DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed 12/26/25 has been entered. Claims 1-13 are currently pending, with claims 12-13 being newly added. In light of the substantive claim amendments, the previous rejections are withdrawn. However, revised 103 rejections and objections are 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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “third leaf spring sandwiched between the first leaf spring and the second leaf spring” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). All Figures depict only two leaf springs. While the Detailed Description briefly discusses this feature as a possible embodiment, it is unclear what this “third leaf spring” would be (would it include ears, what will its length/width be, etc.). Given that no new matter should be entered, it is strongly recommended that Applicant cancel this claim.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Molle in view of Han
Claim(s) 1-10 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molle (GB 174066) (cited by Applicant) in view of Han et al. (KR 101783265). Molle is directed to improvements relating to semi-elliptical suspension springs for vehicles. See Abstract. Note: this is an “X” reference in the cited ISR. Han is directed to a leaf spring clip. See Abstract.
Claim 1: Molle discloses a leaf spring structure [Fig. 1], comprising: at least two leaf springs (1, 2), wherein: the at least two leaf springs overlap in a vertical direction; the at least two leaf springs decrease in length gradually from bottom up; and the at least two leaf springs comprise a first leaf spring (1) and a second leaf spring (2), the first leaf spring being longer than the second leaf spring; a leaf spring connecting component (6, 3) configured to fixedly connect body portions of the at least two leaf springs in a length direction; two first lifting ears (4) respectively disposed at two first free ends of the first leaf spring in the length direction; and two second lifting ears (5) respectively disposed at two second free ends of the second leaf spring in the length direction. See Fig. 1.
Molle discloses all the limitations of this claim except for the new limitation that connecting component is “located between a central point of the second leaf spring and one of the two second lifting ears.” Han discloses a plurality of leaf springs (101, 102, 103) with a leaf spring connecting component (110), wherein the leaf spring connecting component is located between a central point of the second leaf spring (101) and one of the two second lifting ears (ears of 101). See Fig. 7. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the location of the Molle connecting component because this would provide space for connection of the leaf spring structure via the ears of the second leaf spring. This improves the versatility of the Molle leaf spring structure.
Claim 2: Molle discloses that the at least two leaf springs have equal width. See Figs. 1, 2 (width of all springs defined by opening width of 6).
Claim 3: Molle discloses that the first leaf spring is disposed at a lowest part of the leaf spring structure. See Fig. 1.
Claim 4: Molle discloses that the second leaf spring is disposed above the first leaf spring. See Fig. 1.
Claim 5: Molle discloses that the second leaf spring and the first leaf spring are adjacent to each other. See Fig. 1.
Claim 6: Molle discloses that the second leaf spring and the first leaf spring are spaced apart from each other. See Fig. 1 (spacing between 4 and 5).
Claim 7: Molle discloses that the first lifting ear and the first leaf spring are integrally formed; and/or the second lifting ear and the second leaf spring are integrally formed. See Fig. 1.
Claim 8: Molle discloses that the first lifting ear and the second lifting ear are circularly or elliptically curved. See Fig. 1.
Claim 9: Molle discloses that in the length direction, the two second lifting ears are located between the two first lifting ears. See Fig. 1.
Claim 10: Molle discloses a suspension structure, comprising the leaf spring structure according to claim 1. See Title.
Claim 12: Molle is relied upon as in claim 1 above. Han further discloses that the leaf springs have equal width. See Fig. 7. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to ensure that the Molle leaf spring have equal width because this would prevent any transverse shifting/movement between the springs when securely placed in the connecting component. Employing springs of the same width is an intuitive design feature to avoid functionality problems. In addition, it would be obvious to try since limited possibilities exist here – either the springs are of the same width or they’re not.
Claim 13: Molle is relied upon as in claim 1 above. Han further discloses that a third leaf spring (102) is sandwiched between the first leaf spring (103) and second leaf spring (101). See Fig. 7. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use a third leaf spring to further achieve the ultimate objective of providing shock absorption in the suspension assembly. See also Drawing objection above.
Molle in view of Han and Seethaler
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molle in view of Han and Seethaler et al. (CN 109070671). Seethaler is directed to a wheel guiding plate for a vehicle suspension. See Abstract.
Claim 11: Molle and Han disclose the use of the leaf spring structure in a suspension structure but do not discuss the specifics of the suspension. Seethaler discloses a leaf spring structure (41, 51) composed of a first leaf spring (41) and a second leaf spring (51), a steering knuckle assembly (21, 2.11, 2.21) and a shock absorber (31) assembly; wherein the first leaf spring is connected to the steering knuckle assembly, and the second leaf spring is connected to the shock absorber assembly. See Fig. 6. Upon combining with the Molle leaf spring structure, the use of the “ears” for connection would be appropriate. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use the Molle leaf spring structure in the Seethaler suspension because Seethaler also employ dual leaf springs for the purpose of connecting two separate assemblies typically found in a vehicle suspension.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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 January 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights