Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/612,506

VARIABLE-FORCE COIL SPRING AND PULLING CORD CONTROL DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Mar 21, 2024
Examiner
HANES JR., JOHN
Art Unit
3634
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
UNION WINNER INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
47%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 47% of resolved cases
47%
Career Allow Rate
51 granted / 108 resolved
-4.8% vs TC avg
Strong +39% interview lift
Without
With
+38.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
42 currently pending
Career history
150
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
48.1%
+8.1% vs TC avg
§102
26.1%
-13.9% vs TC avg
§112
23.6%
-16.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 108 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . Specification Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. In the current case, the abstract contains the implied phrase “The present invention further provides”. 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 6 and 13 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. The terms “quickly” and “slowly” in claims 6 and 13 are relative terms which render the claims indefinite. The terms “quickly” and “slowly” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-4, and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pat. 11,193,328 – Huang et al., hereinafter Huang. Regarding claim 1. Huang discloses a variable-force coil spring (30, fig 11) comprising a central hole (at 23, fig 11) and a band coiled from the central hole outward (See fig 11), the band comprising an inner end located in the central hole (at 23, fig 11), an outer end (at 24, fig 11), and a plurality of sections arranged from the outer end toward the inner end successively (See fig 13), the plurality of sections, from the outer end toward the inner end in order, comprising: an outer end section from the outer end to a first length (See annotated fig 13); a first force descending section generating gradually descending elastically restoring force from the first length to a second length (See annotated fig 13); a second force descending section generating gradually descending elastically restoring force from the second length to a third length (See annotated fig 13); and a force maintaining section generating maintained elastically restoring force from the third length to a fourth length (See annotated fig 13). PNG media_image1.png 698 802 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 2. Huang discloses all limitations of claim 1. Huang further discloses the force maintaining section generates consistent elastically restoring force from the third length to the fourth length (See annotated fig 13). Regarding claim 3. Huang discloses all limitations of claim 1. Huang further discloses the force maintaining section generates gradually ascending elastically restoring force from the third length to the fourth length (See annotated fig 13), and an ascending rate of the elastically restoring force of the force maintaining section is smaller than a descending rate of the elastically restoring force of the first force descending section and smaller than a descending rate of the elastically restoring force of the second force descending section (See annotated fig 13). Regarding claim 4. Huang discloses all limitations of claim 1. Huang further discloses a descending rate of the elastically restoring force of the first force descending section is larger than a descending rate of the elastically restoring force of the second force descending section (See annotated fig 13). Regarding claim 7. Huang discloses a pulling cord control device (2, fig 11) comprising: a housing (200, fig 11); at least one cord winding wheel (22, fig 11) and a coil spring winding wheel (24, fig 11), which are disposed in the housing capably of rotating each other (See fig 11); and a variable-force coil spring (30, fig 11) comprising a central hole (at 23, fig 11) and a band coiled from the central hole outward (See fig 11), the band comprising an inner end located in the central hole, an outer end, and a plurality of sections arranged from the outer end toward the inner end successively (See figs 11 and 13), the variable-force coil spring being arranged to be affected by an external force (For example, see fig 12) to be wound onto the coil spring winding wheel from an initial installed status (See fig 11), when the variable-force coil spring is in the initial installed status, the outer end of the band being disposed on the coil spring winding wheel (See fig 11), the sections of the band wound onto the coil spring winding wheel from the initial installed status in order comprising: a first force descending section generating gradually descending elastically restoring force from a first length to a second length (See annotated fig 13); a second force descending section generating gradually descending elastically restoring force from the second length to a third length (See annotated fig 13); and a force maintaining section generating maintained elastically restoring force from the third length to a fourth length (See annotated fig 13). Regarding claim 8. Huang discloses all limitations of claim 7. Huang further discloses the pulling cord control device further comprises a coil spring sleeving wheel (231, fig 11); the at least one cord winding wheel (22, fig 11), the coil spring winding wheel (24, fig 11) and the coil spring sleeving wheel (231, fig 11) are disposed in the housing (200, fig 11) capably of rotating each other (See fig 11); the variable-force coil spring (30, fig 11) is sleeved onto the coil spring sleeving wheel (See fig 11). Regarding claim 9. Huang discloses all limitations of claim 7. Huang further discloses the force maintaining section (See annotated fig 13) of the variable-force coil spring generates consistent elastically restoring force from the third length to the fourth length (See annotated fig 13). Regarding claim 10. Huang discloses all limitations of claim 7. Huang further discloses the force maintaining section (See annotated fig 13) of the variable-force coil spring generates gradually ascending elastically restoring force from the third length to the fourth length (See annotated fig 13), and an ascending rate of the elastically restoring force of the force maintaining section is smaller than a descending rate of the elastically restoring force of the first force descending section and smaller than a descending rate of the elastically restoring force of the second force descending section (See annotated fig 13). Regarding claim 11. Huang discloses all limitations of claim 7. Huang further discloses a descending rate of the elastically restoring force of the first force descending section (See annotated fig 13) of the variable-force coil spring is larger than a descending rate of the elastically restoring force of the second force descending section (See annotated fig 13). 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) 5, 6, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of PG Pub US 2009/0108511 A1 – Bivin et al., hereinafter Bivin. Regarding claim 5. Huang discloses all limitations of claim 1. Huang does not disclose a descending rate of the elastically restoring force of the first force descending section is smaller than a descending rate of the elastically restoring force of the second force descending section. However, Bivin teaches a descending rate of the elastically restoring force of the first force descending section (See annotated fig 8a) is smaller than a descending rate of the elastically restoring force of the second force descending section (See annotated fig 8a). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spring of Huang with the relative rates of Bivin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of allowing for tuning the force to accommodate coverings of different weights. PNG media_image2.png 598 792 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 6. The combination of Huang and Bivin teaches all limitations of claim 5. Huang does not disclose the elastically restoring force of the first force descending section non-linearly descends from the first length to the second length first quickly and then slowly. However, Bivin teaches the elastically restoring force of the first force descending section (See annotated fig 8a) non-linearly descends from the first length to the second length first quickly and then slowly (See annotated fig 8a). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spring of Huang with the non-linear rates of Bivin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of allowing for tuning the force to accommodate coverings of different weights. Regarding claim 12. Huang discloses all limitations of in claim 7. Huang does not disclose a descending rate of the elastically restoring force of the first force descending section of the variable-force coil spring is smaller than a descending rate of the elastically restoring force of the second force descending section. However, Bivin teaches a descending rate of the elastically restoring force of the first force descending section (See annotated fig 8a) of the variable-force coil spring is smaller than a descending rate of the elastically restoring force of the second force descending section (See annotated fig 8a). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spring of Huang with the relative rates of Bivin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of allowing for tuning the force to accommodate coverings of different weights. Regarding claim 13. The combination of Huang and Bivin teaches all limitations of claim 12. Huang does not disclose the elastically restoring force of the first force descending of the variable-force coil spring non-linearly descends from the first length to the second length first quickly and then slowly. However, Bivin teaches the elastically restoring force of the first force descending section (See annotated fig 8a) of the variable-force coil spring non-linearly descends from the first length to the second length first quickly and then slowly (See annotated fig 8a). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spring of Huang with the non-linear rates of Bivin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to yield the predictable result of allowing for tuning the force to accommodate coverings of different weights. 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 JOHN W HANES JR whose telephone number is (571)272-8840. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST. 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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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. /J.W.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 3634 /DANIEL P CAHN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 21, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594443
Safety System with Digital Tracking and Reporting and Method of Use
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590463
PRIVACY SHADE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12577832
A DOOR OPERATION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571254
DOOR ASSEMBLY HAVING A SOFT BOTTOMED DOOR PANEL AND SYSTEM AND METHOD OF DRIVING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565807
RESISTANCE REGULATING DEVICE FOR ROPE-FREE CURTAIN
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
47%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (+38.9%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 108 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month