DETAILED ACTION
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 1-8 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.
In claim 1, Applicant recites “another end” in line 5. In line 8 and in line 2 of claim 2, Applicant recites “the other end”. It is unclear if these limitations recite the same limitation.
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, 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Son (KR 20190033263 A).
Re claim 1, Son discloses a vehicle suspension device comprising:a leaf spring (30);a locking member (41, 42) to which one end of the leaf spring is locked; and a holding member (53) configured to hold another end of the leaf spring, wherein the holding member includes: a roller (51) configured to hold the other end of the leaf spring and be rotatable while following displacement of the other end of the leaf spring; and a pressing member (52) facing the roller, and the other end of the leaf spring is provided between the roller and the pressing member. (Fig. 2, 5)
Re claim 2, Son discloses wherein the other end of the leaf spring (30) is sandwiched between and held by the roller (51) and the pressing member (52). (Fig. 5)
Re claim 4, Son discloses wherein the pressing member (52) is a roller that is rotatable while following displacement of the other end of the leaf spring.
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.
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son (KR 20190033263 A) in view of Fujishima et al. (JP 2006027552 A).
Re claim 3, Son does not teach a biasing member configured to bias the roller and the pressing member in a direction in which the roller and the pressing member approach each other. Fujishima et al. teach a biasing member (22, 23) configured to bias a roller and a pressing member (8, 9) in a direction in which the roller and the pressing member approach each other. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide a bias as an additional alternative means for providing torsional resilience. (Fig. 6, Machine Translation – Page 4, Par. 13)
7. Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son (KR 20190033263 A) in view of JP 59-013305 U.
Re claims 5 and 6, Son does not teach wherein at least one recess is formed on an outer circumferential surface of at least one of the roller and the pressing member.
JP ‘305 teaches wherein at least one recess (between stepped portions 11a) is formed on an outer circumferential surface of the roller (11). (Fig. 2) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide a recess on an outer circumferential surface of at least one of the roller and the pressing member in order to provide additional cushioning as taught by JP ‘305. (Translation – Page 3, 6th Par.)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son (KR 20190033263 A) in view of GB 569483.
Re claim 7, Son teaches wherein the roller includes: a shaft part (60); and a rotation part (51) provided on an outer circumference of the shaft part, and configured to be rotatable with respect to the shaft part. Son does not teach wherein the rotation part includes an elastic material. GB ‘483 teaches a roller including a shaft part (16) and a rotation part (24) provided on an outer circumference of the shaft part and configured to be rotatable with respect to the shaft part. GB ‘483 teaches wherein the rotation part includes an elastic material (26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide an elastic material for providing torsional resilience. (Fig. 2, Column 2, lines 85-94)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son (KR 20190033263 A) in view of Fulkerson (US 1299165).
Re claim 8, Son does not teach wherein a protrusion protruding in a direction intersecting an axial direction is formed on at least one end side in the axial direction of the roller. Fulkerson teaches wherein a protrusion protruding in a direction intersecting an axial direction is formed on at least one end side in the axial direction of a roller (27, 29). See end protrusions on elements 27 and 29 in Figures 2 and 3 respectively. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide a protrusion protruding in a direction intersecting an axial direction is formed on at least one end side in the axial direction of a roller in order to provide a more secure connection for the roller.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Carteret, GB ‘640, Fuller, Liepert et al., GB ‘606Bushey and Anthes teach similar suspension devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELANIE TORRES WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-7127. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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, 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.
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.
/MELANIE TORRES WILLIAMS/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3616
MTW
September 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights