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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claim 5 recites “a plurality of coil portions which are not brought into contact with each other even when the coil spring is compressed to a maximum”. The examiner points out that it is not only entirely possibly to fully compress a coil spring beyond its intended use range of motion, but also rather simple. The term “bottom out” is well known to those of ordinary skill in the vehicle suspension art to describe fully compressing a vehicle suspension to the point where the upper and lower portions collide. It is unclear how such a force is claimed as being impossible on such a spring; and the specification does not adequate provide support for such an almost impossible claim.
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 Hirano (JP S54-052257).
In Re claim 1, Hirano discloses a coil spring comprising: a wire rod (1) with a first end including a flat section portion (1, 4) and a second end including a round section portion (1); and a variable section portion (2) between the flat section portion and round section portion. The examiner points out that the spring has the same shape as applicants, and therefore is understood to have the same polar moment of inertia properties.
In Re claim 2, as discussed above, the spring has the same shape as applicants, and therefore is understood to have the same polar moment of inertia properties.
In Re claim 3, see fig. 3, which appears to show that the flat section portion (above 4) is substantially constant over at least one turn of the coil spring.
In Re claim 4, see first end turn part (1).
In Re claim 5, see round coil section portions (3) which are not in contact with each other.
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 Hirano (JP S54-052257) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nishizawa (US 2018/0215224).
In Re claim 6, Hirano further disclose employing the coil spring in a vehicle suspension, but fail 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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