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 .
Response to Amendment
1. Claim set filed 5/19/2026 has been entered, wherein claims 16-35 are pending. Accordingly, claims 16-35 have been examined herein. The previous specification objections have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments. This action is Final.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 2/3/2026, 5/19/2026, 6/1/2026 and 6/12/2026 were filed prior to the mailing date of this action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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 16-17, 23 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (CN 210150076).
Regarding claim 16, Wang teaches a spring carrier for receiving, retaining, and discharging of a coil spring in a manufacturing process (fig. 1), the spring carrier comprising:
an elongate hollow body (fig. 1, tube 3) defining an inner cavity configured to receive the coil spring (fig. 1, wherein spring 7 is received in tube 3);
an opening at a first proximal end of the hollow body (see annotated fig. 3 below) for insertion of the coil spring into the inner cavity and extraction of the coil spring from the inner cavity (see annotated fig. 3 below, the annotated opening is capable of providing insertion of the spring into the inner cavity and extraction of the spring from the inner cavity); and
the hollow body including a second distal end opposite to the first proximal end (see annotated fig. 3 below),
PNG
media_image1.png
590
758
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the hollow body includes a magnetic member (fig. 3, magnet 10) configured to magnetically attract and retain the coil spring when the coil spring is located within the inner cavity (fig. 1, third to last paragraph on page 1 of the attached translation).
Regarding claim 17, Wang teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 16. Additionally, Wang teaches wherein the magnetic member is provided proximate to the second distal end of the hollow body (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 23, Wang teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 16. Additionally, Wang teaches wherein the magnetic member comprises a permanent magnet (fig. 3, magnet block 10).
Regarding claim 27, Wang teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 16. Additionally, Wang teaches comprising an aperture at the second distal end of the hollow body (fig. 3, through hole 8 is interpreted as the aperture).
Regarding claim 28, Wang teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 27. Additionally, Wang teaches wherein the hollow body comprises one or more protrusions (fig. 3, structure indicated by element 9 is interpreted as a protrusion) extending inwardly at least partially across the aperture at the second distal end of the hollow body (as shown in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 29, Wang teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 16. Additionally, Wang teaches comprising at least one window (fig. 3, wherein through hole 8 is interpreted as a window) in a side wall of the hollow body (fig. 3) to allow the coil spring located within the spring carrier to be visible from outside the spring carrier through the at least one window (the through hole 8 provides the capability of allowing the coil spring located within the spring carrier to be visible from outside the spring carrier through the through hole).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 210150076).
Regarding claim 35, Wang teaches a method of manipulating a coil spring using a spring carrier for receiving, retaining, and discharging of the coil spring in a manufacturing assembly process (fig. 1), the spring carrier comprising an elongate hollow body (fig. 1, tube 3) defining an inner cavity (fig. 1), an opening at a first proximal end of the hollow body (see annotated fig. 3 below), the hollow body including a second distal end opposite to the first proximal end (see annotated fig. 3 below), and a magnetic member (fig. 3, magnet 10) provided proximate to the second distal end of the hollow body (fig. 1 and 3), the method comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
590
758
media_image1.png
Greyscale
inserting the coil spring into the inner cavity (fig. 1, last four paragraphs on page 1 of the attached translation); and
magnetically attracting and retaining, with the magnetic member, the coil spring within the inner cavity (fig. 1, third to last paragraph on page 1 of the attached translation).
Wang does not explicitly teach inserting the coil spring into the inner cavity through the opening at the first proximal end of the hollow body.
However, Wang teaches the springs are accommodated in the cavity one by one vertically (page 1 of the attached translation, last four paragraphs). When inserting the springs into the cavity, there are a finite number of insertion openings to allow the springs to be accommodated in the cavity which include the opening at the first proximal end of the hollow body and the opening at the second distal end of the hollow body.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success of attempting either insertion opening since both insertion openings perform equally well in the same function of allowing the springs to be loaded in the cavity. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to insert the coil spring into the inner cavity through the opening at the first proximal end of the hollow body since it has been held that “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that is was obvious under 103” (MPEP 2143 E).
Claims 18-22, 24-25 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 210150076) in view of Seok et al. (KR 20100104918), hereinafter Seok.
Regarding claim 18, Wang teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 17. Wang does not explicitly teach wherein the magnetic member is disposed within the inner cavity.
However, Seok teaches a work holding device that includes an electromagnet wherein the magnet member (fig. 2, primary coil 300, page 3 of the attached translation, fifth paragraph from bottom) is disposed within the inner cavity (fig. 2, wherein the primary coil 300 is disposed within the inner cavity of work holding device 100).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang to incorporate the teachings of Seok to provide wherein the magnetic member is disposed within the inner cavity. Specifically, it would have been obvious to provide wherein the magnetic member is disposed within the inner cavity of Wang. Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known magnet configuration (of Seok) for another known magnet configuration (of Wang) to obtain the predictable results of providing a magnet to aid in holding a workpiece.
Regarding claim 19, Wang, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 18. Additionally, Wang, as modified, teaches wherein the magnetic member comprises a permanent magnet (permanent magnet of fig. 1 and 3 of Wang).
Regarding claims 20 and 21, Wang, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 18. Wang, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the magnetic member comprises a magnetic material capable of induced magnetism, wherein the magnetic member comprises an electromagnet.
However, Seok additionally teaches wherein the magnetic member comprises a magnetic material capable of induced magnetism (coil 500, forming an induced current by electromagnetic induction, page 4 of the attached translation, fifth paragraph from bottom), wherein the magnetic member comprises an electromagnet (primary coil 300, fifth paragraph from bottom on page 3 of the attached translation). Overall, Seok teaches of a magnetic member that utilizes an electromagnet 300 and a magnetic material 500 capable of induced magnetism.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Wang, as modified, to incorporate the additional teachings of Seok to provide wherein the magnetic member comprises a magnetic material capable of induced magnetism, wherein the magnetic member comprises an electromagnet. Specifically, it would have been obvious to include wherein the magnetic member of Wang is an electromagnet and a magnetic material capable of induced magnetism. Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known magnet means (of Seok) for another known magnet means (of Wang) to obtain the predictable results of providing a magnet member to selectively retain the workpiece.
Regarding claim 22, Wang teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 16. Wang does not explicitly teach wherein the magnetic member is disposed within the inner cavity.
However, Seok teaches a work holding device that includes an electromagnet wherein the magnet member (fig. 2, primary coil 300, page 3 of the attached translation, fifth paragraph from bottom) is disposed within the inner cavity (fig. 2, wherein the primary coil 300 is disposed within the inner cavity of work holding device 100).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang to incorporate the teachings of Seok to provide wherein the magnetic member is disposed within the inner cavity. Specifically, it would have been obvious to provide wherein the magnetic member is disposed within the inner cavity of Wang. Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known magnet configuration (of Seok) for another known magnet configuration (of Wang) to obtain the predictable results of providing a magnet to aid in holding a workpiece.
Regarding claims 24 and 25, Wang teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 16. Wang does not explicitly teach wherein the magnetic member comprises a magnetic material capable of induced magnetism, wherein the magnetic member comprises an electromagnet.
However, Seok teaches a work holding device that includes an electromagnet wherein the magnetic member comprises a magnetic material capable of induced magnetism (coil 500, forming an induced current by electromagnetic induction, page 4 of the attached translation, fifth paragraph from bottom), wherein the magnetic member comprises an electromagnet (primary coil 300, fifth paragraph from bottom on page 3 of the attached translation). Overall, Seok teaches of a magnetic member that utilizes an electromagnet 300 and a magnetic material 500 capable of induced magnetism.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang to incorporate the teachings of Seok to provide wherein the magnetic member comprises a magnetic material capable of induced magnetism, wherein the magnetic member comprises an electromagnet. Specifically, it would have been obvious to include wherein the magnetic member of Wang is an electromagnet and a magnetic material capable of induced magnetism. Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known magnet means (of Seok) for another known magnet means (of Wang) to obtain the predictable results of providing a magnet member to selectively retain the workpiece.
Regarding claim 31, Wang teaches an apparatus comprising:
a spring carrier (fig. 1) comprising:
an elongate hollow body (fig. 1, tube 3) defining an inner cavity configured to receive a coil spring (fig. 1, wherein spring 7 is received in tube 3);
an opening at a first proximal end of the hollow body (see annotated fig. 3 below) for insertion of the coil spring into the inner cavity and extraction of the coil spring from the inner cavity (see annotated fig. 3 below, the annotated opening is capable of providing insertion of the spring into the inner cavity and extraction of the spring from the inner cavity);
the hollow body including a second distal end opposite to the first proximal end (see annotated fig. 3 below),
PNG
media_image1.png
590
758
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the hollow body includes a magnetic member (fig. 3, magnet 10) configured to magnetically attract and retain the coil spring when the coil spring is located within the inner cavity (fig. 1, third to last paragraph on page 1 of the attached translation).
Wang does not explicitly teach an electromagnet configured for placement proximate the spring carrier and configured to generate a magnetic field to make the magnetic member an induced magnet.
However, Seok teaches a work holding device that includes an electromagnet wherein the magnetic member comprises a magnetic material capable of induced magnetism (coil 500, forming an induced current by electromagnetic induction, page 4 of the attached translation, fifth paragraph from bottom), wherein the magnetic member comprises an electromagnet (primary coil 300, fifth paragraph from bottom on page 3 of the attached translation). Overall, Seok teaches of a magnetic member that utilizes an electromagnet 300 and a magnetic material 500 capable of induced magnetism.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang to incorporate the teachings of Seok to provide wherein the magnetic member comprises a magnetic material capable of induced magnetism, wherein the magnetic member comprises an electromagnet. Specifically, it would have been obvious to include wherein the magnetic member of Wang is an electromagnet and a magnetic material capable of induced magnetism. Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known magnet means (of Seok) for another known magnet means (of Wang) to obtain the predictable results of providing a magnet member to selectively retain the workpiece.
In summary, Wang, as modified, teaches an electromagnet (as incorporated from Seok) configured for placement proximate the spring carrier (as taught by Wang) and configured to generate a magnetic field (electromagnet as incorporated from Seok) to make the magnetic member an induced magnet (as incorporated from Seok).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 210150076) in view of Seok et al. (KR 20100104918), hereinafter Seok, as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of Eto (US Patent 6119322) and Chevallier (US PGPUB 20110016681).
Regarding claim 32, Wang, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 31. Additionally, Wang, as modified, teaches an assembly system comprising the apparatus of claim 31 (see above rejection of claim 31).
Wang, as modified, does not explicitly teach the assembly system further comprising:
a coil spring manufacturing machine, wherein the coil spring manufacturing machine is configured to produce the coil spring, and
an insertion station arranged to feed the produced coil spring into the spring carrier.
However, Eto teaches a coil spring producing apparatus including a coil spring manufacturing machine (fig. 1-5), wherein the coil spring manufacturing machine is configured to produce the coil spring (fig. 4-5).
Additionally, Chevallier teaches a device for handling springs, including an insertion station (fig. 6) arranged to feed the produced coil spring into the spring carrier (fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Wang, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Eto and Chevallier to provide the assembly system further comprising: a coil spring manufacturing machine, wherein the coil spring manufacturing machine is configured to produce the coil spring, and an insertion station arranged to feed the produced coil spring into the spring carrier. Specifically, it would have been obvious to utilize the spring conveying device in conjunction with a manufacturing machine (as taught by Eto) and an insertion station (as taught by Chevallier), wherein springs are produced and inserted into the spring carrier of Wang, as modified. Doing so would provide additional springs for the apparatus of Wang, thereby avoiding downtime of waiting on more springs. Additionally, doing so would provide streamlined operations which promotes the savings of time.
Claims 26 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 210150076) in view of Chevallier (US PGPUB 20110016681).
Regarding claim 26, Wang teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 16. Wang does not explicitly teach wherein the hollow body includes a flange at the first proximal end of the hollow body and extending radially outwardly from the hollow body.
However, Chevallier teaches a device for handling a spring article, wherein the device includes a hollow body (fig. 2), wherein the hollow body includes a flange (collar 16, fig. 2) at the first proximal end of the hollow body (fig. 2) and extending radially outwardly from the hollow body (fig. 2). Additionally, Chevallier teaches the collar 16 is utilized to support the device by the respective collar [0058].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang to incorporate the teachings of Chevallier to provide wherein the hollow body includes a flange at the first proximal end of the hollow body and extending radially outwardly from the hollow body. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate a flange at the first proximal end of the hollow body of Wang, wherein the flange extends radially outwardly from the hollow body (as taught by Chevallier). Doing so would provide a structure to mount, grip and support the spring carrier (as taught by [0058] of Chevallier), thereby promoting increased stability and preventing damage of the workpieces due to slipping of the carrier.
Regarding claim 30, Wang teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 16. Wang does not explicitly teach wherein the opening at the first proximal end of the hollow body comprises a tapered region such that the opening widens towards the first proximal end.
However, Chevallier teaches a device for handling a spring article, wherein the device includes a hollow body (fig. 2), wherein the opening at the first proximal end of the hollow body comprises a tapered region (fig. 2, region 10.sub.5) such that the opening widens towards the first proximal end (fig. 2). Additionally, Chevallier teaches the portion that flares makes it easier to insert an article 13 in to the housing 12. Specifically, this is the above described fifth zone 10.sub.5 [0056].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang to incorporate the teachings of Chevallier to provide wherein the opening at the first proximal end of the hollow body comprises a tapered region such that the opening widens towards the first proximal end. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate a tapered region that widens towards the first proximal end (as taught by Chevallier). Doing so would make it easier to insert the workpiece into the device (paragraph 0056 of Chevallier).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 210150076) in view of Lang et al. (US PGPUB 20100101581), hereinafter Lang.
Regarding claim 33, Wang teaches an apparatus comprising:
a spring carrier (fig. 1) comprising:
an elongate hollow body (fig. 1, tube 3) defining an inner cavity configured to receive a coil spring (fig. 1, wherein spring 7 is received in tube 3);
an opening at a first proximal end of the hollow body (see annotated fig. 3 below) for insertion of the coil spring into the inner cavity and extraction of the coil spring from the inner cavity (see annotated fig. 3 below, the annotated opening is capable of providing insertion of the spring into the inner cavity and extraction of the spring from the inner cavity);
the hollow body including a second distal end opposite to the first proximal end (see annotated fig. 3 below),
PNG
media_image1.png
590
758
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the hollow body includes a magnetic member (fig. 3, magnet 10) configured to magnetically attract and retain the coil spring when the coil spring is located within the inner cavity (fig. 1, third to last paragraph on page 1 of the attached translation).
Wang does not explicitly teach
an airflow generator configured to generate a flow of air into the hollow body to facilitate extraction of the coil spring from the hollow body.
However, Lang teaches a tool for manufacturing and handling a workpiece, wherein the workpiece 20 (fig. 9) is extracted/removed from the tool (fig. 9) via applying pressurized air through duct 52 and nozzles 54 [0066]. Overall, Lang teaches applying pressurized air through duct and nozzles in order to extract/remove a workpiece from the tool.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang to incorporate the teachings of Lang to provide applying pressurized air through ducts and nozzles in order to extract/remove a workpiece from the tool. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate applying pressurized air to the tool of Wang via ducts and nozzles in order to aid in removing the workpiece 7 from the tool 3 of Wang. Doing so would prevent the springs from inadvertently being laterally wedged inside the cavity, thereby promoting quality of the product by ensuring springs are delivered and placed as intended. Additionally, doing so would prevent down time due to jams in the supply tube 3 of Wang.
In summary, Wang, as modified, teaches an airflow generator (incorporated pressurized air applying means including nozzles and ducts, as incorporated from Lang) configured to generate a flow of air (as taught by Lang) into the hollow body (of Wang) to facilitate extraction of the coil spring from the hollow body (of Wang, wherein the pressurized air extraction means of Lang was incorporated into Wang in order to aid in facilitating extraction of the spring from the hollow body of Wang).
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 210150076) in view of Lang et al. (US PGPUB 20100101581), hereinafter Lang, as applied to claim 33 above, and further in view of Eto (US Patent 6119322) and Chevallier (US PGPUB 20110016681).
Regarding claim 34, Wang, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 33. Additionally, Wang, as modified, teaches an assembly system comprising the apparatus of claim 33 (see above rejection of claim 33).
Wang, as modified, does not explicitly teach the assembly system further comprising:
a coil spring manufacturing machine, wherein the coil spring manufacturing machine is configured to produce the coil spring, and
an insertion station arranged to feed the produced coil spring into the spring carrier.
However, Eto teaches a coil spring producing apparatus including a coil spring manufacturing machine (fig. 1-5), wherein the coil spring manufacturing machine is configured to produce the coil spring (fig. 4-5).
Additionally, Chevallier teaches a device for handling springs, including an insertion station (fig. 6) arranged to feed the produced coil spring into the spring carrier (fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Wang, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Eto and Chevallier to provide the assembly system further comprising: a coil spring manufacturing machine, wherein the coil spring manufacturing machine is configured to produce the coil spring, and an insertion station arranged to feed the produced coil spring into the spring carrier. Specifically, it would have been obvious to utilize the spring conveying device in conjunction with a manufacturing machine (as taught by Eto) and an insertion station (as taught by Chevallier), wherein springs are produced and inserted into the spring carrier of Wang, as modified. Doing so would provide additional springs for the apparatus of Wang, thereby avoiding downtime of waiting on more springs. Additionally, doing so would provide streamlined operations which promotes the savings of time.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed 5/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Wang fails to teach the language of “insertion of the coil spring into an inner cavity and extraction of the coil spring from the inner cavity” as recited in claim 16 (page 7 of Applicant’s remarks). Specifically, Applicant argues the asserted “opening at a first proximal end” is not for “insertion… and extraction”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the prior art fails to teach “insertion… and extraction”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Specifically, the structure of Wang is capable of performing the intended use language of “for insertion of the coil spring into the inner cavity and extraction of the coil spring from the inner cavity”. Therefore, the prior art teaches the language of claim 16. The examiner recommends amending claim 16 to structurally differentiate from the prior art. See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues Wang fails to teach wherein the hollow body includes “a magnetic member”. Specifically, Applicant argues the translational mechanism is fundamentally different form a hollow body that “includes a magnetic member”. Applicant argues the asserted magnet block is not configured to attract and retain the coil spring and Wang relies on rod 9 to carry out the function. Applicant argues Wang’s magnet block generates friction and works with the convex rod (page 9 of Applicant’s remarks). The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the prior art fails to teach “attract and retain the coil spring”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Specifically, the magnet block of Wang qualifies as “wherein the hollow body includes a magnetic member” because the claim language does not specifically recite how the magnetic member is attached or mounted. Therefore, the magnet block of Wang is interpreted as a magnetic member of the hollow body. The magnet block of Wang is partially responsible for performing the intended use language of magnetically attract and retain the coil spring. That is the device of Wang is capable of performing wherein the coil spring is (at least partially) magnetically attracted and retained when the coil spring is located within the inner cavity. Applicant even cites the teachings of Wang including wherein the magnet block presses the spring against the inner wall of the conveying pipe to generate friction to limit the fall of the coil spring. The magnet continues to attract and retain the spring against the inner wall in conjunction with the rod 9. Overall, the prior art is capable of performing the intended use language. The examiner recommends amending claim 16 to structurally differentiate from the prior art. See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues claims 17, 23 and 27-29 are allowable by virtue of dependency. However, claim 16 has been rejected above. Claims 17, 23 and 27-29 have been rejected accordingly. See above rejection for more details .
Regarding claim 35, Applicant argues the prior art fails to teach the hollow body including a magnetic member. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The magnet block of Wang qualifies as “wherein the hollow body includes a magnetic member” because the claim language does not specifically recite how the magnetic member is attached or mounted. Therefore, the magnet block of Wang is interpreted as a magnetic member of the hollow body. See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues one would not have been motivated to modify Wang’s conveying pipe to include the magnetic block 10. Applicant argues modifying Wang to be included on the pipe would reduce the functionality of Wang (page 10 of Applicant’s remarks). The examiner respectfully disagrees. The magnet block of Wang qualifies as “wherein the hollow body includes a magnetic member” because the claim language does not specifically recite how the magnetic member is attached or mounted. Therefore, the magnet block of Wang is interpreted as a magnetic member of the hollow body. See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues Wang does not discuss magnetically attracting and retaining, by the magnetic member, the coil spring within the inner cavity. Applicant argues the skilled person is taught away from using the magnetic block without the convex rod. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Wang was not modified to use the magnetic block without the convex rod. Additionally, as detailed above with respect to the arguments of claim 16, Wang’s magnet (at least partially) magnetically attracts and retains the coil spring in the inner cavity. See above response to arguments for more details. See above rejection for more details.
Applicant argues Seok does not cure the deficiencies of Wang with respect to the independent claims. However, Seok was not relied upon to cure the deficiencies of the independent claims. See above rejection and response to arguments for more details.
Applicant argues incorporating Seok’s coil would fundamentally alter the operation of Wang’s conveying pipe because the magnet would not translate through and out of the hole and would be less versatile. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that Wang’s device would be fundamentally altered, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
The modification was not conducted via bodily incorporation. Substituting Seok’s magnet configuration would continue to allow the device of Wang to continue to selectively magnetically attract and retain the coil spring when the coil spring is located within the inner cavity. See above rejection for more details.
Regarding the rest of the independent and dependent claims, Applicant argues claims are allowable for similar reasons as argued above, wherein the additionally cited prior art does not cure the deficiencies of Wang. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional references were not relied upon to teach the intended use language as argued above. Rather, Wang was relied upon to teach the intended use language as argued above. See above response to arguments. The remaining independent claims and dependent claims have been rejected accordingly. See above rejection for more details.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MICHAEL A GUMP whose telephone number is (571)272-2172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00-5:30.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
/MICHAEL A GUMP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights