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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wirthl et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0185264; hereinafter referred to as Wirthl).
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 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 rate, with 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).
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) 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).
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.
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]; see at least Figures 11A – 11C) 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]; and see at least Figures 11A – 11C) 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 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), 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).
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.
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) 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).
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) 3, 6, 7, 10-14, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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 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 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] discloses the use of springs and a spring has a linear spring rate that is consistent.
With respect to claim 12, the overrunable test vehicle according to claim 11, wherein said second spring rate of said second biasing element is progressive is deemed to be disclosed or at least implied as paragraph [0043] discloses the use of dampers and a damper has a progressive spring rate.
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.
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 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] discloses the use of springs and a spring has a linear spring rate that is consistent.
With respect to claim 17. The overrunable test vehicle according to claim 1, wherein said second spring rate of said second biasing element is progressive is deemed to be disclosed or at least implied as paragraph [0043] discloses the use of dampers and a damper has a progressive spring rate.
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] 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] discloses the use of dampers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues two main points and only makes arguments with respect to the 102 rejection of claim 1. The Applicant argues that “independent claim 1 requires two different biasing elements, each having a respective spring rate, with the "second biasing element" (i) having its own spring rate different from the first spring rate of the first biasing element and (ii) being arranged to engage the second portion of the pivot arm to provide a second suspension force in a second direction about the pivot axis. Wirthl, on the other hand, merely describes an "adjustable stop 44" that interacts with an extension and can be set to limit travel, set a nominal ground clearance, and contact the extension when the transaxle reaches maximum travel. Even taking the Examiner's interpretation of Wirthl, Wirthl's disclosure of an "adjustable stop" that limits travel and sets ground clearance does not disclose, teach, or even suggest a "second biasing element having a second spring rate" as required by independent claim 1, nor does it disclose that the adjustable stop 44 provides the recited second suspension force. In other words, Wirthl's disclosure of an "adjustable stop 44" is limited to a travel-limiting/clearance-setting stop, not as a biasing element having a defined spring rate (different from the first spring rate) and arranged to provide the recited suspension force.“
The Examiner disagrees. The first issue is that the Applicant characterizing the “adjustable stop” of Wirthl as a “mere adjustable stop” is not giving full consideration to what an adjustable stop is and can be. The Applicant takes the position that a stop merely limits travel and thus has no spring force. While that is true that the stop limits travel, the fact the stop is adjustable mean the amount of travel that is limited can vary and that would mean that there is a certain amount of force, and a spring rate, that would exist for the stop. An adjustable stop can be considered to have a spring rate, particularly in engineering and suspension contexts where the stop is designed to deform or absorb energy upon contact. Therefore, the adjustable stop 44 and the damper 40 would each have their own respective spring rate and thus their own suspension force. Further, those forces are in different direction as illustrated in the drawings below.
PNG
media_image1.png
610
660
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The stop 44 in a first direction and the damper 40 is in a second direction. Therefore, the claim limitations appear to be met and the arguments are not persuasive. The applicant only argues the other claims based on the fact that independent claim 1 is allowable. Since claim 1 does not appear to be allowable, then the claims are deemed properly twice rejected and the previous rejection is being maintained and made to be final.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
/PETER J MACCHIAROLO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
March 27, 2026