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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-18 are pending in this application. This communication is the first action on its merits.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 and 16-18 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the following limitation, “wherein the pitch of”. The limitation of pitch lacks proper antecedent basis as there is no prior mention of “the pitch” within the claim. Examiner suggests correcting this limitation to recite, “wherein a pitch of”. Further Claims 2-13 recite, within the preamble, “a spring according to”. The spring has previously been mentioned in Claim 1. Examiner suggests correcting this limitation to recite, “[[a]] the spring according to”. Further Claims 16-18 recite, within the preamble, “a method according to”. The method has previously been mentioned in Claim 15. Examiner suggests correcting this limitation to recite, “[[a]] the method according to”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Spinks (US 6523812 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Spinks discloses a coil spring (spring unit 80) for use in a resilient unit, the spring comprising a plurality of coils about a spring axis, extending from a first axial end to a second axial end (See Fig. 5, springs 90, 92, 94), and having at least first and second substantially co-axial spring portions (See Fig. 5, springs 90, 92, 94 along same axis) and a transition portion therebetween (See Fig. 5, pocket 86), wherein the pitch of the transition portion is less than the pitch of the first and second spring portions (See Fig. 5, pitch of spring 92 is less than the pitch of springs 90, 94).
PNG
media_image1.png
234
198
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Spinks discloses a spring (spring unit 80) according to claim 1, wherein the first and second spring portions comprise a common length of spring material (See Fig. 5, springs 90 and 94 of common length), more preferably of wire.
Regarding Claim 3, Spinks discloses a spring (spring unit 2) according to claim 1, wherein the first and second spring portions and the transition portion comprise a substantially continuous wire (See Fig. 1, springs 12, 14 and web 6 substantially continuous).
PNG
media_image2.png
300
220
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Spinks discloses a spring (spring unit 80) according to claim 1, wherein the first spring portion comprises a first number of coils and the second spring portion comprises a second number of coils (turns) and the transition portion comprises a third number of coils (See Fig. 5, springs 90, 92, 94 having a number of coils).
Regarding Claim 5, Spinks discloses a spring (spring unit 80) according to any of the preceding claims, wherein the average pitch of the coil(s) of the transition portion is less than the average pitch of the coils of the first and/or the second spring portions (See Fig. 5, average pitch of spring 92 is less than the average pitch of springs 90 and 94).
Regarding Claim 6, Spinks discloses a spring (spring unit 80) according to claim 1, wherein the first and second spring portions comprise substantially the same shape, which shape is one of (but not limited to): cylindrical, barrel-shaped, conical or hourglass (See Fig. 5, springs 90, 92, 94 having the same cylindrical shape).
Regarding Claim 7, Spinks discloses a spring (spring unit 40) portion according to claim 1, wherein the diameters of the first and second spring portions, and also of the transition portion, are substantially the same (See Fig. 3, springs 54, 56, 58 having same diameter).
PNG
media_image3.png
284
226
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9, Spinks discloses a spring (spring unit 80) according to claim 1, wherein the transition portion comprises at least one substantially flat coil portion (See Fig. 5, spring 92 having substantially flat coil portions towards webs 96 and 98).
Regarding Claim 10, Spinks discloses a spring portion (spring unit 80) according to Claim 9, wherein the or each substantially flat coil portion comprises a substantially flat portion of a coil or a substantially flat coil (See Fig. 5, spring 92 having substantially flat coil portions towards webs 96 and 98).
Regarding Claim 11, Spinks discloses a spring (spring unit 80) according to claim 1, wherein the spring is encased within a pocket (See Fig. 5, springs 90, 92, 94 encased within pockets 84, 86, 88)
Regarding Claim 12, Spinks discloses a spring (spring unit 80) according to claim 1, wherein all of the coils are spaced from one another (See Fig. 5, coils of springs 90, 92, 94 spaced apart).
Regarding Claim 13, Spinks discloses a resilient unit comprising an array of springs (spring unit 80) according to claim 1, in, or as part of, an upholstered article, such as a mattress, seat, pad or panel (“spring unit for use in a sprung unit such as a bed, divan bed, mattress, or other upholstered unit”; [Abstract]).
Regarding Claim 14, Spinks discloses an upholstered article, such as a mattress, seat, pad or panel (See Fig. 7, sprung unit 120), incorporating one or more springs (spring units 20) according claim 1.
PNG
media_image4.png
274
518
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 15, Spinks discloses a method of making a coil spring (spring unit 80), the method comprising producing coils of a first pitch, then reducing the pitch followed by increasing the pitch (See Fig. 5, pitch of spring 92 is less than the pitch of springs 90, 94).
Regarding Claim 16, Spinks discloses a method according to Claim 15, the method comprising producing a first spring portion then a transition portion then a second spring portion (See Fig. 5, springs 90, 92, 94).
Regarding Claim 17, Spinks discloses a method according to Claim 15, wherein the method comprises providing a substantially reduced pitch region at a transition portion of the spring, between the first and second spring portions (See Fig. 5, pitch of spring 92 is less than the pitch of springs 90, 94).
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.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spinks (US 6523812 B1) in view of Clare (US 20140250602 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Spinks discloses a spring portion (spring unit 80) according to claim 1.
Spinks fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first and second spring portions are of different shape.
However, Clare teaches wherein the first and second spring portions are of different shape (See Fig. 3, springs 22, 26, 30 are helical coil springs while springs 24, 28 are flat coil springs).
PNG
media_image5.png
388
256
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Spinks by adding different shaped springs as taught by Clare. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “a greater comfort for the user”; (Clare, [0045]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 18, Spinks discloses a method according to Claim 15.
Spinks fails to explicitly disclose comprising producing a substantially flat coil or turn at a transition portion part way along an axial length of the spring, which transition portion is not at an axial end of the spring.
However, Clare teaches producing a substantially flat coil or turn at a transition portion part way along an axial length of the spring, which transition portion is not at an axial end of the spring (See Fig. 3, flat springs 24 and 28 along the length of the spring unit 20, but not at the end).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Spinks by adding flat springs as taught by Clare. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “a greater comfort for the user”; (Clare, [0045]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
EP 1527715 A1: Coissard discloses a string having retention pockets comprising two helical springs with a flat transition portion in between said springs.
CN 113389831 A: Xiong discloses a spring having a main body with a variable pitch structure, that being a transition portion in the middle of the spring unit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE SAMUEL GINES whose telephone number is (571)270-0968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Justin Mikowski can be reached at (571) 272-8525. 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.
/GEORGE SAMUEL GINES/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights