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 § 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.
Claims 1-3, 8-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liebold (DE 102017117658 A1) in view of Kemnitz et al. (US 2021/0008942) and Groen et al. (US 2016/0311287)
In Re claim 1, Liebold disclose a damping arrangement for an active chassis of an axle of a motor vehicle, comprising: a damper (5) having a piston (4) and being coupled to a wheel suspension system (not shown; par. 0017); a hydraulic pump (11); an electric motor (12); a hydraulic unit (30) having a reservoir (13) and valves (26-33). Liebold fails to specifically disclose that the hydraulic pump and motor are combined to form a unit attached via a carrier to a subframe or an auxiliary frame of the axle.
Kemnitz et al. is related to the art of damping arrangements for an active chassis, and teaches combining the hydraulic pumps (11, 21) and electric motors (12, 22) into a single unit (10) attachable to a vehicle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the like elements into a single unit, as taught by Kemnitz et al., to meet packaging constraints, increase functional efficiency, and streamline manufacturing.
Groen et al. is related to the art of vehicle subframes, and teaches that it was known to integrate functional components (20, 12) with a carrier (cross member 28) of a vehicle subframe (10). A subframe is used to support heavy vehicle components, while spreading out high physical loads and blocking road noise and shaking from reaching the passenger cabin. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the hydraulic pumps and motors with a carrier of a vehicle sub frame, as taught by Groen et al., to effectively support the similar vehicle suspension components, spread out high physical loads, and block road noise and shaking from reaching the passenger cabin.
In Re claims 2 and 3, see cross member (28) and stabilizer lane (30; par. 0037).
In Re claims 8 and 9, Groen et al. teaches integrating the functional components into the carrier. In the damping arrangement as modified, the same would be true for the motor-pump unit of Liebold, as modified above.
In Re claim 10, see figs. 2 and 4.
In Re claim 12, see par. 0017 of Liebold.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 and 11 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS W IRVIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3095. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
/THOMAS W IRVIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights