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 .
Acknowledgement
Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s Amendment to the Claims (filed 6/3/2026).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6, 8-14, and 16-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 1 line 11, “swing arm body” should be changed to --a swing arm body--;
in claim 9 line 4, “a steering angle” should be changed to --the steering angle--;
in claim 14 line 15, “swing arm body” should be changed to --a swing arm body--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112
(pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 21 is dependent upon itself. Therefore, claim 21 is rendered indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9-11, 14, and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Riedel (US 2020/0101806 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 11, Riedel (at least Figs. 1-12) discloses
(claim 1) a wheel module (at least Figs. 1-6) for a motor vehicle comprising:
a wheel 10 which is rotatable about a center of rotation and which serves for propelling the motor vehicle (at least Figs. 1-6); and
a swing arm 18, 20, 22 configured for being attachable to a supporting frame 38, 38’ of the motor vehicle so as to be movable about a pivot axis (at least Figs. 1-6) and by which forces which act on the wheel 10 are supported on the supporting frame (at least Figs. 1-6),
wherein the center of rotation of the wheel 10 and the pivot axis (at least Figs.
1-6) of the swing arm 18, 20, 22 lie on an imaginary radial line beginning at the center of rotation of the wheel 10, wherein the imaginary radial line runs at an angle α of
-40° ≤ α ≤ 0° or 0° ≤ α ≤ 35° with respect to an X-Y plane of the motor vehicle (at least Fig. 6),
wherein the swing arm 18, 20, 22 includes swing arm body 18 having an upper end above the wheel 10 and a lower end inside of the wheel 10, the swing arm body 18 extending from the upper end to the lower end in an arcuate manner both in an X-Y plane and in a Y-Z plane to enable a steering angle of the wheel 10 by at least 90° (as much as in Applicant’s Application; at least Figs. 1-6);
(claim 2) wherein the angle α is -30° ≤ α ≤ 20° (at least Fig. 6);
(claim 4) wherein a shock absorber 32 which acts on the swing arm 18, 20, 22 and is supportable on the supporting frame 38, 38’ of the motor vehicle (at least Figs.
1-6) is provided for damping vibrations of the wheel 10 caused by unevenness in a roadway, wherein the wheel is supportable exclusively via the swing arm and the shock absorber on the supporting frame of the motor vehicle for dissipating forces;
(claim 5) wherein a wheel carrier 12, 14 rotatably mounted on the swing arm 18, 20, 22 and attached to the wheel 10 for steering the wheel and an electrically operable steering actuator 24 attached to the swing arm and acting on the wheel carrier for rotating the wheel carrier are provided (at least Figs. 1-6);
(claim 6) wherein the swing arm 18, 20, 22 has a lower bearing 26’ and an upper bearing 26 provided substantially in a Z direction above the lower bearing for turning the wheel 10 about a Z axis running through the lower bearing and the upper bearing, wherein the lower bearing and the upper bearing are connected to one another via the swing arm body 18 formed to enable a steering angle of the wheel 10 by at least 90° (at least Figs. 1-6), wherein at least one steering lever 20, 22 projects from the swing arm body 18 for articulated connection to the supporting frame 38, 38’ of the motor vehicle;
(claim 11) wherein the angle α is -20° ≤ α ≤ 0° (at least Fig. 6).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Riedel (at least Figs. 1-12) discloses
(claim 9) a motor vehicle (at least Figs. 1-12) comprising:
a supporting frame 38, 38’; and
at least one of the wheel module (at least Figs. 1-6) according to claim 1 supported on the supporting frame for steering the motor vehicle, wherein each wheel module enables a steering angle of the wheel 10 of at least 90° (at least Figs. 1-6);
(claim 10) wherein the supporting frame 38, 38’ has a sill 38, 38’ formed between a front wheel module in an X direction and a rear wheel module in the X direction, wherein the swing arm 18, 20, 22 is articulated on the supporting frame 38, 38’ at a level of the sill 38, 38’ (at least Figs. 1-6).
Regarding claim 19, Riedel (at least Figs. 1-12) discloses a method of assembling a motor vehicle (at least Figs. 1-12) comprising:
providing the wheel module (at least Figs. 1-6) as recited in claim 1; and
connecting the wheel module to the supporting frame 38, 38’ at the pivot axis (at least Figs. 1-6) to enable a steering angle of the wheel 10 of at least 90° (at least Figs. 1-6).
Regarding claims 14 and 16-18, Riedel (at least Figs. 1-12) discloses
(claim 14) a wheel module (at least Figs. 1-6) for a motor vehicle comprising:
a wheel 10 rotatable about a center of rotation for propelling the motor vehicle (at least Figs. 1-6);
a steering actuator 24 configured for steering the wheel 10;
a wheel carrier 12, 14 connected to the wheel 10 and rotatable by the steering actuator; and
a swing arm 18, 20, 22 configured for being attachable to a supporting frame 38, 38’ of the motor vehicle so as to be movable about a pivot axis (at least Figs. 1-6) and by which forces which act on the wheel 10 are supported on the supporting frame (at least Figs. 1-6),
the steering actuator 24 protruding towards the center of rotation of the wheel 10 such that the steering actuator is attached to the swing arm 18, 20, 22 outside a steering area of the wheel to prevent the steering actuator from turning with the wheel carrier (at least Fig. 6),
wherein the center of rotation of the wheel 10 and the pivot axis (at least Figs.
1-6) of the swing arm 18, 20, 22 lie on an imaginary radial line beginning at the center of rotation of the wheel 10, wherein the imaginary radial line runs at an angle α of
-40° ≤ α ≤ 0° or 0° ≤ α ≤ 35° with respect to an X-Y plane of the motor vehicle (at least Fig. 6),
wherein the swing arm 18, 20, 22 includes swing arm body 18 having an upper end directly above the wheel 10 and a lower end inside of the wheel 10, the swing arm body 18 extending from the upper end to the lower end in an arcuate manner both in an X-Y plane and in a Y-Z plane to enable a steering angle of the wheel 10 by at least 90° (as much as in Applicant’s Application; at least Figs. 1-6);
(claim 16) wherein the steering actuator 24 is offset from an axis of rotation of the wheel carrier 12, 14 (at least Figs. 1-6);
(claim 17) wherein the swing arm 18, 20, 22 includes an upper bearing 26 and a lower bearing 26’, the upper bearing being sandwiched between an attachment piece of the steering actuator 24 and an end of the wheel carrier 12, 14 (at least Figs. 1-6);
(claim 18) wherein the swing arm 18, 20, 22 includes a steering lever 20, 22 extending from the swing arm body 18 to the pivot axis (at least Figs. 1-6).
Regarding claims 20 and 21, Riedel (at least Figs. 1-12) discloses
(claim 20) a wheel module (at least Figs. 1-6) for a motor vehicle comprising:
a wheel 10 which is rotatable about a center of rotation and which serves for propelling the motor vehicle (at least Figs. 1-6); and
a swing arm 18, 20, 22 configured to be pivotably attached to a supporting frame 38, 38’ of the motor vehicle about a pivot axis (at least Figs. 1-6) and to transmit forces acting on the wheel 10 to the supporting frame (at least Figs. 1-6),
wherein the center of rotation of the wheel and the pivot axis (at least Figs. 1-6) of the swing arm 18, 20, 22 lie on an imaginary radial line beginning at the center of rotation of the wheel 10, wherein the imaginary radial line runs at an angle α of
-40° ≤ α ≤ 35° with respect to an X-Y plane of the motor vehicle (at least Figs. 1-6),
wherein the swing arm 18, 20, 22 includes a lower bearing 26’, an upper bearing 26 disposed above the lower bearing in a Z direction, a curved swing arm body 18 connecting the lower bearing and the upper bearing, and at least one steering lever 20, 22 projecting from the curved swing arm body 18 and configured for pivotable attachment to the supporting frame 38, 38’,
wherein the lower bearing 26’, the upper bearing 26, and the curved swing arm body 18 are configured to enable a steering angle of the wheel 10 of at least 90° (as much as in Applicant’s Application; at least Figs. 1-6);
(claim 21) (as best understood) wherein the swing arm body 18 extends in an arcuate manner both in the X-Y plane and in a Y-Z plane to enable the steering angle of the wheel 10 of at least 90° (as much as in Applicant’s Application; at least Figs. 1-6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riedel (US 2020/0101806 A1).
Regarding claims 3, 12, and 13, Riedel (at least Figs. 1-12) discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose
(claim 3) wherein the pivot axis has a distance d from an underlying surface of
60 mm ≤ d ≤ 650 mm;
(claim 12) wherein the distance d from the underlying surface is
80 mm ≤ d ≤ 590 mm;
(claim 13) wherein the distance d from the underlying surface is
100 mm ≤ d ≤ 260 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide
(claim 3) wherein the pivot axis has a distance d from an underlying surface of
60 mm ≤ d ≤ 650 mm;
(claim 12) wherein the distance d from the underlying surface is
80 mm ≤ d ≤ 590 mm;
(claim 13) wherein the distance d from the underlying surface is
100 mm ≤ d ≤ 260 mm,
since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim objection(s) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The primary reason for the allowance of claim 8 in this case, is the inclusion of the limitation “wherein the swing arm is rigid and formed in one piece” now included in the claim, in combination with the other elements recited, which is not found in the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
PNG
media_image1.png
268
643
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues on page 9 of the REMARKS:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is the Examiner’s position that Riedel meets the claimed limitations of claims 1 and 14 in at least Figs. 1-6. Also see rejections above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 JOSELYNN Y SLITERIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6675. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm 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, Jason D. Shanske can be reached at 571-270-5985. 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.
/JOSELYNN Y SLITERIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights