DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information disclosure statement has been received and considered.
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 16-20 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.
Regarding claim 16 line 1 the preamble “A method for a leaf spring..” is awkward and somewhat confusing. A method of what for the leaf spring?
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manchik D524,695 S in view of Galazin et al. 11,970,210 and Pizzeta 8,540,263.
Regarding claim 1 Manchik shows a design patent substantially as claimed in figures 1-16. As indicated in the Title this device is a trailer hanger bracket. As shown in figure 1 there appears to be a wear plate between the first and second legs.
Since this is a design patent lacking is a specific description of the structural features of the bracket and wear plate device.
The reference to Galazin also shows a suspension arrangement capable of use with a trailer. In figure 15 Galazin shows a hanger brackets at 36,38,40, leaf springs at 32,34 (see figure 2), and with a wear pad assembly at 144. Note the wear pad at 148.
Pizzeta (which may be slightly redundant) shows a suspension device for trucks/trailer and in figures 4,5 provides a better showing of the wear plate assembly at 21,22 engaging the leaf spring assembly within a bracket 7.
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would realize that the device of Manchik shows a wear pad device, inherently comprising a ‘sacrificial surface’, as broadly claimed—since nearly any friction engaging surface may be called this—that is intended to protect both a surface of the leaf spring and the hanger bracket, as taught by both Galazin and Pizzeta.
Regarding claim 2, as broadly claimed, Manchik, as modified, shows the wear pad is shaped complementary to at least one of (a) the portion of the mounting bracket and (b) the leaf spring.
Regarding claim 3, as broadly claimed, Manchik, as modified, shows the wear pad is a U-shaped configuration.
Regarding claim 4, as broadly claimed, Manchik, as modified, shows in figures 2 and 7 a feature to promote removal of the wear pad after the sacrificial surface is worn down and subsequent installation of a second wear pad. Note that Pizzeta indicates the wear plate assembly 21,22 is removable.
5.
Regarding claim 5, as broadly claimed, Manchik shows the wear pad is a releasable connector.
Regarding claim 6, as broadly claimed, Manchik shows a first leg; a second leg; a central portion of the wear pad located between the first leg and the second leg (as per applicant’s), wherein the wear pad is substantially U-shaped, and wherein the central portion defines the sacrificial surface; an inner surface shaped complementary to the portion of the mounting bracket; an outer surface; and a thickness measured from the inner surface to the outer surface.
Regarding claim 7, as broadly claimed, Manchik shows the mounting bracket comprising: a first end configured to be directly or indirectly coupled to a chassis and a second end opposite the first end, wherein at least one leaf in the leaf spring suspension system is configured to be directly or indirectly coupled to the mounting bracket; and a wear pad between the first end and the second end, wherein the wear pad has a sacrificial surface that contacts the at least one leaf and the sacrificial surface wears down in response to friction and abrasion caused by movement of the at least one leaf and the wear pad protects a portion of the mounting bracket to which the wear pad is mounted.
Regarding claim 8, as broadly claimed, Manchik shows a first end of the wear pad; a second end of the wear pad; wherein the sacrificial surface of the wear pad is located between the first end and the second end of the wear pad.
Regarding claim 9, as broadly claimed, Manchik shows a first leg of the wear pad; a second leg of the wear pad; a central portion of the wear pad located between the first leg and the second leg, wherein the wear pad is substantially U-shaped, wherein the central portion defines at least a portion of the sacrificial surface.
Regarding claim 10, as broadly claimed, Manchik shows an inner surface of the wear pad; an outer surface of the wear pad; a thickness of the wear pad that is measured from the inner surface to the outer surface, wherein the thickness of the wear pad is uniform prior to installation on the mounting bracket.
Regarding claim 11, as broadly claimed, Manchik shows the thickness of the wear pad is capable of being reduced at the central portion over time in response to the sacrificial surface contacting the at least one leaf.
Regarding claim 12, as broadly claimed, Manchik lacks showing a first aperture defined in the first leg extending transversely through the thickness of the wear pad from the first surface to the second surface of the wear pad.
However it would have been obvious to have provided such an aperture simply as an alternative equivalent arrangement to that shown for easier removal and installation of the pad on some types of hanger brackets.
Regarding claim 13 in light of the modification above Manchik, as modified above, would inherently meet these limitations.
Regarding claim 14, as broadly claimed, Manchik lacks showing providing a second aperture defined in the second leg extending transversely through the thickness of the wear pad from the first surface to the second surface of the wear pad.
However it would have been obvious to have provided a second aperture simply as an alternative equivalent arrangement to that shown for easier removal and installation (and better securement) of the pad on some types of hanger brackets.
Regarding claim 15 in light of the modification above Manchik, as modified above, would inherently meet these limitations.
Regarding claim 16, subject to the 112 rejection above (and as best understood), Manchik, as modified and explained above shows:
A method for a leaf spring suspension system, the method comprising: installing a wear pad at an installation location between a portion of a mounting bracket and a leaf spring in a leaf spring suspension system; moving the leaf spring relative to mounting bracket; contacting the wear pad with at least one of the portion of the mounting bracket and the leaf spring while moving the leaf spring relative to the mounting bracket; wearing down a sacrificial surface on the wear pad as the leaf spring moves relative to the mounting bracket; and protecting at least one at least one of the portion of the mounting bracket and the leaf spring by wearing down the sacrificial surface on the wear pad.
Regarding claim 17 Manchik as modified above provides a method capable of inspecting the sacrificial surface of the wear pad; determining whether the sacrificial surface is sufficient for future protection; wherein if it is determined that the sacrificial surface is sufficient for future protection, then maintaining the wear pad installed between the portion of the mounting bracket and leaf spring; and wherein if it determined that the sacrificial surface is insufficient for future protection, then removing the wear pad and installing a second wear pad at the installation location. Note that Pizzeta indicates the wear plate assembly is “removable”.
Regarding claims 18-20, as explained above, these limitations are capable of being met by Manchik, as modified.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7123. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 A.M.-7:00P.M..
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, Rob 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
7/13/26
Prosecution Insights