DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after May 19, 2022, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 06/19/2026 (hereinafter Response) including claim amendments have been entered. Examiner notes that claims 1, 2, 14, and 19-21 have been amended and claim 6 remains cancelled as previously indicated, while all other claims are maintained as previously presented in the application. In light of amendments, all the objections and 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn. In view of amendment, and upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejections is made under 35 USC § 103 (details below) and claims 1-5 and 7-21 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see ‘Remarks’ filed 066 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 13 of the argument, the applicant submits new limitations to claim 1 that Favaretto does not appear to explicitly disclose “the motion resistance member comprises one or more grip pads coupled to the base surface of the chassis, and the one or more grip pads are at equal distance along a length of the chassis.”. The examiner disagrees. Favaretto expressly teaches a vehicle, chassis, actuated state of the suspension unit, motion resistance member etc., including the motion resistance member comprises one or more grip pads coupled to the base surface of the chassis. Para. 0027 of Favaretto expressly teaches the claimed feature and discloses: “according to what illustrated in figs. 3 and 5, the chassis 2 is provided inferiorly with a plurality of support feet 17 (in particular four support feet 17 arranged between the wheels 3 and in proximity of the wheels 3) which are adapted to rest on the ground 16 for supporting the weight of the car 1” The claimed limitations of “the motion resistance member comprises one or more grip pads coupled to the base surface of the chassis is therefore fully met by Favaretto’s design. A solid argument is made that Favaretto in alone or in combination failed to explicitly teach the requirement of “the one or more grip pads are at equal distance along a length of the chassis” as required by claims 1 and claim 19; however, upon further consideration, and what is known in the art (CN 106838066 A), a new ground of rejection is made over the modified Favaretto in view of Wei (details below), demonstrating the same functional capability recited in claims 1 and 19 – namely, the one or more grip pads (15, fig. 3 of Wei) are at equal distance along a length of the chassis (fig. 1).
Wei expressly discloses the configuration shown in fig. 3, in which one or more grip pads are positioned at equal intervals along the longitudinal axis of the vehicle chassis. The prior art establishes that such evenly spaced gripping elements are well-known in the field, and a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to adopt such an arrangement to achieve a predictable and improved handling performance. Accordingly, the limitation is rendered obvious in view of Wei, consistent with the rationale articulated in MPEP §2143 – basic requirements of a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness.
For these reasons, the new limitations of claims 1 and 19 do not distinguish from the current art of record e.g. over Favaretto in view of Wei. Accordingly, claims 1 and 19 are rendered obvious. See claim rejection under 35 USC §103 below.
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.
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 no obviousness.
6. Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, 8, 10-14, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Favaretto (WO 2021/234630 A1) for translation purposes reference is made to (US 2023/0079016 A1), in view of Chen et al (US 10,688,841 B1; hereinafter, “Chen”), in view of Van Gemert (WO 2004106110 A1; hereinafter, “Van”), in view of Sakakibara (JP 2007-223457 A) and further in view of Wei, Qing (CN106838066 A; hereinafter, “Wei”).
Regarding Claim 1, Favaretto teaches;
• A vehicle (sports car 1), comprising: a body (body 4); a chassis (chassis 2, paragraph 22) coupled to a base of the body; (Fig. 2 shows a generalized view of the chassis in relation to the body)
• a motion resistance member (support feet 17) that is coupled to a base surface of the chassis; (Figs. 3 and 5, paragraph 27)
• a wheel assembly (wheels 3) coupled to the chassis; (Figs. 2 and 5, paragraph 1)
• a suspension unit (suspension 13, paragraph 25) coupled to the wheel assembly and the chassis, (Paragraph 25, Fig. 2)
• wherein, in an actuated state, the suspension unit is configured to move the chassis in a first direction until at least a portion of the motion resistance member contacts a ground below the base surface of the chassis, (Paragraph 29 demonstrates that the actuators 14 are configured to lift the wheels, thus lowering the chassis until the vehicle is supported by the support feet 17.)
Favaretto does not disclose that movement of the chassis in the first direction comprises a turning movement of a first end of the chassis and a turning movement of a second end of the chassis around a pivot axis, wherein a first end of the motion resistance member contacts the ground based on the turning movements of the first end of the chassis and the turning movement of the second end of the chassis is based on the contact of the first end of the motion resistance member with the ground, the pivot axis is substantially parallel to a rotational axis of wheels of the wheel assembly; however,
Chen in another “expanding sensor domain coverage using differential active suspension” similar to Favaretto teaches that the movement of the chassis in the first direction comprises a turning movement of a first end of the chassis and a turning movement of a second end of the chassis around a pivot axis, a first end of the motion resistance member contacts the ground based on the turning movements of the first end of the chassis, and the turning movement of the second end of the chassis is based on the contact of the first end of the motion resistance member with the ground, (Column 8, lines 8-21 of Chen describe how the suspension of the vehicle can be utilized to raise, or lower, one end of the vehicle in relation to the other. The modification of the support feet of Favaretto to include the vehicle tilting suspension of Chen, results in a vehicle chassis with motion resistance members attached to the under-side of the chassis which can be rotated by raising or lowering either end of the vehicle. Column 12, lines 36-40 of Chen describes how the movement of the vehicle may be limited by the body of the vehicle hitting the ground. With the addition of the motion resistance member, the vehicle would be capable of lowering a first end until the motion resistance members contacted the ground, followed by lowering the second end until the opposite motion resistance members contact the ground.)
the pivot axis is substantially parallel to a rotational axis of wheels of the wheel assembly. (Raising or lowering either end, or both ends, of the vehicle would constitute a rotation about an axis parallel to a rotational axis of the wheels.)
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Favaretto to include the ability to move either end of the vehicle chassis around a pivot axis corresponding to an axis substantially parallel to a rotational axis of the wheel assembly as taught by Chen, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to actuated vehicle suspensions and drive systems. As disclosed by Chen, it is well known for the ability to move either end of the vehicle chassis around a pivot axis corresponding to an axis substantially parallel to a rotational axis of the wheel assembly to be included in an active vehicle suspension system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify Favaretto and to include the ability to move either end of the vehicle chassis around a pivot axis corresponding to an axis substantially parallel to a rotational axis of the wheel assembly as taught by Chen, as such a modification would provide the ability to improve the field-of-view of forward looking vehicle sensors. (Paragraph 26 of Chen).
Favaretto as modified above teaches a vehicle suspension system which raises the wheels such that the vehicle’s lower surface is brought to rest on the ground, and which then continues to lift the wheels off the ground. Favaretto does not appear to explicitly teach that the contact between the motion resistance member and the ground increases an overall area between the vehicle and the ground by providing an additional contact area between the motion resistance member and the ground in addition to an area of contact patch between the set of wheels of the wheel assembly and the ground; however,
Van in another “wheel suspension and vehicle” similar to the modified Favaretto teaches that the contact between the motion resistance member (underside 13 of the loading floor, Fig. 1, 2) and the ground increases an overall area between the vehicle and the ground by providing an additional contact area between the motion resistance member and the ground in addition to an area of contact patch between the set of wheels of the wheel assembly (wheels 4 and 5) and the ground. (Vanutilizes the pneumatic suspension of the vehicle to raise the wheels and lower the vehicle until the lower surface of the vehicle rests on the ground along with the wheels, thereby increasing the overall contact area between the vehicle and the ground.)
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Favaretto to include an ability to increase the contact between the vehicle and the ground by providing an additional contact area between the lower surface of the vehicle and the ground in addition to the contact patch of the wheels as taught by Van, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to active vehicle suspension systems. As disclosed by Van, it is well known for an active vehicle suspension system to include the ability to increase the contact between the vehicle and the ground by providing an additional contact area between the lower surface of the vehicle and the ground in addition to the contact patch of the wheels.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Favaretto to include an ability to increase the contact between the vehicle and the ground by providing an additional contact area between the lower surface of the vehicle and the ground in addition to the contact patch of the wheels as taught by Van, as such a modification would improve the ease of loading and unloading of the vehicle. (Page11, Lines 11-12; Van).
Favaretto as modified above does not appear to explicitly teach that a motion resistance member which is statically coupled to a base surface of the chassis and remains statically coupled to the base surface of the chassis at a time of the movement of the chassis in the first direction. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to statically mount the support feet (17) of Favaretto, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function, in this case the movable mounting of the support feet, in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184. Further, the omission of the movable mounting of the support feet (and thereby fixing the mounting of the support feet), would result in the support feet continuing to function as intended and supporting the vehicle on the surface beneath the vehicle.
Favaretto, as described above, teaches wherein in an actuated state, the suspension unit is configured to move the chassis in a first direction until at least a portion of the motion resistance member contacts a ground below the base surface of the chassis. Favaretto does not disclose, in a state in which the vehicle is in motion, movement of the suspension unit in a first direction until at least a portion of the motion resistance member contacts a ground below the base surface of the chassis to reduce a braking distance of the vehicle; however,
Sakakibara in another “vehicle braking device” similar to the modified Favaretto teaches that in a state in which the vehicle is in motion, the suspension unit (camber operation mechanism 20; fig. 3, Sakakibara) is configured to move the chassis in a first direction until at least a portion of the motion resistance member (brake member 54; fig. 6) contacts a ground below the base surface of the chassis (vehicle body 18) to reduce a braking distance of the vehicle, (Paragraphs 7-9 describe the operation of a vehicle height adjustment mechanism to lower the vehicle height, while the vehicle is in motion, such that a braking member affixed to the underside of the vehicle is brought into contact with the road surface in order to increase a braking force.)
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the modified Favaretto to include the functionality wherein, in a state in which the vehicle is in motion, the suspension unit is configured to move the chassis in a first direction until at least a portion of the motion resistance member contacts a ground below the base surface of the chassis to reduce a braking distance of the vehicle, as taught by Sakakibara, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to vehicle active suspension systems. As disclosed by Sakakibara, it is well known for vehicle active suspension systems to include the functionality wherein, in a state in which the vehicle is in motion, the suspension unit is configured to move the chassis in a first direction until at least a portion of the motion resistance member contacts a ground below the base surface of the chassis to reduce a braking distance of the vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Favaretto to include the functionality wherein, in a state in which the vehicle is in motion, the suspension unit is configured to move the chassis in a first direction until at least a portion of the motion resistance member contacts a ground below the base surface of the chassis to reduce a braking distance of the vehicle, as taught by Sakakibara, as such a modification would provide the ability to increase braking effectiveness. (Paragraph 8 of Sakakibara).
The modified Favaretto above teaches all the limitations of claim 1, including the motion resistance member (support feet 17) comprises one or more grip pads (17; [0027]) coupled to the base surface of the chassis (Fig. 5 demonstrates the location of the support feet on the lower surface of the vehicle chassis; also, [para. 0027 expressly teaches: “according to what illustrated in figs. 3 and 5, the chassis 2 is provided inferiorly with a plurality of support feet 17 (in particular four support feet 17 arranged between the wheels 3 and in proximity of the wheels 3) which are adapted to rest on the ground 16 for supporting the weight of the car 1”; thus, comprises one or more grip pads coupled to the base surface of the chassis]), and
the one or more grip pads (equivalent to plurality of feet 17), but an argument is made that the modified Favaretto above does not appear to explicitly teach one or more grip pads which are at equal distance along a length of the chassis; however,
Wei in another “simple freight car emergency braking device” similar to the modified Favaretto teaches that the motion resistance member (“emergency braking apparatus 1”) comprises one or more grip pads (brake shoe 2 with multiple projection 15 (wear-resisting nitile rubber) as depicted in fig. 3 and [0021]) coupled to the base surface of the chassis (fig. 1), and the one or more grip pads (15) are at equal distance along a length of the chassis (see fig. 3 where plurality of 15 are at equal distance along the length of the chassis as depicted in fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motion resistant member, in such that one or more grip pads coupled to the base surface of the chassis and are positioned at equal distant along the length of the chassis as taught by Wei into the invention of the modified Favaretto with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously reduce the wear between the brake shoes and the ground, and improve the service life of the braking device [0023 of Wei]. The motivation of such an arrangement of the brake shoes has recognized advantages of improved rider control, efficiency, and adaptability to terrain conditions.
Regarding Claim 2, Favaretto as modified above further teaches that the portion of the motion resistance member that contacts the ground includes a surface portion of the one or more grip pads. (Fig. 5 and paragraph 27 describe the feet as being located between the wheels and in proximity of the wheels and [para. 0027 explicitly teaches: “a lower surface of each support foot 17 is connected in a seamless manner to the lower surface of the bottom 15) and a parking position (illustrated in FIG. 5) in which the support feet 17 protrude downwards from the bottom 15”; thus, the portion of the motion resistance member that contacts the ground includes a surface portion of the one or more grip pads]).
Regarding Claim 3, Favaretto as modified above further teaches that the surface portion corresponds to at least one of a first end of the one or more grip pads or a second end of the one or more grip pads (Fig. 5 shows the support feet (17) touching the ground. The lower end of the support feet is the first end of the grip pads. See also paragraph 27).
Regarding Claim 5, Favaretto as modified above further teaches wherein the movement of the chassis in the first direction corresponds to adjustment of at least one of a height of the chassis or an inclination of the chassis with respect to the ground below the base surface. (Paragraph 25; Favaretto).
Regarding Claim 7, Favaretto as modified above further teaches wherein the set of wheels (wheels 3) is in a set of wheel-mount locations on the body of the vehicle and each wheel of the set of wheels is detachably coupled to a respective part of the chassis. (Paragraph 47 describes how, with the wheels raise and the vehicle supported by the feet, that the wheel may be removed from the vehicle).
Regarding Claim 8, Favaretto as modified above further teaches wherein the body comprises a cover (moveable panel 23, Figs 8, 9) over a section of each wheel-mount location of the set of wheel-mount locations, and each wheel of the set of wheels is detachable after a removal of the cover and after the portion of the motion resistance member contacts the ground. (Paragraph 47 describes removing the wheels from the vehicle once they have been raised and the vehicle is positioned on the feet).
Regarding Claim 10, Favaretto as modified above further teaches wherein the chassis further comprises an axle which is configured to hold one or more components of the wheel assembly. (Paragraph 21 describes the wheels as being attached to the chassis. While Favaretto does not specifically describe the wheels as being attached to the vehicle by an axle assembly, any movable (rotating) wheel will require an axle assembly of at least a basic type. Additionally in paragraph 21, Favaretto describes the wheelbase as the axle base, further supporting an intention to attach the wheels to the vehicle through an axle assembly).
Regarding Claim 11, Favaretto as modified above further teaches that the suspension unit is an active suspension mechanism [Paragraph 29 teaches actuator devices 14 as depicted in Fig. 2, which are configured to lift the vehicle wheels with respect to the chassis under the direction of a control unit (22). This functionality constitutes an active suspension since the action of moving the wheels is not taken passively, in reaction to a road surface change (a bump)].
Regarding Claim 12, Favaretto as modified above further teaches that the vehicle further comprising an electronic controller (control unit 22; Fig. 2) communicatively coupled to the suspension unit [Paragraphs 30-32 describe the function of the control unit to control the suspension actuator to raise the wheel].
Regarding Claim 13, Favaretto as modified above further teaches that wherein the electronic controller (control unit 22) is configured to change an operational state of the suspension unit from an initial state to the actuated state, and the actuated state is different from the initial state [Paragraphs 30-32 describe the function of the control unit to move the suspension between a raised state where the wheels are lifted with respect to the chassis and a lowered state where the wheels are lowered to the ground to allow the car to drive].
Regarding Claim 14, Favaretto as modified above includes all the limitations of claim 12, further comprising a set of sensors (sensor 21; paragraph 28); communicatively coupled to the electronic controller (control unit 22), wherein the electronic controller is further configured to:
receive a first input corresponding to a request to allow the movement of the chassis in the first direction [Paragraphs 30-32 describe the control unit 22 as controlling the upward and downward movement of the vehicle wheels once certain requirements have been met such as the vehicle being stopped and the doors closed];
receive first information from one or more of the set of sensors [Paragraph 31 teaches the sensor as communicating with the control unit to assess the surface beneath the vehicle], wherein the first information indicates an absence of an obstacle on the ground below the base surface of the chassis [Paragraph 31 describes the sensor inspecting the ground beneath the vehicle to verify that to ground does not have any raised parts], and
change an operational state of the suspension unit from an initial state to the actuated state, wherein
the actuated state is different from the initial state, and
the change is based on the received first input and the received first information [Paragraph 31 teaches the control unit as causing the vehicle wheels to be raised into a non-drivable state as well as lowered again into a drivable state].
Regarding Claim 15, Favaretto as modified above does not disclose more than a single sensor. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to include a second sensor, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the number of components. It is generally considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate a feature from a single feature to multiple copies of that feature. In re Harza (124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)). Further, such a duplication would be expected to yield predictable results, namely to assess the condition of the surface beneath the vehicle and relate that information to the electronic controller.
Regarding Claim 19, Favaretto teaches; a method, comprising:
providing a vehicle (sports car 1; Favaretto), wherein the vehicle comprises: a body (body 4); a chassis (chassis 2; Fig. 2, Paragraph 22) coupled to a base of the body; a motion resistance member (support feet 17; Figs. 3 and 5, paragraph 27) that is coupled to a base surface of the chassis; a wheel assembly (wheels 3; Figs. 2, and 5, paragraph 1) coupled to the chassis; and a suspension unit (suspension 13; paragraph 25) coupled to the wheel assembly and the chassis and changing an operational state of the suspension unit to an actuated state, wherein, in the actuated state, the suspension unit moves the chassis in a first direction until at least a portion of the motion resistance member contacts a ground below the base surface of the chassis, (Paragraph 29 demonstrates that the actuators 14 are configured to lift the wheels, thus lowering the chassis until the vehicle is supported by the support feet 17.)
Favaretto does not appear to explicitly disclose that movement of the chassis in the first direction comprises a turning movement of a first end of the chassis and a turning movement of a second end of the chassis around a pivot axis, wherein a first end of the motion resistance member contacts the ground based on the turning movements of the first end of the chassis and the turning movement of the second end of the chassis is based on the contact of the first end of the motion resistance member with the ground, the pivot axis is substantially parallel to a rotational axis of wheels of the wheel assembly; however,
Chen teaches that the movement of the chassis in the first direction comprises a turning movement of a first end of the chassis and a turning movement of a second end of the chassis around a pivot axis, wherein a first end of the motion resistance member contacts the ground based on the turning movement of the first end of the chassis, and the turning movement of the second end of the chassis is based on the contact of the first end of the motion resistance member with the ground, (Column 8, lines 8-21 of Chen describe how the suspension of the vehicle can be utilized to raise, or lower, one end of the vehicle in relation to the other. The modification of the support feet of Favaretto to include the vehicle tilting suspension of Chen, results in a vehicle chassis with motion resistance members attached to the under-side of the chassis which can be rotated by raising or lowering either end of the vehicle. Column 12, lines 36-40 of Chen describes how the movement of the vehicle may be limited by the body of the vehicle hitting the ground. With the addition of the motion resistance member of Favaretto, the vehicle would be capable of lowering a first end until the motion resistance members contacted the ground, followed by lowering the second end until the opposite motion resistance members contact the ground.)
the pivot axis is substantially parallel to a rotational axis of wheels of the wheel assembly. (Paragraphs 27-29 of Chen describe how the suspension of the vehicle can be utilized to raise, or lower, one end of the vehicle in relation to the other. Raising or lowering either end of the vehicle would constitute a rotation about an axis parallel to a rotational axis of the wheels.)
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Favaretto to include the ability to move either end of the vehicle chassis around a pivot axis corresponding to an axis substantially parallel to a rotational axis of the wheel assembly as taught by Chen, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to actuated vehicle suspensions and drive systems. As disclosed by Chen, it is well known for the ability to move either end of the vehicle chassis around a pivot axis corresponding to an axis substantially parallel to a rotational axis of the wheel assembly to be included in an active vehicle suspension system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modify Favaretto and to include the ability to move either end of the vehicle chassis around a pivot axis corresponding to an axis substantially parallel to a rotational axis of the wheel assembly as taught by Chen, as such a modification would provide the ability to improve the field-of-view of forward looking vehicle sensors. (Paragraph 26 of Chen).
Favaretto as modified above teaches a vehicle suspension system which raises the wheels such that the vehicle’s lower surface is brought to rest on the ground, and which then continues to lift the wheels off the ground. Favaretto does not appear to teach wherein the contact between the motion resistance member, and the ground increases an overall area between the vehicle and the ground by providing an additional contact area between the motion resistance member and the ground in addition to an area of contact patch between the set of wheels of the wheel assembly and the ground; however,
Van teaches that the contact between the motion resistance member (underside 13 of the loading floor, Fig. 1, 2) and the ground increases an overall area between the vehicle and the ground by providing an additional contact area between the motion resistance member and the ground in addition to an area of contact patch between the set of wheels of the wheel assembly (wheels 4 and 5) and the ground. (Van utilizes the pneumatic suspension of the vehicle to raise the wheels and lower the vehicle until the lower surface of the vehicle rests on the ground along with the wheels, thereby increasing the overall contact area between the vehicle and the ground.)
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Favaretto to include an ability to increase the contact between the vehicle and the ground by providing an additional contact area between the lower surface of the vehicle and the ground in addition to the contact patch of the wheels as taught by Van, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to active vehicle suspension systems. As disclosed by Van, it is well known for an active vehicle suspension system to include the ability to increase the contact between the vehicle and the ground by providing an additional contact area between the lower surface of the vehicle and the ground in addition to the contact patch of the wheels.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Favaretto to include an ability to increase the contact between the vehicle and the ground by providing an additional contact area between the lower surface of the vehicle and the ground in addition to the contact patch of the wheels as taught by Van, as such a modification would improve the ease of loading and unloading of the vehicle. (Page11, Lines 11-12 of Van).
Favaretto as modified above does not appear to explicitly teach that a motion resistance member which is statically coupled to a base surface of the chassis and remains statically coupled to the base surface of the chassis at a time of the movement of the chassis in the first direction. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to statically mount the support feet (17) of Favaretto, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function, in this case the movable mounting of the support feet, in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184. Further, the omission of the movable mounting of the support feet (and thereby fixing the mounting of the support feet), would result in the support feet continuing to function as intended and supporting the vehicle on the surface beneath the vehicle.
Favaretto, as modified above, teaches wherein in an actuated state, the suspension unit is configured to move the chassis in a first direction until at least a portion of the motion resistance member contacts a ground below the base surface of the chassis. Favaretto does not appear to expressly teach that, in a state in which the vehicle is in motion, movement of the suspension unit in a first direction until at least a portion of the motion resistance member contacts a ground below the base surface of the chassis to reduce a braking distance of the vehicle; however, Sakakibara teaches that in a state in which the vehicle is in motion, the suspension unit (camber operation mechanism 20; fig. 3, Sakakibara) is configured to move the chassis in a first direction until at least a portion of the motion resistance member (brake member 54; fig. 6) contacts a ground below the base surface of the chassis (vehicle body 18) to reduce a braking distance of the vehicle [Paragraphs 7-9 describe the operation of a vehicle height adjustment mechanism to lower the vehicle height such that a braking member affixed to the underside of the vehicle is brought into contact with the road surface in order to increase a braking force].
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Favaretto to include the functionality wherein, in a state in which the vehicle is in motion, the suspension unit is configured to move the chassis in a first direction until at least a portion of the motion resistance member contacts a ground below the base surface of the chassis to reduce a braking distance of the vehicle, as taught by Sakakibara, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to vehicle active suspension systems. As disclosed by Sakakibara, it is well known for vehicle active suspension systems to include the functionality wherein, in a state in which the vehicle is in motion, the suspension unit is configured to move the chassis in a first direction until at least a portion of the motion resistance member contacts a ground below the base surface of the chassis to reduce a braking distance of the vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modify Favaretto and to include the functionality wherein, in a state in which the vehicle is in motion, the suspension unit is configured to move the chassis in a first direction until at least a portion of the motion resistance member contacts a ground below the base surface of the chassis to reduce a braking distance of the vehicle, as taught by Sakakibara, as such a modification would provide the ability to increase braking effectiveness (Paragraph 8 of Sakakibara).
The modified Favaretto above teaches all the limitations of claim 19, including wherein the motion resistance member (support feet 17) comprises one or more grip pads (17; [0027]) coupled to the base surface of the chassis (Fig. 5 demonstrates the location of the support feet on the lower surface of the vehicle chassis; also, [para. 0027 expressly teaches: “according to what illustrated in figs. 3 and 5, the chassis 2 is provided inferiorly with a plurality of support feet 17 (in particular four support feet 17 arranged between the wheels 3 and in proximity of the wheels 3) which are adapted to rest on the ground 16 for supporting the weight of the car 1”; thus, comprises one or more grip pads coupled to the base surface of the chassis]), and
the one or more grip pads (equivalent to plurality of feet 17), but argument is made that the modified Favaretto above does not appear to explicitly teach that one or more grip pads are at equal distance along a length of the chassis; however,
Wei in another “simple freight car emergency braking device” similar to the modified Favaretto teaches that the motion resistance member (“emergency braking apparatus 1”) comprises one or more grip pads (brake shoe 2 with multiple projection 15 (wear-resisting nitrile rubber) as depicted in fig. 3 and [0021]) coupled to the base surface of the chassis (fig. 1), and the one or more grip pads (15) are at equal distance along a length of the chassis (see fig. 3 where plurality of 15 are at equal distance along the length of the chassis as depicted in fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motion resistant member, in such that one or more grip pads coupled to the base surface of the chassis and are positioned at equal distant along the length of the chassis as taught by Wei into the invention of the modified Favaretto with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously reduce the wear between the brake shoes and the ground, and improve the service life of the braking device [0023 of Wei]. The motivation of such an arrangement of the brake shoes has recognized advantages of improved rider control, efficiency, and adaptability to terrain conditions.
Regarding Claim 20, Favaretto as modified above further teaches that the portion of the motion resistance member that contacts the ground includes a surface portion of the one or more grip pads. (Fig. 5 and paragraph 27 describe the feet as being located between the wheels and in proximity of the wheels and [para. 0027 explicitly teaches: “a lower surface of each support foot 17 is connected in a seamless manner to the lower surface of the bottom 15) and a parking position (illustrated in FIG. 5) in which the support feet 17 protrude downwards from the bottom 15”; thus, the portion of the motion resistance member that contacts the ground includes a surface portion of the one or more grip pads]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Favaretto in view of Chen Van, Sakakibara and Wei as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0061352 A1; hereinafter, “Lee”).
Regarding Claim 4, Favaretto as modified above teaches the claimed invention except for, wherein the motion resistance member comprises one or more wheels, each of the one or more wheels has a size that is less than a size of each wheel of the set of wheels in the wheel assembly, the portion of the motion resistance member that contacts the ground corresponds to a surface portion of the one or more wheels; however,
Lee in another “steerable drive wheel” similar to the modified Favaretto teaches that the motion resistance member comprises one or more wheels, (wheel 88A; Fig. 9, 10), each of the one or more wheels has a size that is less than a size of each wheel (wheel 58; Fig. 6) of the set of wheels in the wheel assembly [Fig. 6 shows an end view of the frame. The main wheels are seen in comparison with the central structure, which completely encloses the steerable wheel structure shown in Figs. 9 and 10. Bumper bar structure 104 seen in Fig. 6 can be seen in Fig. 19 as a reference for size comparison], and
the portion of the motion resistance member that contacts the ground corresponds to a surface portion of the one or more wheels (Figs. 9 and 10 show a movable structure containing a wheel which is designed to deploy from the bottom of a vehicle and contact the ground surface below the vehicle. See also paragraphs 43-44).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the modified Favaretto to include wheels as part of a ground-contacting chassis feature as taught by Lee, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to movable drive wheels. As disclosed by Lee, it is well known to include wheels as part of a ground-contacting chassis feature.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified Favaretto and to include a wheel as part of a ground contacting feature as taught by Lee, as such a modification would provide both motive force and directional control to the vehicle (Paragraph 62 of Lee).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Favaretto in view of Chen, Van, Sakakibara and Wei as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Fassnacht (DE 10 2019 214083 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Favaretto as modified above teaches the claimed invention, but does not appear to expressly teach that a drive system that includes an in-wheel motor; however,
Fassnacht in another “method and control unit for raising and or lowering a chassis and chassis” similar to the modified Favaretto teaches that a drive system that includes an in-wheel motor (wheel drive 32; paragraph 43) around each wheel of the set of wheels, wherein the each wheel of the set of wheels is powered by the in-wheel motor (Paragraph 43 describes each corner module as containing an actuator, wheel and a wheel drive where the drive is in the vicinity or integrated into the wheel itself).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Favaretto to include an in-wheel motor as taught by Fassnacht, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to actuated vehicle suspensions and drive systems. As disclosed by Fassnacht, it is well known for an in-wheel motor to be used with an actuated suspension as a vehicle drive system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified Favaretto and to include an in-wheel drive system as taught by Fassnacht, as such a modification would provide the ability to raise and lower the vehicle chassis (Paragraph 8 of Fassnacht).
Claims 15, 16, 17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Favaretto in view of Chen, Van, Sakakibara and Wei as described above, and further in view of Giovanardi et al. (US 2014/0297119 A1; hereinafter, “Giovanardi”).
Regarding Claim 15, Favaretto as modified above teaches the claimed invention, but does not appear to expressly teach that the ability to classify the ground surface below the vehicle chassis; however,
Giovanardi in another “context aware active suspension control system” similar to Favaretto teaches that the electronic controller is further configured to: classify the ground below the base surface of the chassis as one of an inclined road surface, a flat road surface, an uneven surface, or a banked road surface; and change an operational state of the suspension unit from an initial state to the actuated state, based on the classification (Paragraph 106 describes sensed parameters regarding road and vehicle conditions. Paragraph 107 further describes road features which are determined from the sensed parameters, including road roughness, and coefficient of friction).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Favaretto to include the ability to classify the ground beneath the vehicle as taught by Giovanardi, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to vehicle active suspension systems. As disclosed by Giovanardi, it is well known for the ability to classify the ground beneath the vehicle to be utilized by a vehicle with an active suspension system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified Favaretto and to include the ability to classify the ground beneath the vehicle as taught by Giovanardi, as such a modification would provide the ability to generate a control decision with regard to suspension movement which is appropriate for the vehicle’s immediate condition (The discussion of suspension movement based on sensed inputs begins in paragraph 110 of Giovanardi).
Regarding Claim 16, Favaretto as modified above teaches the claimed invention, but does not appear to expressly teach that the ability to determine an intensity of acceleration or braking and change an operational state of the suspension; however,
Giovanardi teaches; wherein the electronic controller is further configured to: determine an intensity by which one of an accelerator or brakes is applied in the vehicle and change an operational state of the suspension unit from an initial state to the actuated state, based on the determined intensity (Paragraph 106 describes brake application pressure as a measured parameter. Paragraph 29 describes erratic accelerator application as a measured parameter. Both parameters may be used to adjust suspension states).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Favaretto to include the ability to adjust the vehicle suspension in response to the intensity of acceleration or braking as taught by Giovanardi, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to vehicle active suspensions. As disclosed by Giovanardi, it is well known for a vehicle active suspension system to include the ability to adjust the vehicle suspension in response to the intensity of acceleration or braking. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Favaretto to include the ability to adjust the vehicle suspension in response to the intensity of acceleration or braking as taught by Giovanardi, as such a modification would provide the ability to lessen the effects of a crash or improve passenger comfort. (Paragraph 22 of Giovanardi describes multiple effects including reducing roll and dive, increasing wheel contact with the road, stabilizing the vehicle and adjusting the bumper height to match that of the impacting object. Paragraph 23 describes a suspension adjustment for increased passenger comfort.)
Regarding Claim 17, Favaretto teaches the claimed invention, but does not appear to explicitly teach that the ability to affect the suspension functionality based on an emergency condition; however,
Giovanardi teaches that the electronic controller is further configured to: receive second information from the one or more sensors of the set of sensors, wherein the second information is associated with the vehicle and an ambient surrounding of the vehicle [Paragraph 106 describes sensors such as acceleration, velocity, position and rate gyros. It also includes look-ahead information systems from vision, radar, sonar and similar technologies), detect one or more parameters based on the received second information, wherein the one or more parameters indicate an emergency-situation associated with the vehicle; and change the operational state of the suspension unit from the initial state to the actuated state, based on the detected one or more parameters. Paragraph 22 describes emergency situations as recognized through multiple means, including large lateral or longitudinal accelerations, driver inputs like braking, and sensors like radar, sonar, and vision. Paragraph 22 then describes actions which may be taken by the electronic control system in response, including raising or lowering the suspension at either the front or rear of the vehicle].
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Favaretto to include the ability to change an operational state of the suspension based on detected parameters that indicate an emergency situation as taught by Giovanardi, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to vehicle active suspensions. As disclosed by Giovanardi, it is well known for a vehicle active suspension system to include the ability to change an operational state of the suspension based on detected parameters that indicate an emergency situation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified Favaretto and to include the ability to change an operational state of the suspension based on detected parameters that indicate an emergency situation as taught by Giovanardi, as such a modification would provide the ability to lessen the effects of a crash (Paragraph 22 of Giovanardi describes multiple effects including reducing roll and dive, increasing wheel contact with the road, stabilizing the vehicle and adjusting the bumper height to match that of the impacting object).
Regarding claim 21, Favaretto as modified above teaches the claimed invention, but does not appear to explicitly teach that the ability of the suspension unit to move the chassis in the first direction based on detection of one or more parameters which indicates the emergency-situation associated with the vehicle, wherein the emergency-situation corresponds to presence of an object within a threshold distance from the vehicle; however,
Giovanardi teaches that in the actuated state of the suspension unit and in the state in which the vehicle is in motion, the suspension unit is configured to move the chassis in the first direction based on detection of one or more parameters which indicates the emergency-situation associated with the vehicle, wherein the emergency-situation corresponds to presence of an object within a threshold distance from the vehicle (Giovanardi, paragraph 22 teaches that emergency situations as recognized through multiple means, including large lateral or longitudinal accelerations, driver inputs like braking, and sensors like radar, sonar, and vision (equivalent to the one or more parameters which indicate the emergence-situation. Paragraph 22 then describes actions which may be taken by the electronic control system in response, including raising or lowering the suspension at either the front or rear of the vehicle.)
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Favaretto to include the ability of the suspension unit to move the chassis in the first direction based on detection of one or more parameters and emergency-situation corresponds to presence of an object within a threshold distance from the vehicle as taught by Giovanardi, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to vehicle active suspensions. As disclosed by Giovanardi, it is well known for a vehicle active suspension system to include the ability of the suspension unit to move the chassis in the first direction on detection of one or more parameters and emergency-situation corresponds to presence of an object within a threshold distance from the vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified Favaretto and to include the ability of the suspension unit to move the chassis in the first direction based on detection of one or more parameters and emergency-situation corresponds to presence of an object within a threshold distance from the vehicle as taught by Giovanardi, as such a modification would provide the ability to lessen the effects of a crash (Paragraph 22 of Giovanardi describes multiple effects including reducing roll and dive, increasing wheel contact with the road, stabilizing the vehicle and adjusting the bumper height to match that of the impacting object).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Favaretto in view of Chen, Van, Sakakibara and Wei as described above as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Hackenberg et al. (US 2020/0140249 A1; hereinafter, “Hackenberg”).
Regarding Claim 18, Favaretto as modified above teaches a vehicle with active suspension controlled by a control unit, but does not appear to expressly teach a retraction trigger located on the exterior of the vehicle; however,
Hackenberg in another “leveling system for lift device” similar to the modified Favaretto teaches that a retraction trigger (user interface 440; paragraph 96) on an exterior portion of the body of the vehicle, wherein the electronic controller (controller 410; paragraph 95) is further configured to: (Paragraph 96 describes the user interface which includes a status display and operator input device. The location of the user interface is not shown in the figures; however, Fig. 1 shows the complete vehicle including platform assembly 92. Paragraph 41-42 describes the platform assembly as being configured to support workers and includes a control panel to control the operation of the lift device. The platform assembly is exterior to the vehicle).
receive a second input via the retraction trigger on the exterior portion of the body of the vehicle; and change an operational state of the suspension unit from the actuated state to an initial state, based on the received second input, (Paragraph, 96-98 describe the control panel as controlling the function of the vehicle)
wherein, based on the change to the initial state, the suspension unit is further configured to move the chassis in a second direction to break the contact between the ground and the portion of the motion resistance member (Paragraph 96-98 describes the user interface which is connected to the controller and able to operate all of the vehicle functions including raising, lowering and leveling the chassis).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Favaretto to include an external suspension control device as taught by Hackenberg, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to vehicles with active suspension systems. As disclosed by Hackenberg, it is well known for an external suspension control device to be utilized on a vehicle with an active suspension system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified Favaretto and to include an external suspension control device as taught by Hackenberg, as such a modification would provide the ability to operate the vehicle (Paragraph 98 of Hackenberg).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 1567454 to Charleys teaches: my present invention being referred to as an antiskid brake for vehicles, it may be understood to be an object of this invention to provide means for bringing a motor vehicle, or the like, to a sudden stop by means directly engaging the ground or a pavement over which a vehicle may be advancing.
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a).
Applicants are reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NABIN KUMAR SHARMA whose telephone number is (703)756-4619. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Friday: 8:00am - 5 PM EST.
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, Koppikar, Vivek can be reached on 571-272-5109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NABIN KUMAR SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3612
September 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights