DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the steering" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the degree of freedom" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the transmission" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 – 3, 8 - 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weagle (Patent No.: US 11,345,432 B2) in view of Southall (Pub. No.: US 2022/0169332 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Weagle teaches suspension device for a front steering wheel for a vehicle with two or more wheels (46, FIG. 1A), comprising:
a fork frame connected to the steering column of the vehicle by a standard pivot joint configured to ensure the degree of freedom necessary for the transmission of the vehicle guide movements (30, FIG. 1A and also see, pivot operatively connected to elements that allows relative movement between connected elements and may move in one or more degrees of freedom col. 3, lines 32-37), a rocker connected to the fork frame by a pivot joint whose axis of rotation is parallel to the axis of rotation of the wheel and located behind the axis of rotation of the wheel, and to the wheel (50, 74, FIG. 2B), and a dissipative and/or resilient system installed, between all relatively moving parts of the suspension device (Similarly, shock absorber 44, FIG. 3), and to a torque link by a pivot or ball joint, the torque link being connected to the fork frame by a pivot or ball joint such that the segments connecting these joints and the joint of the rocker to the fork frame form a non-intersecting convex quadrilateral (Pivots 40, 72, 74, 54 are interpreted to create a non-intersecting convex quadrilateral; FIG. 2B) with one degree of freedom allowing movement of the wheel axle in a plane normal to its direction (col. 3, lines 32-51 and FIGS. 2A and 2B).
Weagle is silent to wherein the suspension device has a caliper support with an interface compatible with the mounting of a standard brake caliper, the caliper support connected to the rocker by a pivot joint coaxial with the wheel axle. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Southall teaches a suspension fork 10 that is pivotally connected to sprung portion 12 and a main pivot 22 (FIG. 1). More specifically, a brake caliper 7 is fixedly attached to the fork 12 where pivot 22 is attached and further to wheel axle 6 (¶ 39). The combination of references is obvious as it is well known in the art for brake calipers to be attached to a rocker via coaxial to a wheel of a front fork.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the suspension device taught by Weagle to have a caliper support with an interface compatible with the mounting of a standard brake caliper, the caliper support connected to the rocker by a pivot joint coaxial with the wheel axle as taught by Southall to optimize suspension performance by minimizing any un-sprung mass (¶ 39).
Regarding claim 2, Southall teaches the suspension device, wherein the dissipative and/or resilient system is connected directly to the caliper support by a joint of selected from among a pivot joint, a ball joint, a flexible joint, or an embedded joint (pivot point 22 ¶ 39).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the suspension device taught by Weagle to wherein the dissipative and/or resilient system is connected directly to the caliper support by a joint of selected from among a pivot joint, a ball joint, a flexible joint, or an embedded joint as taught by Southall to optimize suspension performance by minimizing any un-sprung mass (¶ 39).
Regarding claim 3, Southall teaches the suspension device wherein the joints on the caliper support of the dissipative and/or resilient system and of the torque link are coaxial (¶ 39).
It would have been obvious to modify the suspension device taught by Weagle to wherein the joints on the caliper support of the dissipative and/or resilient system and of the torque link are coaxial as taught by Southall to optimize suspension performance by minimizing any un-sprung mass (¶ 39).
Regarding claim 8, Weagle discloses the suspension device wherein: the fork frame is hollow and receives between its inner faces at least the rocker, the fork frame has at least openings for passage of mobile elements external to the fork frame and connected to the rocker, and the fork frame has at least openings for access to the wheel axis (col. 3, lines 6-21).
Regarding claim 9, Southall teaches the suspension device an interface between the caliper support and the brake caliper is located in a space below and/or in front of the axis of the wheel (7, FIG. 1).
It would have been obvious to modify the suspension device taught by Weagle to have an interface between the caliper support and the brake caliper is located in a space below and/or in front of the axis of the wheel as taught by Southall to optimize suspension performance by minimizing any un-sprung mass (¶ 39).
Regarding claim 10, Weagle discloses the suspension device wherein the dissipative and/or resilient system device uses a spring of the comprises a tension leaf type spring linked by joints to the fork frame, and to the rocker or the torque link in a zone located at the rear (i.e. toward the rear wheel) of their joint with the fork frame (44, FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 11, Weagle discloses the suspension device, wherein the caliper support and/or the joint interface between the caliper support and the rocker has/have a radial opening, relative to the axis of the wheel, sufficiently wide to allow passage of the wheel and/or the joint interface of the wheel with the rocker (FIG. 2B).
Regarding claim 12, Weagle discloses the suspension device, wherein the caliper support is positioned on an inner side of the rocker between the rocker and the wheel, and such that the joint interface between the caliper support and the rocker is located on a diameter greater than or equal to that of the joint interface between the wheel and the rocker (64, 72; FIG. 2A).
Regarding claim 13, Weagle discloses the suspension device, wherein the joint between the caliper support and the rocker comprises a bearing mounted in the caliper support and configured to slide without play around the interface provided on the rocker (Pivot 72 is interpreted to slide without play, FIG. 2A).
Regarding claim 15, Weagle teaches a vehicle (10, FIG. 1A), comprising:
a front steering column (30, FIG. 1A);
a front wheel (14, FIG. 1A); and
a suspension device coupled to the front steering column and the front wheel (46, FIG. 1A), the suspension device comprising:
a fork frame connected to the front steering column by a pivot joint (30, FIG. 1A);
a rocker having a first end connected to the fork frame by a pivot joint having an axis of rotation parallel to an axis of rotation of the front wheel and located behind the axis of rotation of the front wheel, the rocker having a second end connected to the front wheel (50, 74, FIG. 2B);
a torque link connected to the caliper support by a pivot or ball joint, the torque link also connected to the fork frame by a pivot or ball joint (col. 3, lines 32-51); wherein the fork frame, the rocker and the torque link form a quadrilateral configured to allow translational movement of the front wheel with only one degree of freedom in a plane normal to the axis of rotation of the front wheel (Pivots 40, 72, 74, 54 are interpreted to create a non-intersecting convex quadrilateral; FIG. 2B); and a dissipative and/or resilient system connected between the fork frame (Similarly, shock absorber 44, FIG. 3).
Weagle is silent to a caliper support configured to support a brake caliper thereon, the caliper support connected to the second end of the rocker by a pivot joint coaxial with the axis of rotation of the front wheel. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Southall teaches a suspension fork 10 that is pivotally connected to sprung portion 12 and a main pivot 22 (FIG. 1). More specifically, a brake caliper 7 is fixedly attached to the fork 12 where pivot 22 is attached and further to wheel axle 6 (¶ 39). The combination of references is obvious as it is well known in the art for brake calipers to be attached to a rocker via coaxial to a wheel of a front fork.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the suspension device taught by Weagle to have a caliper support configured to support a brake caliper thereon, the caliper support connected to the second end of the rocker by a pivot joint coaxial with the axis of rotation of the front wheel as taught by Southall to optimize suspension performance by minimizing any un-sprung mass (¶ 39).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 – 7 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER J LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-9727. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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 J LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663