DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information disclosure statement has been received and considered.
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.
Claim(s) 1,9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Matsubara et al. U.S. 2020/0141463.
Regarding claim 1 Matsubara shows one of applicant’s prior methods of making a coil spring to address the possible causes of the breakage of a compression spring (see Figures 5-9).
In figures 5-9 this issue is addressed by applying electrodes to heat the end turn portions at N1 and N2 to create softening parts (see figures 5,6).
Regarding claim 9 note the first and second seats at 22,23 in figure 2.
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.
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) 2-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsubara et al. U.S. 20200141463 in view of DE 102009011118 A1.
Regarding claim 2 Matsubara lacks specifically showing a second area which is softer than the first area and is adjacent to the first area in a circumferential direction around an axis of the wire, and the surface of the wire in the effective portion comprises the first area over a whole circumference in the circumferential direction.
The reference to DE ‘118 also shows a method of making a coil spring to address the issues of fatigue and cracking due to corrosion of the spring and shows in figures 1,5,6 that the ‘effective portions’ of the spring at 9,10 can be made softer in the circumferential direction. From a reading of the machine translation DE ‘118 indicates that this softer region could extend over the entire circumference of the spring.
Nevertheless one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have modified the method of making a coil spring of Matsubara to include softer regions/portions over the whole circumference of the coil spring, as taught by DE ‘118 to address the issues of fatigue and cracking due to corrosion (as stated in both of the above Documents) dependent upon those areas most susceptible which in turn is dependent upon a specific vehicle and/or application of the spring.
Regarding claims 3 in light of the teachings of DE ‘118 figures 1,5,6 – see elements 2,3,9,10 --these limitations are considered to be met/fairly suggested by Matsubara, as modified.
Regarding claims 4-6 these limitations are considered to be fairly suggested by Matsubara, as modified by DE ‘118, in light of the discussion above.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsubara et al. U.S. 20200141463 in view of Ikai et al. U.S. 2014/0306389.
Regarding claim 10 Matsubara shows one of applicant’s prior methods of making a coil spring to address the possible causes of the breakage of a compression spring (see figures 5-9)..
In figures 5-9 this issue is addressed by applying electrodes to heat the end turn portions at N1 and N2 to create softening parts (see figures 5,6).
Lacking in Matsubara is a specific description of locally applying ‘laser light’ to a surface of the wire in at least a part of the end turn portion and forming a surface on the end turn portion which is softer than the surface of the wire in the effective portion.
The reference to Ikai also shows a method of making a coil spring to improve the fatigue resistance under high stress and reduce production costs where the residual stress changes from the surface of the spring (see fig 4). In para 0040 Ikai indicates that the heating step can be done, alternatively, with a laser.
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found to obvious to have used a laser, known in the art and as taught by Ikai para 0040, as opposed to using electrodes in the coil spring method of Matsubara, simply as the obvious choice of using one heating device over another, dependent upon such well known factors as availability of equipment and production costs.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7,8 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 CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7123. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 A.M.-7:00P.M..
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, Rob 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights