DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 5-11, 15-24, and 27-30 are pending.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/01/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 04/17/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 11-21 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
The most recent claim objections have been withdrawn in light of the current claim amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 5-10, 22-24, and 27-30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 12/16/2025. These drawings are mostly acceptable. Though the drawings overcome the line quality issues previously presented, a new drawing objection is presented herein.
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
The cross hatching presented in figures 3 are different (and, improper) than what was originally presented on 09/10/2024. “Hatching must be at a substantial angle to the surrounding axes or principal lines, preferably 45°. A cross section must be set out and drawn to show all of the materials as they are shown in the view from which the cross section was taken. The parts in cross section must show proper material(s) by hatching with regularly spaced parallel oblique strokes, the space between strokes being chosen on the basis of the total area to be hatched. The various parts of a cross section of the same item should be hatched in the same manner and should accurately and graphically indicate the nature of the material(s) that is illustrated in cross section. The hatching of juxtaposed different elements must be angled in a different way” — see C.F.R. 1.84, section “h”, subsection “3”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1, 5-10, 22-24, and 27-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 (and, similarly claim 27) cites: “[...] wherein each of the two separate independent wave spring member comprises multiple discrete wave springs that remain axially adjacent but structurally noninterlaced.” The instant specification provides no support for the negative limitations of being not “interlaced” (as recited in both claims 1 and 27) and “interwoven” (as recited in claim 27). “Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure. If alternative elements are positively recited in the specification, they may be explicitly excluded in the claims.” In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1019, 194 USPQ 187, 196 (CCPA 1977) ("[the] specification, having described the whole, necessarily described the part remaining."). Ex parte Grasselli, 231 USPQ 393 (Bd. App. 1983), aff’d mem., 738 F.2d 453 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Due to claims 1 and 27 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, the corresponding dependent claims are also rejected.
Claims 23 and 24 cites specific material(s) (i.e., “Cobalt-Chromium-Nickel-Molybdenum metal alloy” and “Nickel-Chromium alloy made precipitation hardenable by additions of Aluminium and Titanium”, respectively) corresponding to the “wave spring members”. Examiner notes that the instant specification as originally filed does not describe the claimed subject matter in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that the inventor has possession of the claimed invention of the specifically claim materials at the time of filing. The claims require some specific weighted percentage of each of the individual elements claimed in its respective chemical composition. However, the instant specification provides only support for “Inconel X-750® and Elgiloy® in paragraph [0028] of the instant specification. Though the “exotic” trademark names (“Inconel X-750® and Elgiloy®) are supported in paragraph [0028] of the instant specification, the specification itself does not provide written description of the specific chemicals. Examiner notes that incooprating these specifically claimed composition introduces new matter as the chemical constituents (Co, Cr, Ni, etc.) were not explicitly previously introduced in the matter claimed. “An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated.” See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 5-8, 22, and 27-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’amours-Rousseau et al. (US Publication Number 2023/0341021 A1; herein “D’amours-Rousseau”) in view of Pawar et al. (US Publication Number 2022/0399709 A1; herein “Pawar”).
In regard to claim 1, D’amours-Rousseau discloses: A spring assembly (e.g., 200 — figure 2), comprising:
two separate independent wave spring members (as shown in the annotated figure 2 below) positioned proximate one another such that peaks of adjacent ones of the two separate independent wave spring members point toward one another, and valleys of the two separate independent wave spring members point away from one another (paragraphs [0068-0070] and figure 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
941
1077
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, the figure 2 embodiment of D’amours-Rousseau is silent In regard to: one or more anti-rotation features rotationally coupling the two separate independent wave springs together, and further wherein a first of the two independent wave spring members includes two or more separate similarly shaped and similarly rotationally oriented first wave springs and a second of the two independent wave spring members includes two or more separate similarly shaped and similarly rotationally oriented second wave springs, wherein each of the two separate independent wave spring member comprises multiple discrete wave springs that remain axially adjacent but structurally noninterlaced.
Nonetheless, at least the figure 7 embodiment of D’amours-Rousseau has one or more anti-rotation features (e.g., 722) rotationally coupling the two separate independent wave springs together (paragraph [0096] and figure 7).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the wave springs, as taught by the figure 2 embodiment of D’amours-Rousseau, to include for one or more anti-rotation features rotationally coupling the wave springs, as taught by the figure 7 embodiment of D’amours-Rousseau, to prevent relative rotation of these elements (paragraphs [0096-0097] of D’amours-Rousseau).
Furthermore, D’amours-Rousseau is silent in regard to: wherein a first of the two independent wave spring members includes two or more separate similarly shaped and similarly rotationally oriented first wave springs and a second of the two independent wave spring members includes two or more separate similarly shaped and similarly rotationally oriented second wave springs, wherein each of the two separate independent wave spring member comprises multiple discrete wave springs that remain axially adjacent but structurally noninterlaced.
Nonetheless, Pawar teaches stacked (not interlaced) wave springs comprising individual wave springs axially aligned with one another (paragraph [0032] and figure 8). Pawar discloses that thicker wave springs (such as shown in both figures 6 and 8) withstand higher thrust loads (see paragraphs [0031-0032]).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the independent wave spring member(s), as taught by D’amours-Rousseau, to each include for two or more separate similarly shaped and similarly rotationally oriented wave springs, as taught by Pawar, to allow for withstand/accommodate higher thrust loads (paragraph [0031] of Pawar).
In regard to claim 5, D’amours-Rousseau further discloses: wherein the two separate independent wave spring member each extend 360 degrees or less around their axis of rotation (as shown in figure 2).
In regard to claim 6, D’amours-Rousseau teaches claim 1 above.
However, the modification of D’amours-Rousseau is silent in regard to: wherein the two separate independent wave spring member each extend from 270 degrees to 359 degrees around their axis of rotation.
Nonetheless, the figures 9A-B embodiment of D’amours-Rousseau has one or more anti-rotation features to be alignment key slots (930) rotationally coupling a plurality of separate independent wave spring member together (paragraph [0098] and figures 9A-9B). Furthermore, D’amours-Rousseau teaches that the figures 9A-B embodiment can have wave spring(s) extending an undisclosed amount around the axis (figures 9A-9B).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to simply substitute the one or more anti-rotation features of the wave spring members, as taught by the modification of D’amours-Rousseau in the claim 1 rejection, with alignment key slot, as taught by the figures 9A-9B embodiment of D’amours-Rousseau, to yield the predictable result of preventing relative rotation of these elements (paragraphs [0096-0097] of D’amours-Rousseau). See MPEP 2143, section I, subsection B.
Furthermore, since D’amours-Rousseau teaches for the wave spring(s) to have key slots, which intrinsically require a certain amount of space for allowing a “key” to fit therein, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the wave springs to each extend from 270 degrees to 359 degrees around their axis of rotation, since the applicant has not disclosed that claimed feature solves any problem or is for a particular reason. With that being said, it appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well.
In regard to claim 7, D’amours-Rousseau discloses claim 1 above
However, the modification of D’amours-Rousseau is silent in regard to: wherein the one or more anti-rotation features are alignment key slots located in each of the two separate independent wave spring member.
Nonetheless, the figures 9A-B embodiment of D’amours-Rousseau has one or more anti-rotation features to be alignment key slots (930) rotationally coupling a plurality of separate independent wave spring members together (paragraph [0098] and figures 9A-9B).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to simply substitute the one or more anti-rotation features of the wave springs, as taught by the modification of D’amours-Rousseau in the claim 1 rejection, with alignment key slot, as taught by the figures 9A-9B embodiment of D’amours-Rousseau, to yield the predictable result of preventing relative rotation of these elements (paragraphs [0096-0097] of D’amours-Rousseau). See MPEP 2143, section I, subsection B.
In regard to claim 8, in view of the modification of the preceding claim(s), D’amours-Rousseau further discloses: wherein the alignment key slots are rotationally aligned when the two separate independent wave spring member are rotationally coupled together (paragraph [0098]).
In regard to claim 22, D’amours-Rousseau further discloses: wherein the two separate independent wave spring members comprise a metal or metal alloy (paragraphs [0005, 0009, 0064]).
In regard to claim 27, D’amours-Rousseau discloses: A spring assembly (e.g., 200 — figure 2), comprising:
two separate independent wave spring members (as shown in the annotated figure 2 below) positioned proximate one another such that peaks of adjacent ones of the two separate independent wave spring members point toward one another, and valleys of the two separate independent wave spring members point away from one another (paragraphs [0068-0070] and figure 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
941
1077
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, the figure 2 embodiment of D’amours-Rousseau is silent In regard to: one or more anti-rotation features rotationally coupling the two separate independent wave spring members together;
wherein each of the two independent wave spring members comprises two or more discrete wave springs that are axially adjacent and rotationally fixed together;
wherein the discrete wave springs within each independent wave spring member are not interlaced, not interwoven, and do not share turns; and
wherein the two independent wave spring members remain separable from one another.
Nonetheless, at least the figure 7 embodiment of D’amours-Rousseau has one or more anti-rotation features (e.g., 722) rotationally coupling the two separate independent wave springs together (paragraph [0096] and figure 7).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the wave springs, as taught by the figure 2 embodiment of D’amours-Rousseau, to include for one or more anti-rotation features rotationally coupling the wave springs, as taught by the figure 7 embodiment of D’amours-Rousseau, to prevent relative rotation of these elements (paragraphs [0096-0097] of D’amours-Rousseau).
Furthermore, D’amours-Rousseau is silent in regard to: wherein each of the two independent wave spring members comprises two or more discrete wave springs that are axially adjacent and rotationally fixed together;
wherein the discrete wave springs within each independent wave spring member are not interlaced, not interwoven, and do not share turns; and
wherein the two independent wave spring members remain separable from one another.
Nonetheless, Pawar teaches stacked (not interlaced and interwoven) wave springs comprising individual wave springs axially aligned with one another (paragraph [0032] and figure 8). Pawar discloses that thicker wave springs (such as shown in both figures 6 and 8) withstand higher thrust loads (see paragraphs [0031-0032]).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the independent wave spring member(s), as taught by D’amours-Rousseau, to each include for two or more separate similarly shaped and similarly rotationally oriented wave springs, as taught by Pawar, to allow for withstand/accommodate higher thrust loads (paragraph [0031] of Pawar).
In regard to claim 28, D’amours-Rousseau further discloses: wherein the discrete wave springs within each independent wave spring member are fixed together solely by the one or more anti-rotation features (as taught by the modification presented in the claim 27 rejection herein).
In regard to claim 29, D’amours-Rousseau further discloses: wherein each independent wave spring member extends 360 degrees or less about its axis of rotation (as shown in figure 2).
In regard to claim 30, D’amours-Rousseau further discloses: wherein the anti-rotation features comprise alignment key slots or clips (720) positioned between adjacent peaks (paragraph [0096]).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’amours-Rousseau et al. (US Publication Number 2023/0341021 A1; herein “D’amours-Rousseau”) in view of Pawar et al. (US Publication Number 2022/0399709 A1; herein “Pawar”) in further view of Theuer (DE 2010 043 703 A1; herein “Theuer”).
In regard to claim 9, D’amours-Rousseau in view of Pawar discloses claim 1 above.
However, D’amours-Rousseau is silent in regard to: wherein the one or more anti-rotation features are one or more clips or straps rotationally coupling the two separate independent wave spring member together.
Nonetheless, Theuer has one or more anti-rotation features to be one or more clips or straps (2) rotationally coupling a plurality of separate independent wave spring member together (paragraphs [0028, 0032-0033] and figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to simply substitute the one or more anti-rotation features of the wave springs, as taught by D’amours-Rousseau, with clips or straps, as taught by Theuer, to yield the predictable result of providing an alternative coupling means of wave springs, meeting the same end-result/configuration. See MPEP 2143, section I, subsection B.
In regard to claim 10, in view of the modification of the preceding claim(s), Theuer further discloses: wherein the one or more clips or straps couple between the adjacent peaks of the adjacent ones of the two separate independent wave spring members (paragraphs [0028, 0032-0033] and figure 2).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’amours-Rousseau et al. (US Publication Number 2023/0341021 A1; herein “D’amours-Rousseau”) in view of Pawar et al. (US Publication Number 2022/0399709 A1; herein “Pawar”) in further view of Greenhill et al. (US Patent Number 5,639,074; herein “Greenhill”).
In regard to claim 23, D’amours-Rousseau in view of Pawar discloses the preceding claim.
However, the modification of D’amours-Rousseau in view of Pawar is/are silent in regard to: wherein the two separate independent wave spring members comprise a nickel-chromium metal alloy.
Nonetheless, claim 9 of Greenhill cites: “[...] wherein said first and second constituent wave springs are formed from a metal chosen from the group consisting essentially of: carbon steels, stainless steels, copper alloys or nickel-chromium alloys.”
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the metal/metal alloy spring(s) material, as taught by D’amours-Rousseau, to be made of nickel-chromium metal alloy, as taught by Greenhill, since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose (i.e., dampen/bias) is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’amours-Rousseau et al. (US Publication Number 2023/0341021 A1; herein “D’amours-Rousseau”) in view of Pawar et al. (US Publication Number 2022/0399709 A1; herein “Pawar”) in further view of Aleshin et al. (US Publication Number 2022/0238241 A1; herein “Aleshin”).
In regard to claim 24, the modification of D’amours-Rousseau in view of Pawar teaches the preceding claim(s).
However, the modification of D’amours-Rousseau in view of Pawar is/are silent in regard to: wherein the two separate independent wave spring members comprise an age hardened nickel-chromium metal alloy.
Nonetheless, paragraph [0043] of Aleshin cites: “[...] Belleville washer spring 134 may be made of high-strength, corrosion-resistant age-hardenable alloy such as nickel chromium material that can be readily fabricated into complex parts”.
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the metal/metal alloy wave spring material, as taught by D’amours-Rousseau, to be age-hardenable nickel-chromium metal alloy, as taught by Aleshin, since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose (i.e., dampen/bias) is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Furthermore, the added benefit is that its properties are high-strength, corrosion-resistant (paragraph [0043] of Aleshin).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEEL PATEL whose telephone number is (469)295-9168. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00AM-5:00PM CST.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571) 270-7741. 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.
/NEEL GIRISH PATEL/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676