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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-19 in the reply filed on 2/9/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected combination, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/9/2026.
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) 1-6, 11, 13-16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5649779 to Martin et al. (hereinafter “Martin”).
-From Claim 1: Martin discloses a spring for a socket joint, comprising:
a radially extending mounting flange 36; and
a finger 42 extending from the radially extending mounting flange, the finger having opposing spring surfaces (see below) separated by an edge portion (shown below), wherein the edge portion of the finger extends to the radially extending mounting flange, the finger extending from a junction end 44 at the radially extending mounting flange to a distal end 48, wherein the finger has an axial shift bend toward the junction end and a load bearing tip 52 toward the distal end.
PNG
media_image1.png
598
655
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reproduced from Martin (Examiner Annotated)
-From Claim 2: Martin discloses wherein each spring surface has a larger area than the edge portion (shown above).
-From Claim 3: Martin discloses wherein the edge portion has a U-shaped segment (see Fig. 5 at 52’).
-From Claim 4: Martin discloses wherein the edge portion has a first bend edge segment and a second bend edge segment (shown below), wherein the first bend edge segment and the second bend edge segment join the finger 42 to the radially extending mounting flange 36 at the axial shift bend.
PNG
media_image2.png
267
427
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Reproduced from Martin (Examiner Annotated)
-From Claim 5: Martin discloses a first notch area (shown below) in the radially extending mounting flange 36 adjacent the first bend edge segment.
PNG
media_image3.png
267
427
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Reproduced from Martin (Examiner Annotated)
-From Claim 6: Martin discloses a second notch area (shown above) in the radially extending mounting flange adjacent the second bend edge segment, wherein the first notch area and the second notch area are symmetrical with respect to a center point of the axial shift bend.
-From Claim 11: Martin discloses wherein the finger 42 is configured as a flex lever arm extending from a center point of the axial shift bend to the load bearing tip 52 (See Annotated Fig. 3 above).
-From Claim 13: Martin discloses wherein the axial shift bend is aligned with an inner diameter of the mounting flange. (the inner diameter represented by the dashed line in Fig. 3)
-From Claim 14: Martin discloses wherein the spring surfaces are an inner spring surface and an outer spring surface, the inner and outer spring surfaces being opposing axially extending surfaces (see annotated Fig. 3 above).
-From Claim 15: Martin discloses wherein the inner spring surface is configured to contact a stud 16 of the socket joint at the load bearing tip. (Col. 4, ll. 5-11)
-From Claim 16: Martin discloses wherein the finger 42 is part of a plurality of fingers, with each finger of the plurality of fingers being radially spaced around the radially extending mounting flange (See Fig. 2).
-From Claim 19: Martin discloses a spring for a socket joint, comprising:
a radially extending mounting flange 36; and
a finger 42 extending from the radially extending mounting flange 36 to a distal end, the finger having opposing spring surfaces (shown below) separated by an edge portion (shown below), wherein the edge portion of the finger extends to the radially extending mounting flange, wherein the finger is configured as a radially extending flex lever arm along a length of the opposing spring surfaces from the radially extending mounting flange to the distal end of the finger.
PNG
media_image1.png
598
655
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reproduced from Martin (Examiner Annotated)
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(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin.
-From Claim 12: Martin does disclose wherein the flex lever arm (of the finger 42) has a radial component (i.e., the length from 50 to 50 on an individual finger as seen in Fig. 2) and an axial component (i.e., the vertical extent of 50 in Fig. 3). However, Martin does not specifically disclose the radial component being 1.5 times larger or more than the axial component.
Changing the ratio of the radial component to the axial component so as to be 1.5x or larger would constitute a mere change in the size/shape of the finger. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make such a change, since a mere change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 and 17-18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to Claim 7, Examiner considers the first and second bend edge segments to be met by the below-identified portions of Martin (as they join the finger 42 to the flange 36 at the axial shift bend, per claim 4).
PNG
media_image2.png
267
427
media_image2.png
Greyscale
But if these are the first and second bend edge segments, there is not a U-shaped segment extending between them, as is required by claim 7.
As to claim 17, the spring of Martin is embedded into a dust boot, and adding bearings on opposing sides of the radially extending mounting flange of the Martin spring (so as to meet the requirements of claim 17) would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at least because it would make no sense to add a bearing on the outside of the dust boot
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, as the cited references include structure similar to that of the presently claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J WILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7324. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm 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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 5712705281. 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.
/DANIEL J WILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678 2/26/2026