DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cliff (US 231,150).
In Re claim 1, Cliff discloses a coil spring comprising: a wire rod (fig. 2) with a first end including a flat section portion (C) and a second end including a round section portion (A); and a variable section portion (see c in fig. 1) between the flat section portion and round section portion, wherein the flat section having a substantially constant thickness over one or more turns. The examiner points out that the spring has substantially the same shape as applicants, and therefore is understood to have similar polar moment of inertia properties.
In Re claim 2, as discussed above, the spring has substantially the same shape as applicants, and therefore is understood to have substantially the same polar moment of inertia properties.
In Re claim 3, see figs. 1 and 2, which shows that the flat section portion (B and C) is longer than the variable section portion (see c in fig. 1).
In Re claim 4, see first end turn part (C at bottom of fig. 2).
In Re claim 5, see round coil section portions (see B in fig. 2) which are not in contact with each other vs the flat portion (see lower most coils of C in fig. 2) which would contact each other first.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cliff (US 231,150) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nishizawa (US 2018/0215224).
In Re claim 6, Cliff further discloses employing the coil spring in a vehicle suspension (col. 1, line 9), but fails to disclose the specifics of said suspension.
Nishizawa is related to the art of coils springs and vehicle suspensions. Nishizawa teach using a coil spring (1) with at least one tapered end (25) in a vehicle link motion type suspension (fig. 1) between an upper spring seat (11) and lower spring seat (10) provided on an arm member (3) which moves up and down. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the coil spring of Hirano in a link motion type suspension, as taught by Nishizawa, as it was a well-known design suitable for use in and specifically adapted for use in such a vehicle suspension.
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 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