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 § 102
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, 6, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eccles (US 5,938,341).
Regarding claim 1, Eccles discloses a plate spring (28, 30) comprising: a disc member (28); and a plurality of claws (30) provided on the disc member (see FIGS. 2, 3), positioned between an outer peripheral end of the disc member and an inner peripheral end of the disc member (see FIG. 2), and arranged along a circumferential direction of the disc member (see FIG. 2), wherein each of the plurality of claws extends along a radial direction of the disc member (see FIG. 2, each of the plurality of claws extend at least partially along a radial direction) and warps in a thickness-wise direction of the disc member (see FIGS. 3).
Regarding claim 2, Eccles discloses that the disc member has a first surface facing a first direction (see FIG. 3, downward facing surface) of the thickness-wise direction and a second surface facing a second direction opposite to the first direction (see FIG. 3, upward facing surface), and each of the plurality of claws warps in the first direction (see FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Eccles discloses that each of the plurality of claws includes a base end portion which is an end portion connected to the disc member in the radial direction (see FIGS. 2, 3), and a tip end portion which is an end portion in the radial direction and is different from the base end portion (see FIGS. 2, 3), the plurality of claws include outward claws each of which has the tip end portion positioned outward in the radial direction of the disc member with respect to the base end portion (see FIGS. 2, 3), and inward claws each of which has the tip end portion positioned inward in the radial direction of the disc member with respect to the base end portion (see FIGS. 2, 3), and the outward claws and the inward claws are alternately arranged along the circumferential direction (see FIGS. 2, 3).
Regarding claim 8, Eccles discloses an inner claw group including some of the plurality of claws arranged annularly along the circumferential direction (see FIG. 2), and an outer claw group disposed outward of the inner claw group in the radial direction of the disc member and including some of the plurality of claws arranged annularly along the circumferential direction (see FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Eccles discloses that at least one of the claws belonging to the inner claw group is adjacent to at least one of the claws belonging to the outer claw group along the radial direction (see FIG. 2).
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.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eccles (US 5,938,341), as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Hodson et al. (US 5,730,430).
Regarding claim 3, Eccles does not disclose an annular portion extending from the outer peripheral end of the disc member along the second direction and surrounding the plurality of claws along the circumferential direction.
Hodson teaches a plate spring (see Abstract, FIG. 2) comprising a disc member (62) and an annular portion (64) extending from the outer peripheral end of the disc member in a second direction (see FIG. 2).
It would have been obvious to combine the annular portion of Hodson with the plate spring of Eccles, such that the annular portion surrounds the plurality of claws along the circumferential direction, to provide means for centering the plate spring and aligning it relative to other components in the assembled device (see e.g. Hodson, col. 2, lines 41-54).
Regarding claim 5, Hodson teaches that the annular portion is formed by an annular member which is separate from the disc member and which abuts against the outer peripheral end of the disc member (see FIGS. 2, 5).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eccles (US 5,938,341) in view of Swanson et al. (US 9,222,509).
Regarding claim 7, Eccles does not disclose that each of the plurality of claws has a shape tapered from the base end portion toward the tip end portion.
Swanson teaches a plate spring (see e.g. FIG. 12, (1202)) comprising a plurality of claws (1712) that have a shape (1712) tapered from the base end portion toward the tip end portion (see col. 18, lines 34-49).
It would have been obvious to configure the claws of Eccles to be tapered to tune the load deflection characteristics of the claws (see e.g. col. 18, lines 34-49), thereby allowing the plate spring to be adapted for different uses.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 10 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J LANE whose telephone number is (571)270-5988. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
/NICHOLAS J LANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
October 6, 2026
