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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 9, line 19, “auxiliary” should be changed to --an auxiliary--.
On page 9, line 23, “electrical” should be changed to --an electrical--.
On page 10, line 7, “through of” should be changed to --through--.
On page 13, line 14, “o,” should be changed to --or,--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 3, “arm (7)” should be changed to --arm (30)--.
In line 7, “duct” should be changed to --at least one duct--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, “configured” should be changed to --is configured--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, “duct” should be changed to --at least one duct--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 7, “duct” should be changed to --at least one duct--.
In line 8, “duct” should be changed to --at least one duct--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 4, “duct” should be changed to --at least one duct--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 7, “duct” should be changed to --at least one duct--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 3, “duct” should be changed to --at least one duct--.
In line 5, “duct” should be changed to --at least one duct--.
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 4-12 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation “the wheel (4) comprises a device (10, 20, 23) connected to the duct (42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47) so as to be supplied through the duct”, and the claim also recites “in particular with a fluid flow or with power through the electric wiring (32)” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
As an additional note, any amendments made to address the above issue in claim 4 should take into consideration later recitations of “the fluid flow” (e.g., in claims 9, 11 and 12).
Claim 4 does not accurately describe the invention. Claim 4 recites, “a wheel (4) carried by the upright (6) in a rotary manner around a wheel axis (H)… and wherein the wheel (4) comprises a device (10, 20, 23)”. Thus, based on claim 4, the claimed “device”, being a part of the wheel (4), must be carried by the upright (6) in a rotary manner around the wheel axis (H). However, none of elements 10, 20 and 23 are carried in a rotary manner around wheel axis H.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 9 does not accurately describe the invention. Claim 4 recites, “a wheel (4) carried by the upright (6) in a rotary manner around a wheel axis (H)… and wherein the wheel (4) comprises a device (10, 20, 23)”. Thus, based on claim 4, the claimed “device”, being a part of the wheel (4), must be carried by the upright (6) in a rotary manner around the wheel axis (H). However, as shown in Fig. 6, the particularly claimed device (i.e., “a conditioning member (20), for example a heat exchanger”, as recited in claim 9, lines 2-3) is mounted on element 19 such that it is not carried in a rotary manner around wheel axis H. Similarly, the claimed “further device (10, 25)” recited in claim 9, line 4, which is described as being a part of the wheel (4), is not carried in a rotary manner around wheel axis H. Similarly, the claimed “fluid processing apparatus (21)” recited in claim 9, lines 5-6, which is described as being a part of the wheel (4), is not carried in a rotary manner around wheel axis H.
Claim 9 is amenable to multiple claim constructions, since the limitation “the wheel (4) further comprising a further device (10, 25) in thermal contact with the conditioning member (20) and comprising a fluid processing apparatus (21)” could be interpreted as meaning that (i) the wheel (4) comprises a fluid processing apparatus (21); or (ii) the further device (10, 25) comprises a fluid processing apparatus (21). “The USPTO, as the sole agency vested with the authority to grant exclusionary rights to inventors for patentable inventions, has a duty to guard the public against patents of ambiguous and vague scope.” Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI 2008) (precedential). According to current Patent Trial and Appeal Board precedent “[i]f a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite.” Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d at 1211. In reaching its decision, the Board observed that the Federal Circuit has noted that a different standard for indefiniteness may be appropriate during the prosecution of patent claims, compared to the standard applied to claims in a granted patent. Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d at 1211 (citing Exxon Research and Engineering Co. v. U.S., 265 F.3d 1371, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“If this case were before an examiner, the examiner might well be justified in demanding that the applicant more clearly define UL, and thereby remove any degree of ambiguity. However, we are faced with an issued patent that enjoys a presumption of validity.”)).
Claim 10 does not accurately describe the invention. Claim 4 recites, “a wheel (4) carried by the upright (6) in a rotary manner around a wheel axis (H)… and wherein the wheel (4) comprises a device (10, 20, 23)”. Thus, based on claim 4, the claimed “device”, being a part of the wheel (4), must be carried by the upright (6) in a rotary manner around the wheel axis (H). However, the claimed “further device (10, 25)” recited in claim 10, line 2, which is described as being a part of the wheel (4), is not carried in a rotary manner around wheel axis H. That is, neither electric motor (10) nor braking member (25) is carried in a rotary manner around wheel axis H.
Claim 11 does not accurately describe the invention. Claim 4 recites, “a wheel (4) carried by the upright (6) in a rotary manner around a wheel axis (H)… and wherein the wheel (4) comprises a device (10, 20, 23)”. Thus, based on claim 4, the claimed “device”, being a part of the wheel (4), must be carried by the upright (6) in a rotary manner around the wheel axis (H). However, the claimed “actuator (23)” recited in claim 11, line 2, which is described as being a part of the wheel (4), is not carried in a rotary manner around wheel axis H.
Claim 12 does not accurately describe the invention. Claim 4 recites, “a wheel (4) carried by the upright (6) in a rotary manner around a wheel axis (H)”. Thus, based on claim 4, all parts of the wheel(4) must be carried by the upright (6) in a rotary manner around the wheel axis (H). However, the claimed “braking device (25)” recited in claim 12, line 2, which is described as being a part of the wheel (4), is not carried in a rotary manner around wheel axis H.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaspar (WO 94/29133 A1). Kaspar discloses a suspension for a motor vehicle (abstract), the suspension comprising at least one internally hollow suspension arm 4, so as to define at least one inner cavity, characterized by comprising at least one duct 8b extending along the inner cavity between an input hole (e.g., at 15) of the suspension arm and an output hole (e.g., at 14) of the suspension arm, the at least one duct being designed to allow a fluid (“hydraulic fluid” (see, for example, the abstract); “oil” (see, for example, the paragraph beginning with “Preferably”)) flow or an electric wiring to go from the input hole to the output hole through the inner cavity. The suspension arm extends along an axis between two hinge ends (at 15 and 14) opposite one another and is configured to be hinged to an upright (e.g., 1b, and also, optionally, 1a, and also, optionally, 9) and to a frame 10, respectively, of the motor vehicle. The input hole and the output hole are obtained on said ends, respectively, so that the at least one duct extends along said axis (Figs. 1 and 2). The motor vehicle comprises an upright (e.g., 1b, and also, optionally, 1a, and also, optionally, 9), a wheel (e.g., “vehicle wheel R” (see, for example, the paragraph beginning with “FIG. 1 shows”), and also, optionally, “transmission 5” (see, for example, the paragraph beginning with “Mounted”), and also, optionally, “hydraulic motor 2” (see, for example, the paragraph beginning with “Mounted”)) carried by the upright in a rotary manner around a wheel axis 12, a frame 10 and the suspension, wherein the suspension arm is coupled to the frame and to the upright so as to suspend the frame, and wherein the wheel comprises a device (e.g., “hydraulic motor 2”) connected to the at least one duct so as to be supplied through the at least one duct, in particular with a fluid (“hydraulic fluid” (see, for example, the abstract); “oil” (see, for example, the paragraph beginning with “Preferably”)) flow or with power through the electric wiring. The suspension arm extends along an axis transversal to a driving direction of the motor vehicle or coplanar to the wheel axis between two hinge ends (at 15 and 14). The hinge ends are hinged to the upright and to the frame, respectively (Figs. 1 and 2).
Claims 1-8, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Broadbent et al. (WO 2023/056531 A1). Broadbent discloses a suspension 130 for a motor vehicle 10, the suspension comprising at least one internally hollow suspension arm 132, so as to define at least one inner cavity, characterized by comprising at least one duct (120a, 120b) extending along the inner cavity between an input hole of the suspension arm and an output hole of the suspension arm, the at least one duct being designed to allow a fluid flow or an electric wiring (page 11, lines 25-26) to go from the input hole to the output hole through the inner cavity. The suspension arm extends along an axis between two hinge ends opposite one another and is configured to be hinged to an upright 95 and to a frame (e.g., 1), respectively, of the motor vehicle. The input hole and the output hole are obtained on said ends, respectively, so that the at least one duct extends along said axis (Figs. 9(a)-12(b)). The motor vehicle comprises an upright 95, a wheel 3 carried by the upright in a rotary manner around a wheel axis, a frame (e.g., 1) and the suspension, wherein the suspension arm is coupled to the frame and to the upright so as to suspend the frame, and wherein the wheel comprises a device (e.g., “brake unit 90” – see page 10, line 28; “Electric motor 4” – see page 10, line 25; “rotary position sensor 96” – see page 11, lines 15-16; “sensors” – see page 14, lines 4-14; “solenoid valve 98” – see page 11, line 3) connected to the at least one duct so as to be supplied through the at least one duct, in particular with a fluid flow (page 11, lines 3-10) or with power through the electric wiring. The suspension arm extends along an axis transversal to a driving direction of the motor vehicle or coplanar to the wheel axis between two hinge ends (Figs. 5-12(b)). The hinge ends are hinged to the upright and to the frame, respectively (page 10, lines 16-22). Said device comprises an electric member (e.g., Electric motor 4” – see page 10, line 25; “rotary position sensor 96” – see page 11, lines 15-16; “sensors” – see page 14, lines 4-14; “solenoid valve 98” – see page 11, line 3), and wherein the motor vehicle comprises the electric wiring extending through the at least one duct from the input hole to the output hole and connected to the electric member so as to supply the electric member with power. The electric member comprises an electric motor (e.g., Electric motor 4” – see page 10, line 25) configured to cause the wheel to rotate through the power supplied through the electric wiring. Said device comprises an actuator (e.g., “The mechanical actuating component…of braking unit 90” – see page 11, lines 1-2) operable through the fluid flow along the at least one duct, and wherein the motor vehicle comprises a fluid processing apparatus (e.g., “air compressor 102” – see page 11, line 6) configured to generate the fluid flow along the at least one duct, thereby supplying the actuator. The wheel further comprises a braking device (e.g., “braking surface (brake pad)…of braking unit 90” – see page 11, lines 1-2) configured to brake the wheel, the actuator being configured to operate the braking device through the fluid flow.
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.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broadbent et al. (WO 2023/056531 A1) in view of Zhao et al. (CN 112158065 A). Broadbent teaches the limitations of claim 4, as explained above. In Broadbent, the “brake unit 90” (see page 10, line 28) may correspond to the claimed device, and the “Electric motor 4” (see page 10, line 25) may correspond to the claimed further device. Broadbent does not teach a conditioning member as recited in claim 9. Zhao teaches a conditioning member (e.g., at the ends of pipes 26 and 29 – see Fig. 4), for example a heat exchanger, and a wheel comprising a further device (e.g., 9) in thermal contact with the conditioning member and comprising a fluid processing apparatus (e.g., a portion (e.g., a pump) of “centralized cooling equipment” – paragraph 0115) configured to generate fluid flow along at least one duct (26, 29), thus supplying the conditioning member, whereby the conditioning member is configured to condition said further device through exchange of heat with the fluid flow, wherein said further device comprises an electric motor (e.g., 9) configured to cause the wheel to rotate and/or a braking member controllable to brake the wheel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a vehicle as taught by Broadbent with a conditioning member as taught by Zhao in order to cool the motor (paragraph 0109), thereby “enabling the hub motor to operate at high power density for a long time” (paragraph 0115). All the claimed elements were known in the cited prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results. MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Said prior art teach suspension arms comprising at least one duct.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH J FRISBY whose telephone number is (571)270-7802. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM - 5:00PM.
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 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.
/KEITH J FRISBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights