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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 23 July 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13-16, 18, and 19 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wirthl et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0185264; hereinafter referred to as Wirthl), and further in view of Van Raaphorst (U.S. Patent Number 9,387,742).
With respect to claim 1, Wirthl discloses and illustrates an overrunable test vehicle configured to carry a soft target, the overrunable test vehicle (OTV 10) comprising: a chassis (12); a wheel (38) operatively attached to said chassis (see at least figures 11A -11D); and a suspension system (39) to allow relative movement between said wheel (38) and said chassis with said suspension system comprising: a pivot arm (24) extending between a first portion (at least Figure 11A) and a second portion (at least Figure 11A) with said pivot arm pivotally mounted to said chassis between said first and second portions such that said pivot arm is configured to pivot relative to said chassis about a pivot axis (pivots as shown in at least Figures 11A – 11D), and said wheel rotatably mounted to said first portion about a wheel axis (32); a first biasing element (40) having a first spring rate, with said first biasing element partially supported by said chassis and arranged to engage said first portion of said pivot arm to provide a first suspension force in a first direction about said pivot axis; and a second biasing element (44) having a second spring rate, different than said first spring said second biasing element at least partially supported by said chassis and arranged to engage said second portion of said pivot arm to provide a second suspension force in a second direction about said pivot axis, opposite said first direction (see at least Figures 11A – 11D). Wirthl fails to disclose with said second biasing element compressing in response to engagement with said second portion of said pivot arm, wherein said second spring rate is progressive. However, Van Raaphorst discloses a suspension system with first (62) and second (64) biasing members wherein the said second biasing element compressing in response to engagement with said portion of said pivot arm, wherein said second spring rate is progressive. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the first and second biasing elements from Van Raaphorst with the system of Wirthl since Van Raaphorst discloses that the air spring 64 may be configured to absorb shocks and vibrations to improve ride quality, thus utilizing the shock absorber and air springs of Van Raaphorst would provide a better shock absorption for the pivot arm in both directions.
With respect to claim 2, the overrunable test vehicle according to claim 1, wherein said first biasing element is spaced from said pivot axis at a first distance (see at least Figures 11A – 11D of Wirthl) such that said pivot arm experiences a first biasing moment about said pivot axis in said first direction, wherein said first biasing moment is the product of said first suspension force and said first distance; wherein said second biasing element is spaced from said pivot axis at a second distance such that said pivot arm experiences a second biasing moment about said pivot axis in said second direction, wherein said second biasing moment is the product of said second suspension force and said second distance; and wherein said wheel experiences a ground force due to contacting a ground surface, and said wheel is spaced from said pivot axis at a third distance such that said pivot arm experiences a ground force moment about said pivot axis in said second direction, wherein the ground force moment is the product of said ground force and said third distance (see at least Figures 11A – 11D of Wirthl).
With respect to claim 3, while Wirthl fails to explicitly disclose the overrunable test vehicle according to claim 2, wherein the sum of said second biasing moment and the ground force moment about said pivot axis is equal to said first biasing moment about said pivot axis such that said suspension system supports said chassis above the ground surface at a variable operating height. However, Wirthl does disclose the capability to operate at different heights. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to operate the device at various heights, such as disclosed in Wirthl and that the heights would be selected in a manner that allows the device to operate most efficiently.
With respect to claim 4, the overrunable test vehicle according to claim 2, wherein said third distance is greater than said first distance is shown in at least Figures 11A – 11D of Wirthl.
With respect to claim 5, the overrunable test vehicle according to claim 1, wherein said suspension system is operable for movement between a plurality of suspension states including: an operating state (46; see at least paragraph [0045] of Wirthl; see at least Figures 11A – 11C of Wirthl) where said wheel is partially spaced below said chassis such that said wheel contacts a ground surface to support said chassis above the ground surface at a variable operating height; and an overrun state (46; see at least paragraph [0045] of Wirthl; and see at least Figures 11A – 11C of Wirthl) where said wheel moves toward said chassis such that said chassis contacts the ground surface to permit said overrunable test vehicle to be overrun by a vehicle.
With respect to claim 6, Wirthl fails to explicitly disclose the overrunable test vehicle according to claim 5, wherein said second biasing element second height, and wherein said variable operating height of said chassis relative to the ground surface is defined by said second height. However, Wirthl does disclose the capability to operate at different heights. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to operate the device at various heights, such as disclosed in Wirthl and that the heights would be selected in a manner that allows the device to operate most efficiently.
With respect to claim 7, Wirthl fails to explicitly disclose the overrunable test vehicle according to claim 6, wherein said variable operating height is 10 mm based on a predetermined second height. However, Wirthl does disclose the capability to operate at different heights. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to operate the device at various heights, such as disclosed in Wirthl and that the heights would be selected in a manner that allows the device to operate most efficiently.
With respect to claim 8, the overrunable test vehicle according to claim 5, wherein said first biasing element is spaced from said pivot axis at a first distance such that said pivot arm experiences a first biasing moment about said pivot axis in said first direction (see at least Figures 11A – 11D of Wirthl), wherein said first biasing moment is the product of said first suspension force and said first distance; wherein said second biasing element is spaced from said pivot axis at a second distance such that said pivot arm experiences a second biasing moment about said pivot axis in said second direction, wherein said second biasing moment is the product of said second suspension force and said second distance; and wherein said wheel experiences a ground force from the ground surface and said wheel is spaced from said pivot axis at a third distance such that said pivot arm experiences a ground force moment about said pivot axis in said second direction, wherein the ground force moment is the product of said ground force and said third distance (see at least Figures 11A – 11D of Wirthl).
With respect to claim 9, the overrunable test vehicle according to claim 8, wherein said third distance is greater than said first distance is shown in at least Figures 11A – 11D of Wirthl.
With respect to claim 10, Wirthl fails to explicitly disclose the overrunable test vehicle according to claim 8, wherein the sum of said second biasing moment and the ground force moment about said pivot axis is equal to said first biasing moment about said pivot axis such that said suspension system supports said chassis above the ground surface at a variable operating height. However, Wirthl does disclose the capability to operate at different heights and at specific operation heights and a service height. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to select a specific biasing moment that enables the device to operate at various heights, such as disclosed in Wirthl and that the biasing moment would be selected in a manner that allows the device to operate most efficiently.
With respect to claim 11, the overrunable test vehicle according to claim 10, wherein said first spring rate of said first biasing element is linear is deemed to be disclosed or at least implied as paragraph [0043] of Wirthl discloses the use of springs and a spring has a linear spring rate that is consistent.
With respect to claim 13, the overrunable test vehicle according to claim 5, wherein said pivot arm is configured disconnect from said second biasing element in response to said suspension system moving to said overrun state such that said second suspension force equals zero where said suspension system is in said overrun state distance is shown in at least Figures 11A – 11D of Wirthl.
With respect to claim 14, Wirthl fails to explicitly disclose the overrunable test vehicle according to claim 13, wherein said second biasing element is disconnected from said pivot arm where the variable operating height is less than 5 mm. However, Wirthl does disclose the capability to operate at different heights. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to operate the device at various heights, such as disclosed in Wirthl and that the heights would be selected in a manner that allows the device to operate most efficiently and in particular very minimal heights as the device is to be operated very close to the ground so that a vehicle collision can be simulated.
With respect to claim 15, the overrunable test vehicle according to claim 5, wherein said plurality of suspension further includes a service state (48; see at least paragraph [0045]; see at least Figure 11D of Wirthl) where said second biasing element is at least partially disconnected from said chassis and said pivot arm is rotated in said first direction such that said wheel is spaced from said chassis to permit said wheel to be removed from said pivot arm (see at least Figure 11D of Wirthl).
With respect to claim 16, the overrunable test vehicle according to claim 1, wherein said first spring rate of said first biasing element is linear is deemed to be disclosed or at least implied as paragraph [0043] of Wirthl discloses the use of springs and a spring has a linear spring rate that is consistent.
With respect to claim 18, the overrunable test vehicle according to claim 1, wherein said first biasing element is a spring is deemed to be disclosed or at least implied as paragraph [0043] of Wirthl discloses the use of springs.
With respect to claim 19, the overrunable test vehicle according to claim 1, wherein said second biasing element an elastomeric damper is deemed to be disclosed or at least implied as paragraph [0043] of Wirthl discloses the use of dampers and further the air spring disclosed in Van Raaphorst would be an elastomeric damper such as the bellows disclosed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11, 13-16, 18, and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. In order to provide as compact prosecution as possible, the Examiner notes that while the Applicant argued that the second biasing element of Wirthl does not have a progressive spring rate, the shock absorber and the air spring of Van Raaphorst have different spring rates and are both deformable. The new rejection was made in view of the Applicant’s attempt to read over the previous prior art rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY T FRANK whose telephone number is (571)272-2193. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5:30pm.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at (571) 272-2375. 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.
/RODNEY T FRANK/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
August 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights