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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 4/2/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3 and 5-17 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 1/27/2026. Examiner further acknowledges the addition of new claims 11-17 incorporating the allowable subject matter from claim 6. Claims 1, 5 and 7 are rejected as follows. Claims 2-3, 6 and 8-10 are objected to. Claims 11-17 are allowed.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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)(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.
(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.
Claims 1, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bjoerk (US 2023/0158849).
Regarding claim 1, Bjoerk discloses a vehicle (400, Fig. 4A; [0053]) comprising a vehicle frame (406, Fig. 4A) and a body (408, Fig. 4A) arranged on the vehicle frame (406, Fig. 4A), wherein the body (408, Fig. 4A) is connected in a front region (408, Fig. 4A) of the vehicle frame (406, Fig. 4A) to the vehicle frame (406, Fig. 4A) by means of at least one flexible connecting element (402, Fig. 4A), and the flexible connecting element (402, Fig. 4A) is designed to ensure a movement of the body (408, Fig. 4A) away from the vehicle frame (406, Fig. 4A) in the vertical direction ([0002], lines 3-5; [0047], lines 1-4), wherein the flexible connecting element (402, Fig. 4A) comprises a plate (102(1) or 102(2), Fig. 1) and the plate is arranged in a horizontal plane.
Regarding claim 5, Bjoerk discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 4 above, and further discloses wherein the longitudinal direction of the plate (102(1)/102(2), Fig. 1) is oriented perpendicular to the direction of travel or longitudinally to the direction of travel. Plate (102) is longitudinal to the direction of travel and has side edges perpendicular to the direction of travel as seen in Fig.1-2.
Regarding claim 7, Bjoerk further discloses wherein the vehicle frame (406, Fig. 4A) has at least one U profile (406, Fig. 6) and the flexible connecting element (402, Fig. 4A) is fastened to the U profile.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 6 and 8-10 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.
Claims 11-17 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter in claim 3 is the inclusion of limitations defining the horizontal flexible connecting element as comprising a deformable material. The deformable material is a feature that defines a plate that is flexible to allow for relative movement on its own. The flexible connecting element (402, Fig. 4A) of Bjoerk (US 2023/0158849) comprising a plate (102(1) or 102(2), Fig. 1) arranged in a horizontal plane is flexible about triangular linkage and axis (112) not requiring the element itself to be made of a deformable material. While Johansson (WO 2019/240649 A1) and Hellstrand (GB 253,191) teach a flexible connecting element made of a deformable material, the limitations recited in claim 3 are not combinable with Bjoerk as they would destroy the nature of the base reference. Such limitations, in combination with a flexible connecting element comprising a plate arranged in a horizontal plane and the rest of the limitations of the claim, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record.
The primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter in claims 2 and 8-10 is the inclusion of limitations defining the specific structure(s) connecting the middle and rear regions of the body to the frame. In particular, the prior art of Bjoerk is silent as to a rigid connection at the rear region of the vehicle frame and additional flexible connecting elements in a central region or at the outer ends of a front or middle cross member. The structural connections at the rear and middle frame taught by Hellstrand (GB 253,191) are not combinable with the horizontal plate of Bjoerk without destroying the base reference. Applicant’s “means of a rigid connecting element” in a rear region of claims 2 & 9 and “second flexible connecting element” in a middle/central region of claims 8-10 allow for a transition between the flexible connecting element in the front region and the rigid connecting element in the rear region without a renewed stress arising at the connecting points between the regions. Such limitations, in combination with a flexible connecting element comprising a plate arranged in a horizontal plane and the rest of the limitations of the claim, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record.
The primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter in claim 6 and claim 11 is the inclusion of limitations defining the specific structure of the flexible connecting element and how it is oriented with respect to the vehicle body and frame, in particular “a first part of the flexible connecting element located to the outside of the vehicle frame is connected to the body and a second part of the flexible connecting element located to the inside of the vehicle frame is connected to the vehicle frame”. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. The closest prior art of Schantz (US Patent No. 1,737,177), Johansson (WO 2019/240649 A1), Bjoerk (US 2023/0158849) or Hellstrand (GB 253,191) disclose flexible connecting elements; however, they do not expressly disclose the flexible connecting element with first and second parts arranged as claimed. Applicant’s arrangement allows the body to be raised and slightly rotated about the longitudinal direction of the vehicle and ensures that the body can be raised upwards in the vertical direction in a tilted position of the vehicle in order to compensate for the tilted position or resulting torsional forces. Claims 12-17 contain allowable subject matter by virtue of dependency as they depend from claim 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 5-7 of Applicant’s response, claim 1 is amended and applicant argues that the prior art of Schantz and the prior art of Johansson do not disclose a flexible connecting element that comprises a plate and the plate is arranged in a horizontal plane. Also, the flexible connecting element is not arranged between the vehicle frame and the body with a first part of the flexible connecting element located to the outside of the vehicle frame connected to the body and a second part of the flexible connecting element located to the inside of the vehicle frame connected to the vehicle frame. The examiner agrees. On pages 8-9 of Applicant’s response, claim 1 is amended and applicant argues that the prior art of Hellstrand does not disclose a flexible connecting element that comprises a plate and the plate is arranged in a horizontal plane. Also, the flexible connecting element is not arranged between the vehicle frame and the body with a first part of the flexible connecting element located to the outside of the vehicle frame connected to the body and a second part of the flexible connecting element located to the inside of the vehicle frame connected to the vehicle frame. The examiner agrees.
On page 7 of Applicant’s response, claim 1 is amended and applicant argues that the plate from Bjoerk is not designed to be flexible and cannot allow relative movement on its own as it is movable only by virtue of a coupled hinge mechanism, so it does not describe a plate within the meaning of the invention. In response to applicant's argument that the reference fails to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a plate that is flexible and configured to allow for relative movement on its own) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant does not claim structure that requires a plate that is flexible and designed to allow for relative movement on its own. The claim requires that the flexible connecting element comprises a plate and the plate is arranged in a horizontal plane. Bjoerk’s connecting element as a whole is flexible and comprises a plate arranged in a horizontal plane which meets the language as claimed.
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 Denise L Esquivel whose telephone number is (703)756-5825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Thursday 7:30 am-5:00 pm, alternate Fridays 7:30 am-4:00 pm.
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. 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.
/D.L.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights