends for variations in design of a stress relieving section for use in the spring element of the admitted prior art, as this shape yields the same expectant result of reducing fatigue and stress at the slot end.
Re-claim 20, the first leaf spring includes a first portion and a second portion, the first portion 7a/7b is secured to the body, the stress relieving section is proximal to the first portion, see figure 1.
Re-claim 21, the connecting part (such as part 7) is formed on the first portion of the leaf spring.
Re-claim 22, a remaining part of the first portion extends with respect to the plane of the body along a straight line (such as one of parts 6 or 9).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kajitani shows the same stress relieving feature of Maucher, but as adjacent to another similar feature. Roorda teaches a stress relieving feature 66b having a non-circular formations. Pahrisch teaches a stress relieving feature with ends having different radii.
Any inquiries concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas Williams whose telephone number is 571-272-7128. The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday-Friday from 6:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
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.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-6584.
TJW
May 5, 2026
/THOMAS J WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights