DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed 08/25/26 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 6-11 and 13-21 are currently pending, with claims 5 and 12 being cancelled and independent claim 21 being newly added. Certain 102 rejections are maintained, while other new/revised 102, 103 and 112 rejections of all pending claims are detailed below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 15 are objected to because of the following issue: these claims both refer to the “free movement” of the first structural insert extension and the first rubber isolator pad extension within the orifice of the spring link. But the Detailed Description and Drawings provide no guidance as to what this means precisely and the extent of the free movement. Does “free movement” permit some restrictions on how these extensions can move within the orifice, or are they completely free to move to any extent in the orifice and in all directions? These components can be assembled and disassembled easily (i.e., they’re separable), hence that provides some “free movement.” The Detailed Description discusses how the size of the orifice can “limit the maximum degree of rotation of the coil spring” to 90 degrees, so does this constitute “free movement?” Applicant may consider some additional functional language so it is clear what type of movement is permitted here (rotational?) and how much movement (up to 90 degrees but more than a certain amount?), since a broad application of the claim language can be otherwise be applied. However, Applicant should be careful not to add new matter.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-10 are rejected because claim 1 refers to “the first plurality of extensions” and “the second plurality of extensions” but these terms now lack sufficient antecedent basis, since they were removed from the claim.
Claims 11 and 13-20 are rejected because claim 11 refers to “the second plurality of extensions” but this term now lacks sufficient antecedent basis, since it was removed from the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Bark
Claim(s) 11, 13-14 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bark et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2023/0264534) (previously cited). Bark is directed to a spring pad for a suspension. See Abstract.
Claim 11: Bark discloses a suspension assembly for a vehicle comprising: a coil spring (2) disposed below a chassis of the vehicle; a control arm (3) operably coupled to the coil spring and a wheel of the vehicle; a rubber isolator pad (10) [see para. 0047] for supporting the coil spring; and a structural insert (30) for supporting the coil spring and the rubber isolator pad, wherein the control arm comprises a spring link with an orifice [see Figs. 3A, 3B, 8], wherein the rubber isolator pad is operably coupled to the structural insert and comprises a first plurality of extensions (13, 18, 20), wherein the structural insert comprises a first structural insert extension (40), a second structural insert extension (33, 38), and a base (32), wherein the structural insert engages with the rubber isolator pad and the spring link to limit rotation of the coil spring relative to the control arm responsive to compression cycles via the first plurality of extensions and the first and second structural insert extensions, wherein the first structural insert extension protrudes from the base of the structural insert parallel to a longitudinal axis of the coil spring in a first direction away from the coil spring [see Fig. 7 (40 extends down from 32)], and wherein the second structural insert extension protrudes from the base of the structural insert parallel to the longitudinal axis of the coil spring in a second direction towards the coil spring [see Fig. 7 (33, 38 extends up from 32)]. See Figs. 1, 5, 7, 8.
Claim 13: Bark discloses that the first plurality of extensions comprises a first rubber isolator pad extension (20) and a second rubber isolator pad extension (13, 18), wherein the first rubber isolator pad extension protrudes from the rubber isolator pad in the first direction, and wherein the second rubber isolator pad extension protrudes for the rubber isolator pad in the second direction. See Fig. 1.
Claim 14: Bark discloses that the first structural insert extension and the first rubber isolator pad extension engage the orifice of the spring link, and wherein the second structural insert extension and the second rubber isolator pad extension engage an end of the coil spring. See Figs. 1, 8.
Claim 16: Bark discloses that the structural insert is completely enclosed inside the rubber isolator pad. See Fig. 1.
Claim 17: Bark discloses that the structural insert comprises a guide member (31), wherein the guide member is cylindrical and extends into an interior region of the coil spring. See Fig. 5.
Claim 18: Bark discloses that the base of the structural insert comprises an outer rim with a plurality of apertures, wherein the outer rim and the guide member are operably coupled via a fillet that extends 360 degrees around the guide member. See Figs. 1, 5, 7.
Claim 19: Bark discloses that the first structural insert extension and the second structural insert extension are disposed at an outer edge of the outer rim of the structural insert. See Fig. 5.
Claim 20: Bark discloses that the structural insert limits the coil spring from rotating over 90 degrees from an initial position during operation of the vehicle. See Figs. 1, 5, 7.
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.
Bark in view of Go
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-10 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bark in view of Go et al. (KR 2023 0000194) (attached). Go is directed to a vehicle suspension. See Abstract.
Claim 1: see claims 11 and 13 above. While Bark discloses that the first structural insert extension and the first rubber isolator pad extension engage the orifice [see, e.g., [para. 0104, 0118 (“coupling hole”)] of the spring link, it may not disclose that is has “free movement within the orifice” of the spring link. As discussed in the Claim Objections, supra, it is not entirely clear what this “free movement” includes/excludes – both the type of movement and the extent of the movement. But for the sake of moving prosecution forward, a teaching reference is used here to explicitly show that the pad extensions may exhibit at least some degree of movement within the spring link orifice in a fully assembled state. Go discloses that the isolator pad has a plurality of extensions (220) that has free movement within the orifice (110) of the spring link (100). See Figs. 4-9. Not only is the orifice larger than the extension [see Translation (“The first through-hole 111 is formed to have a larger penetration than the insertion protrusion separation prevention portion 223 so that the insertion protrusion separation prevention portion 223 of the insertion projection portion 220 can be easily inserted”)], but upon insertion, the portion (221) of the extension is significantly smaller than the orifice and can shift to the end (113) of the orifice. See Figs. 8, 9. This shifting of the extensions within the spring link orifice constitute “free movement” within the orifice. 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 Go configuration because this is an alternative connection means between the spring pad and the spring link that further ensures that separation is prevented during use. Specifically, axial forces are much less likely to causes separation between the components in the Go configuration compared to the Bark configuration.
Claim 2: see claim 11 above.
Claims 3-4 and 6-10: see claims 13-14 and 16-20 above, respectively.
Claim 15: see claim 1 above.
Bark in view of JP Ref
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bark in view of JP Ref (JP 5646023) (attached). Go is directed to a suspension device. See Abstract.
Claim 21: Bark discloses a spring isolator pad for a suspension assembly for a vehicle, the spring isolator pad comprising: a control arm (3) comprising a spring link with an orifice; a rubber isolator pad (10) [see para. 0047] operably coupled to the control arm, the rubber isolator pad comprising first, second, and third rubber isolator pad extensions (20, 13, 18); and a structural insert (30) operably coupled to the rubber isolator pad and configured to support a coil spring (2), the structural insert comprising a plurality of extensions (40, 33, 38) and a base (32), wherein the structural insert engages with the rubber isolator pad and the spring link to limit rotation of the coil spring relative to the control arm responsive to compression cycles via the first and second rubber isolator pad extensions and the plurality of extensions of the structural insert.
Bark discloses all the limitations of this claim except for one of the rubber isolator pad extensions being configured to “enclose at least a portion of the coil spring.” JP Ref discloses an isolator pad extension (50) that encloses a portion of the spring (100). See Figs. 2-4. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide this kind of extension in the Bark isolator pad because this ensures properly securing the coil spring to the pad. This hook-type extension axially locks down the spring into place, which further ensures proper functionality of the assembly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 11 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant contends that there are not insert extension that extend in both axial directions from the base of the structural insert. See Remarks, pages 9-10. In response, Bark discloses a first structural insert extension (40) extending away from the coil, and a second structural insert extension (33, 38) extending toward the coil. See Fig. 7. Hence, the rejection is maintained. This was discussed during the Interview with Applicant’s attorney.
No arguments were submitted with regard to new claim 21.
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 September 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights