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 .
This communication is in response to application No. 18/705,649; Support Device for a Suspension Assembly; filed on 4/29/2024 and amended on 11/25/2025. Claims 11-15, 18-25 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 24 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 24 depends from independent claim 11 but should depend from claim 19. Claim 11 discloses a mechanical energy storage device, but not a spring. Claim 19 discloses the mechanical energy storage device is a spring.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 11-13, 18-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fricke (DE 10 2011 115416 A1) in view of Krabichler (DE 4445612 A1) and further in view of Gustafson (US 2882041).
PNG
media_image1.png
635
551
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, Fricke discloses;
A support device for supporting a suspension assembly (suspension 10, Fig. 4) mounted on a chassis (side rail 12) of a vehicle, comprising: (see also paragraph 22; Fricke)
a pivotable lever (lever arm 28c; Fig. 4);
an actuator (actuator 40, Fig. 4) connected to the pivotable lever configured to pivot the lever,
PNG
media_image2.png
537
498
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the pivotable lever comprises a support portion (see Fig. 4) for supporting a spring device (leaf spring 18b; Fig. 4) of the suspension assembly, and the pivotable lever is arranged, relative to the chassis (frame side member 12), such that pivoting of the pivotable lever lifts or lowers the chassis relative to the spring device.
Fricke does not disclose a lever locking device configured to allow the pivotable lever to be moved into and out of the lever locking device, However, Krabichler teaches;
a lever locking device (lock 13: Fig.1 /2) configured to allow the pivotable lever (linkage 11) to be moved; i) into the lever locking device and thereby lock the pivotable lever in a predetermined position, and ii) out of the lever locking device for other operations, (Fig. 1 demonstrates the locking mechanism in the unlocked configuration while Fig. 2 demonstrates the locked configuration.)
PNG
media_image3.png
223
556
media_image3.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Fricke to include a lever lock configured to allow the pivotable lever to be moved into and out of the lever locking device as taught by Krabichler, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to adjustable leaf spring vehicle suspension systems. As disclosed by Krabichler, it is well known for an adjustable leaf spring vehicle suspension system to include a lever lock configured to allow the pivotable lever to be moved into and out of the lever locking device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fricke to include a lever lock configured to allow the pivotable lever to be moved into and out of the lever locking device as taught by Krabichler, as such a modification would provide the ability to lock the loading deck in a specific position with respect to the wheel. (Paragraph 1; Krabichler).
Fricke does not disclose a mechanical energy storage device arranged and configured to receive mechanical energy from lowering the chassis via the actuator and to release mechanical energy when lifting the chassis via the actuator. However, Gustafson teaches;
a mechanical energy storage device (coil spring 56) arranged and configured to receive mechanical energy from lowering the chassis and to release mechanical energy when lifting the chassis, (Col. 2, Lines 56-73 of Gustafson describe coil spring 56 as exerting force on the leaf spring 22 via crank arm (lever) 51. As the chassis lowers (due to loading of the chassis) and the suspension moves upwards in relation to the frame, the crank arm rotates in a counter-clockwise direction (as seen in fig. 1), this places the coil spring in tension, thus storing energy. The actuator piston of Gustafson can increase or decrease this tension as
PNG
media_image4.png
635
606
media_image4.png
Greyscale
desired.)
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Fricke to include a mechanical energy storage device as taught by Gustafson, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to adjustable vehicle suspension systems. As disclosed by Gustafson, it is well known for an adjustable suspension system to include a mechanical energy storage device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fricke to include a mechanical energy storage device as taught by Gustafson, as such a modification would provide the ability for the vehicle to be leveled or restored to a predetermined ride height as load conditions vary. (Col. 3, lines 8-13; Gustafson).
The above described action, tensioning of the coil spring, occurs because of loading of the chassis. The actuator of Gustafson is designed to increase the tension on the coil spring in order to increase the spring rate and raise a heavily loaded chassis. Gustafson is not intended to lower the chassis. This would require putting the coil spring in compression using the actuator. However, the modification of Fricke, based on the teachings of Gustafson would result in the coil spring of Gustafson being attached to the lever of Fricke as seen in the modified fig. 4 above. In this arrangement only the coil spring of Gustafson (operating in tension) has been utilized, the actuator of Fricke is still in its original location. In this modified design, the chassis may be relatively lowered by the actuator pulling upwards on the lever, which tensions the coil spring (storing energy) by rotating the lever in a clockwise direction. This energy is recovered when the actuator is reversed and the coil spring tension pulls upwards in a counter-clockwise direction.
Regarding Claim 12, Fricke discloses;
wherein the support portion comprises a shackle (link 26b; Fig. 4, paragraph 23) for receiving a mounting portion of the spring device.
Regarding Claim 13, Fricke discloses;
wherein the lever and/or the actuator are connected to the chassis of the vehicle. (Fig. 4 demonstrates the lever arm 28c (pivoting on holder 36 at axis 32) and actuator 40 are attached to the vehicle chassis. See also paragraph 24)
Regarding Claim 18, Gustafson further teaches;
wherein the mechanical energy storage device (coil spring 56) connects the lever (crank arm 51) to the chassis (rail 11). (Fig. 1 demonstrates the suspension lever attached to the coil spring, while the coil spring is attached to the frame rail via mount 62. See also Col. 2, Lines 56-73; Gustafson.)
Regarding Claim 19 Gustafson further teaches;
wherein the mechanical energy storage device comprises a spring (coil spring 56). (Col. 2, lines 56-73 describe the use of the coil spring to store energy from the loading of the chassis suspension system.)
Regarding Claim 20, Fricke in view of Krabichler discloses;
A suspension assembly, comprising: a spring device (leaf spring 18b); and a support device according to claim 11 (see the rejection of claim 11 above), wherein the spring device is supported on the support device (link 26b and lever arm 28c). (See Fig. 4 and paragraph 23)
Regarding Claim 21, Fricke discloses the lever and actuator of Claim 11 while Krabichler teaches a lever locking mechanism. As a result, Fricke in view of Krabichler discloses;
wherein the lever locking device (lock 13; Krabichler, Fig.1 /2) is independent of the actuator (actuator 40; Fricke, Fig. 4) and is configured to lock the lever (lever arm 28c; Fricke, Fig. 4) in the predetermined position. (The modification of Fricke, based on the teaching of Krabichler would allow the actuator to adjust the height of the vehicle frame and to lock the height at that position without maintaining the force in the actuator.)
Regarding Claim 22, Gustafson further teaches;
wherein the mechanical energy storage device (coil spring 56) is further configured to support the actuator by offsetting at least part of the force exerted by the vehicle on the lever (crank arm 51). (The combination of the actuator and lever of Fricke with the mechanical storage device (spring) and lever of Gustafson would result in the actuator connected to the lever of Gustafson in order to apply force to the lever and rotate the lever in relation to the chassis. In this arrangement, the mechanical storage device (spring) would offset at least part of the force exerted by the vehicle on the lever.)
Regarding Claim 23, Gustafson further teaches;
wherein the force exerted by the vehicle on the lever (crank arm 51) is split between the actuator and the spring (coil spring 56). (With the combination of the actuator (actuator 40; Fricke) with the lever and spring of Gustafson, the actuator would apply force to the lever in order to rotate the lever with respect to the chassis to raise or lower the chassis. This arrangement results in the force exerted by the vehicle on the lever being applied by the combination of the spring and the actuator.)
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fricke in view of Krabichler and Gustafson as applied to claim 11 above and further in view of Preijert (WO 2009/072938 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Fricke in view of Krabichler and Gustafson does not disclose wherein the actuator comprises a bevel gear. However, Preijert teaches;
PNG
media_image5.png
487
721
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The support device according to claim 11, wherein the actuator comprises a bevel gear (bevel gear 12; see close-up of Fig. 2 and page 5, lines 3-10; Preijert).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Fricke to include an actuator comprising a bevel gear as taught by Preijert, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to adjustable leaf spring vehicle suspension systems. As disclosed by Preijert, it is well known for an actuator to comprise a bevel gear in an adjustable vehicle suspension. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fricke to include an actuator comprising a bevel gear as taught by Preijert, as such a modification would provide the ability to position the actuator in a longitudinal direction and allow for a more economical spatial arrangement. (page 2, line 33 to page 3, line 3; Preijert).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fricke in view of Krabichler and Gustafson as applied to claim 11 above and further in view Totoki (JP S61 41609 A).
PNG
media_image6.png
526
914
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 15, Fricke discloses:
wherein the actuator is connected to the lever by a spindle (rod 38), (Fig. 4 and paragraph 537 describe the rod connection between actuator 40 and lever 28c.)
Fricke in view of Krabichler and Gustafson does not disclose the connection between the spindle and the lever is a threaded connection. However, Totoki teaches;
wherein the actuator (48) is connected to the lever (lever 38) by a threaded connection with the lever. (Fig. 1 demonstrates a threaded connection between the actuator and the lever for adjusting the vehicle suspension. See also paragraph 274.)
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Fricke to include a threaded connection between the actuator spindle and the lever as taught by Totoki, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to adjustable vehicle suspension systems. As disclosed by Totoki, it is well known for a threaded connection to be used between the actuator spindle and the lever. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fricke to include a threaded connection between the actuator spindle and the lever as taught by Totoki, as such a modification would provide the ability to package an adjustable suspension system in a small area, as between a side frame and vehicle side sill. (Paragraph 96, Totoki).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fricke (DE 102011115416 A1) in view of Gustafson (US 2882041) and further in view of Hickman (US 2068676 A).
Regarding claim 24, which in view of the objection raised above is being evaluated as depending from claim 11 by way of claim 19, Fricke in view of Gustafson does not disclose the spring is a torsion spring. However, Hickman teaches;
wherein the spring (spring 58; fig. 3, Hickman) is a torsion spring. (Hickman describes a vehicle suspension supported on one end by a lever mechanism. This lever mechanism is connected to a torsion spring (58, fig, 3) which stores energy from movement of the vehicle suspension system by twisting the spring.)
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Fricke in view of Gustafson to include a torsion spring as taught by Hickman, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to vehicle suspension systems utilizing a lever mechanism to change the overall spring-rate of the suspension. As disclosed by Hickman, it is well known for a torsion spring to be utilized in a vehicle suspension which utilizing a lever system to change the overall spring-rate of the vehicle suspension. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fricke in view of Gustafson to include a torsion spring as taught by Hickman, as such a modification would provide the ability to permit a spring to be sealed from contaminates. (Col. 1, line 18 of Hickman).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fricke (DE 102011115416 A1) in view of Gustafson (US 2882041) and Hickman (US 2068676 A) and in further view of Preijert (WO 2009/072938 A1).
Regarding claim 25, Fricke in view of Gustafson and Hickman does not disclose the actuator is an electric motor. However, Preijert teaches;
wherein the actuator (actuator 18; fig. 2 Preijert) is an electric motor. (Page 3, line 4 of Preijert describes the actuator as being electrically operated.)
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Fricke in view of Gustafson and Hickman to include an actuator which is an electric motor as taught by Preijert, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to vehicle suspension systems utilizing a lever mechanism to change the overall spring-rate of the suspension. As disclosed by Preijert, it is well known to use an actuator which is an electric motor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fricke in view of Gustafson and Hickman to include an actuator which is an electric motor as taught by Preijert, as such a modification would provide the ability to control the actuator with electricity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Fricke does not disclose a pivotable lever and refers to lever 28c/30b as referenced in the rejection of claim 11. However, the lever 28c, of Fricke (fig. 4), is the only lever which is connected to the actuator and allows for movement of the suspension by the actuator. Fricke’s lever is shaped like an “L” and does include a second node and mount (30b) which is utilized to transfer the force generated by the actuator to a second axle through a horizontal rod (in the dual axle arrangement described in Fricke), but this is not a necessary component to the function of the actuator adjustable suspension mechanism.
Applicant argues that Krabichler does not teach a lever locking mechanism. However, Krabichler discloses an axle supported on a pivoting lever by a suspension spring, which can be locked into position by a locking mechanism. The locking lever does move in order to accomplish the locking function, but only after the suspension / lever has been moved into a locking position. The suspension / lever can also be moved out of the locked condition, as required.
Applicant argues that Gustafson does not disclose “a mechanical energy storage device arranged and configured to receive mechanical energy from lowering the chassis…and to release mechanical energy when lifting the chassis…”, However, the modification of Fricke under the teaching of Gustafson, as illustrated in the modified fig. 4 above, describes a spring which receives energy, by compressing, when the chassis is lowered, and returns that energy when lifting the chassis.
Applicant argues that the “pivotable lever does not comprise a support portion configured to support a spring device of the suspension”. However, the intermediate lever (26b) constitutes a support portion configured to support the spring and connected to the pivotable lever (28c) of Fricke. This is the exact construction as demonstrated in the applicant’s figs. 1 and 2 as feature 28. This feature is commonly referred to as a spring shackle as covered in claim 12.
Applicant argues the Fricke does not describe a “pivotable lever…such that pivoting of the lever lifts or lowers the chassis relative to the spring device.” The applicant is correct that Fricke utilizes the actuator and drawbar to transfer load from one axle to another axle in the dual axle arrangement illustrated in Fricke. However, movement of the lever (28c) of Fricke, by the actuator causes the suspension (leaf spring 18b) of the rear axle to raise and lower in relation to the chassis (12) as seen in fig. 4 of Fricke, regardless of the function of the drawbar.
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 SCOTT LAWRENCE STRICKLER whose telephone number is (703)756-1961. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 9:30am to 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, 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.
/SCOTT LAWRENCE STRICKLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/JASON D SHANSKE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614