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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed January 14, 2026, regarding the 112b/ 112d claim rejections (page 7) have been fully considered and – in light of the amendment - are persuasive, therefore the related objections and rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 claim rejections (pages 7-8) have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the references as being used in the current rejection.
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 1, 5-6, and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BODIN-2017 (WO-2017200462-A1) in view of BODIN-US/1672 (US-20170001672-A1), Kunze (US-3269269-A), and STABEL (EP-0249679-B1) (note: the underlined portions relate to the latest amendment, for the applicant’s convenience).
Regarding Claim 1, BODIN-2017 teaches a suspension system (Suspension Arrangement S2, Fig. 5) for a tracked vehicle (Abstract), said tracked vehicle (Vehicle 1, Fig. 1) comprising a vehicle body (Vehicle Body 4, Fig. 1), a pair of opposite track assemblies (Propulsion Tracks 3, Fig. 1, an opposite pair in that Page 7: Lines 2- 15 describes them as arranged on respective sides of the Vehicle 1), each respective track assembly (3) comprising a plurality of road wheels (Wheels 2, Fig. 1) and an endless track disposed around said wheels (the track part of Propulsion Tracks 3, as illustrated in Fig. 1), said suspension system comprising a road wheel arm (Road Wheel Arm 20, Fig. 2) having a wheel axle portion (Wheel Axle Portion 22, Fig. 5) configured to support a road wheel (2) of the vehicle (1) and a pivot axle portion (Pivot Axle Portion 24, Fig. 5), the road wheel arm (20) being pivotably journalled at said pivot axle portion (24) to a support portion (Housing 30) configured to be fixed to the vehicle body (Page 7: Line 18- Page 8: Line 8 teaches Road Wheel Arm 20 being pivotably journalled at the Pivot Axle Portion 24 to Housing 30, and Page 9: Lines 8- 11 teaches the Housing 30 being fixed to the Vehicle Body 4), the suspension system (S2) comprising a torsion bar (Torsion Bar 40) having a first end portion (First End Portion 42, Fig. 3) and an opposite second end portion (Second End Portion 44, Fig. 3), the first end portion (42) being connected to the support portion (First End Portion 42 being disposed inside of Housing 30 and connected to it through Pivot Axle Portion 24 as illustrated in Fig. 5), wherein the suspension system (S2) comprises an adjustment device (Ground Clearance Arrangement 100, Fig. 5, considered an adjustment device in that it is described as able to vary- i.e.- adjust- a ground clearance of the Vehicle 1 on Page 13: Lines 25- 27) connected to the second end portion (44) of the torsion bar (Ground Clearance Arrangement 100 being connected to Second End Portion 44 of Torsion Bar 40 through Pivot Anchor 110, Torsion Tube 50, and Connecting Element 60 as illustrated in Fig. 5), the adjustment device (100) being configured to adjust the torque on the torsion bar (Hydraulic Cylinder 120 of Ground Clearance Arrangement 100 being configured to press on Lever Arm 112, which is rotationally connected to Torsion Bar 40 through Torsion Tube 50 and Connecting Element 60, as illustrated in Fig. 5, Hydraulic Cylinder 120 is configured to apply a torque to Torsion Bar 40) so as to adjust the height of the vehicle body (4) relative to said pair of track assemblies (Page 13: Lines 25- 27 teaches that the Ground Clearance Arrangement 100 is arranged to vary the ground clearance of the Vehicle 1, which is understood to mean that it would adjust the height of Vehicle Body 4 relative to Propulsion Tracks 3; see also Page 7: Lines 2- 15 and Fig. 1), wherein
the second end portion (44) is connected to the adjustment device (100) via a connecting element (Connecting Element 60, Fig. 5, connected to Second End Portion 44 by Joint J2 as illustrated in Fig. 5) configured to be pivotably connected to the vehicle body (Page 10: Lines 21- 28 teaches that Connecting Element 60 is pivotably journalled- i.e. pivotably connected- to the Vehicle Body 4),
the adjustment device (100) is configured to apply said torque on the connecting element (60) so as to adjust the torque on the torsion bar (the Hydraulic Cylinder 120 of Ground Clearance Arrangement 100 being configured to adjust a torque on the Torsion Bar 40 as discussed above; and Connecting Element 60 being in the torque path between Hydraulic Cylinder 120 and the Torsion Bar 40 as illustrated in Fig. 5, Ground Clearance Arrangement 100 is understood to be configured to apply a torque to the Connecting Element 60 to adjust the torque on the Torsion Bar 40),
the adjustment device (100) is connected to the vehicle body (Page 14: Lines 15- 17 teaches that a Second End 120 of Hydraulic Cylinder 120, being a part of Ground Clearance Arrangement 100 as taught on Page 13: Lines 25- 27, is connected to the Vehicle Body 4),
the adjustment device (100) is operable between an adjustment mode for said torque adjustment on the torsion bar (Page 14: Lines 4- 8 teaches the Hydraulic Cylinder of the Ground Clearance Arrangement 100 changing length, i.e.- in an adjusting mode- to rotate the Torsion Bar 40) and a non-adjustment mode during which the adjustment device (100) is configured to maintain the torque on the torsion bar (Page 14: Lines 18- 23 teaches the Hydraulic Cylinder 120 having fixed positions such that when it is moved to a torque applying position it is understood to maintain said torque).
BODIN-2017 does not teach the adjustment device comprising an electric motor.
BODIN-US/1672 teaches an electric motor (“electric machine” Para. [117]) for adjusting the torque applied to a suspension system (Para. [0117] teaches using an electric machine as a torque generating member, the Torque Generating Member 7 applying torque to a suspension system as taught in Para. [0101]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the hydraulic cylinder of BODIN-2017 with the electric motor of BODIN-US/1672 as it is merely the selection of functionally equivalent torque generating devices recognized in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
BODIN-2017 does not teach a control device.
BODIN-US/1672 teaches, in another suspension system (Abstract) for a tracked vehicle (Vehicle 1 with Track 3, Fig. 1) a control device (Electronic Control Unit 100, Fig. 3a) configured to control an adjustment device (Para. [0101] teaches a Torque Generating Member 7, able to be controlled by the Electronic Control Unit 100 to apply a torque).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of BODIN-2017 and BODIN-US/1672 in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify BODIN-2017’s suspension system to include a control device as suggested by BODIN-US/1672. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing a means of electronically controlling a suspension system that would beneficially make a more dynamically adjustable system.
BODIN-2017, as modified above, does not teach controlling an aiming range of a gun barrel via the suspension adjustment device.
Kunze teaches, in another tracked vehicle (Fig. 1), a vertically adjustable suspension used to increase an aiming range of a vehicle mounted gun barrel (Col. 1: Line 72- Col. 2: Line 9 teaches a vertically adjustable suspension used to increase a firing elevation range of Cannon 3, Fig. 1).
Kunze further teaches that using a vertically adjustable suspension to increase a firing range advantageously eliminates a reduction of firing range that results from firing in a rearward direction (Col. 1: Line 72- Col. 2: Line 9).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of BODIN-2017, BODIN-US/1672, and Kunze in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify BODIN-2017’s suspension system such that the aiming range of a gun barrel is controlled via a suspension adjustment device as suggested by Kunze. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantages taught by Kunze and discussed above.
BODIN-2017, as modified above, does not teach controlling an aiming range based on gun barrel direction and target area level determination devices.
STABEL teaches, in another weapon system of an armored vehicle (title, claim 1), controlling an aiming range of a gun barrel (Main Weapon 1, page 3 (English translation), para. 4: “As the block…”) of a tracked vehicle (Combat Tank, page 1, claim1, being understood as a tracked vehicle) based on a direction of the gun barrel relative to a longitudinal extension of the tracked vehicle determined by a gun barrel direction determination device (Weapon Tracking System 3, page 3, para. 4; understood to measure the position of Main Weapon relative to the vehicle and provide that information to Computer 15 as taught in page 3, para. 5: “As can be seen…” and Fig. 2), and
a level of target area relative to a position of the tracked vehicle determined by a target area level determination device (Target Device 9, page 3, para. 4, being understood to determine a position of a target relative to the vehicle based on being described as an “optical target device” and being part of an Aiming System, as taught in page. 3, para. 2: “The division…”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of BODIN-2017, BODIN-US/1672, Kunze, and STABEL in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify BODIN-2017’s suspension system, as modified, such that it controlled an aiming range based on gun barrel direction and target area level determination devices as suggested by STABEL. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing weapon and target position information to a vehicle’s weapon aiming system and using that information to improve aiming performance that would beneficially make a more formidable system.
Regarding Claim 5, BODIN-2017 further teaches that the connecting element (Connecting Element 60, Fig. 5) is arranged on an opposite side (left side in Fig. 5) of the vehicle body (4) in connection to an opposite track assembly (Connecting Element 60 being disposed on the left side of the Vehicle Body 4, opposite to the Road Wheel Arm 20 it is connected to on the right side of Fig. 5; see also Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 6, BODIN-2017 further teaches a torsion tube (Torsion Tube 50, Fig. 5) being arranged to surround at least a portion of the torsion bar (Torsion Tube 50 surrounding Torsion Bar 40 as illustrated in Fig. 4), the torsion tube (50) having a first end portion (First End Portion 52, Fig. 5) being fixedly connected to the connecting element (First End Portion 52 being connected to Connecting Element 60 through the body of Torsion Tube 50 and Joint J4 as illustrated in Fig. 5) and an opposite second end portion (Second End Portion 54, Fig. 5) being connected to the second end portion (44) of the torsion bar (Second End Portion 54 of Torsion Tube 50 being connected to Second End Portion 44 of Torsion Bar 40 through Joints J2 & J4 of Connecting Element 60 as illustrated in Fig. 5), wherein the connecting element (60) is arranged at the support portion (Connecting Element 60 being arranged adjacent to Housing 30 as illustrated in Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 10, BODIN-2017, as modified above, does not teach that the electric motor comprises a servomotor or a step motor.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the hydraulic cylinder of BODIN-2017 and/ or the electric motor of BODIN-US/1672 with a servomotor or a step motor as it is merely the selection of functionally equivalent torque generating devices recognized in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding Claim 11, BODIN-2017 teaches a tracked vehicle (Vehicle 1 having Propulsion Tracks 3, Fig. 1) comprising a vehicle body (Vehicle Body 4, Fig. 1), a pair of opposite track assemblies (Propulsion Tracks 3, Fig. 1), each respective track assembly (3) comprising a plurality of road wheels (Wheels 2, Fig. 1) and an endless track disposed around said wheels (the track part of Propulsion Tracks 3, as illustrated in Fig. 1), the tracked vehicle (1) further comprising a suspension system according to claim 1 (see the 103 rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 12, BODIN-2017 further teaches that the suspension system comprises a road wheel arm (Road Wheel Arm 20, Fig. 2) for each road wheel (there being a Road Wheel Arm 20 for each Wheel 2 in Fig. 2) and adjustment devices (Ground Clearance Arrangement 100, Fig. 5) connected to at least torsion bars (Ground Clearance Arrangement 100 being connected to Torsion Bar 40 through Pivot Anchor 110, Torsion Tube 50, and Connecting Element 60 as illustrated in Fig. 5) for opposite rear and/or opposite front road wheels.
Regarding Claim 13, BODIN-2017 does not teach a vehicle mounted weapon system with a gun barrel elevation device.
Kunze teaches a vehicle mounted weapon system (Cannon 3, Fig. 1), the weapon system comprising a gun barrel (the barrel portion of Cannon 3, as illustrated in Fig. 1) mounted to a turret (Turret 2, Fig. 1) via a gun barrel elevation device (Trunnion 6, Fig. 1) arranged to allow elevation movement of the gun barrel (3) about an elevation axis (the Cannon 3 rotating about Trunnion 6 in a vertical, elevation axis, as illustrated in Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of BODIN-2017, BODIN-US/1672, Kunze, and STABEL in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify BODIN-2017’s suspension system, as modified, to include a vehicle mounted weapon system with a gun barrel elevation device as suggested by Kunze. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing a military vehicle with a weapon and means to aim it in an elevation axis that would beneficially make a more formidable system.
BODIN-2017 does not teach controlling an aiming range of the gun barrel via the suspension adjustment device, but Kunze does (see the 103 rejection of claim 1 above for the teachings of Kunze and motivation to combine them with the suspension system of BODIN-2017).
Regarding Claim 14, BODIN-2017 teaches a method for controlling a suspension system (Page 14: Lines 4- 8 teaches a method of changing the length on a Hydraulic Cylinder 120- generically labelled therein as “Actuator Unit”- to change the ground clearance of a vehicle), according to claim 1 (see the 103 rejection of claim 1 above), of a tracked vehicle (Vehicle 1, Fig. 1), the method comprising the step of adjusting the torque on one or more torsion bars (Page 14: Lines 4- 8 teaches the method step of changing an Actuator Unit 120 length to rotate a Road Wheel Arm 20, the rotation extension of Actuator Unit / Hydraulic Cylinder 120 understood as configured to apply a torque to Torsion Bar 40 as discussed in the 103 rejection of claim 1 above).
BODIN-2017 does not teach a vehicle mounted weapon system with a gun barrel elevation device or controlling an aiming range of the gun barrel via the suspension adjustment device but Kunze does (see the 103 rejections of claims 1 and 13 above for the teachings of Kunze and motivation to combine them with the suspension system of BODIN-2017).
Regarding Claim 15, BODIN-2017, as modified above by Kunze to include a vehicle mounted weapon system and controlling the aiming range of the gun barrel via the suspension adjustment device, does not teach that the step of adjusting the torque on the torsion bars is based on a direction of the gun barrel relative to the vehicle or a target.
Kunze teaches adjusting a suspension based on the direction of the gun barrel (3) relative to a longitudinal extension (left and right in Fig. 1, being forward and rearward, respectively, relative to the vehicle) of the vehicle (Col. 1: Line 72- Col. 2: Line 9 teaches firing in the forward and rearward directions and that adjusting the suspension increases the firing range particularly when firing rearward, such that the suspension adjustment would be altered based on the direction of the Cannon 3 relative to the vehicle) and level of target area relative to the position of the vehicle (the suspension being used to alter a firing range as discussed, and altering the elevation of a weapon based on the relative positions of the weapon and a target being an inherent part of aiming said weapon, altering the suspension based on the relative positions of the vehicle and a target are inherently taught).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of BODIN-2017, BODIN-US/1672, Kunze, and STABEL in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify BODIN-2017’s method for controlling a suspension system to include the step of adjusting the torque on the torsion bars based on the direction of the gun barrel relative to the vehicle or a target as suggested by Kunze. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of coordinating a vehicle’s aiming means that would beneficially make a more formidable system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER JAY STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30-5:30 ET.
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, Valentin Neacsu, Ph.D. can be reached at (571)272-6265. 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.
/TYLER JAY STANLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611