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 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 3 and 6 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the two protrusions" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 6 lines 2 and 3, it is unclear if the recitations “a spring” and “a spring support member” are intended to reference the previously recited spring and spring support member (see claim 1), or other spring and spring support members.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 10-20558 A to Sato et al.
Re-claim 1, Sato et al. disclose an elastic support member 32/33 (which holds 34) interposed between a spring 11 and a spring support member 39 (see figure 6), the elastic support member comprising: a protrusion 37 protruding from an opposing surface of the elastic support member facing the spring support member, the protrusion is inserted into a through-hole 39a formed in the spring support member 39, the protrusion comprises: a base (this is pin 37) sized, in a direction parallel to the opposing surface, to be smaller than a size of the through-hole and fitted in the through-hole; a lug 38 protrudes outward from an outer periphery of the base, the lug is located opposite the opposing surface with respect to the spring support member when the base is fitted in the through-hole, and the lug comprises a recess between the lug and the base, the recess is depressed away from the opposing surface.
Re-claim 5, a portion of the base 37b located farther from the opposing surface than the lug is sized, in a depth direction of the through-hole, to be larger than a size of the through-hole itself in the depth direction. This allows 37b to pass through the hole.
Re-claim 6, the elastic support member is part of a suspension device comprising the spring and spring support member.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. in view of US 6,726,418 to Dickinson et al.
Re-claims 2 and 3, Sato et al. fail to teach the lug comprising a plurality of lugs provided around the base.
Dickinson et al. teach a fastening lug intended to pass through a hole. The fastener is provided with a plurality of lugs 36 around a base 34, the lugs are provided on opposite sides of the base, a size between outer edges of two protrusions (i.e. lug ends) in a direction parallel to the opposing surface is larger than the size of the through-hole. This allows for a snap type fit in the hole, and for quick assembly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the lug of Sato et al. with a plurality of protrusions on opposing sides of the base with a snap fit configuration of the type taught by Dickinson et al., thus allowing for a quick and efficient assembly process.
Re-claim 4, Sato et al. fail to teach a cross-section of the base in a direction parallel to the opposing surface is larger in a winding direction of the spring than in a radial direction of the spring.
Dickinson et al. teach the lug having a cross-section of a base in a direction parallel to an opposing surface is larger in a radial direction. The lug is formed with a longer length than a width, as in the instant invention. This is seen as a mere engineering choice or design choice. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the lug of Sato et al. with a cross-section of the base in a direction parallel to the opposing surface is larger than in a radial direction as shown in Dickinson et al., as a matter of design choice having no impact on its function. The design when implemented, would have provided the cross-section of the base in a direction parallel to the opposing surface larger in a winding direction of the spring than in a radial direction of the spring.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yamada teaches an elastic support member.
Any inquiries concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Thomas Williams whose telephone number is 571-272-7128.
The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday-Friday from 6:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
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.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding
should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-6584.
TJW /THOMAS J WILLIAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616 July 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights