DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09 July 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cliff (US 231,150) in view of Ukai et al. (US 4,753,423).
In Re claim 1, Cliff discloses a coil spring (fig. 1) for an automobile, comprising: a rectangular cross-sectional portion (B) with a rectangular cross-sectional portion having upper and lower planes. Hearle fails to teach an elastic coating.
Ukai et al. is related to the art of coil springs for automobiles, and teach providing a coil spring (1) with a heat-curable thermosetting resin coating (2; Abstract; col. 5, lines 53-54) to prevent/dampen the sound of the coils colliding with each other and provide good corrosion resistance (col. 1, lines 7-11; col. 6, lines 27-29). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the coil spring of Cliff to include a thermosetting resin coating on the coil spring, as taught by Ukai et al., to dampen the sound of the coils colliding with each other during compression, while adding corrosion resistance to the coil spring.
In Re claims 2 and 3, see round cross-sectional portion (C) and cross section varying portion (B – C) of Cliff. Ukai et al. further discuss that the coating may be provided continuously (see fig. 2).
In Re claim 4, see fig. 2 of Cliff. Ukai et al. further discuss that the coating may be provided continuously (see fig. 2).
In Re claims 5, and 9, Ukai et al. further discuss that the coating may be provided continuously (see fig. 2).
In Re claim 7, Ukai et al. further disclose the use of a heat-cured resin, but fail to disclose the specified tear strength characteristics. The examiner points out that these are merely material properties that would be realized and optimized during routine research and development. Therefore, the examiner asserts that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the cured resin coating of Ukai et al. to have any tear strength characteristics, including 20-350 kN/m, as a matter of simple engineering design choice, to optimize the strength, elasticity, and noise dampening of the coating. The examiner further notes that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, and is not patentable (MPEP 2144.05).
In Re claim 8, Ukai et al. fail to disclose the specified shear strength characteristics. The examiner points out that these are merely material properties that would be realized and optimized during routine research and development. Therefore, the examiner asserts that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the coating of Ukai et al. to have any shear strength characteristics, including 6MPa, as a matter of simple engineering design choice, to optimize the strength, elasticity, and noise dampening of the coating. The examiner further notes that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, and is not patentable (MPEP 2144.05).
In Re claims 16-18, see figs 1 and 2 of Cliff, which show different round and rectangular cross-sectional portions, and fig. 2 Ukai et al. which show the coverage of the coating.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cliff (US 231,150) in view of Ukai et al. (US 4,753,423) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hearle (US 338,267).
Claims 13 and 14, Cliff further discloses optionally a round and rectangular cross sectional end portions, but fails to teach that the end portions are formed with a tapered end.
Hearle is related to art of automotive coil springs, and teaches forming a coil spring (A) with a tapered end portion (a). This tapered end allows the otherwise uneven coil spring to sit flat on a spring seat, which allows for even force distribution and reduces the risk of buckling and tilting of the coil spring under load by increasing the stability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the coil spring of Cliff to have a tapered end portion, as taught by Hearle, to allow for even force distribution and reduce the risk of buckling and tilting of the coil spring under load by increasing the stability.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 10-12, 15, 19, and 20 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