DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 10/17/2024, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/27/2026 has been entered.
The following is a Non-Final Office Action on the merits in response to applicant’s filing from 01/27/2026.
Claims 1-10 and 12-15 are pending and have been considered below.
Priority
The application is a 371 of PCT/EP2022/060341, filed on 04/20/2022. The priority is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/17/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, filed 12/29/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under Xiong and Lehmkuhl have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Xiong, Lehmkuhl, and Zink.
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 1-10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiong et al. (US 2019/0366787), as cited by Applicant, in view of Lehmkuhl (DE 2629518), as cited by Applicant, and Zink (US 2021/0268861).
Regarding claim 1, Xiong discloses a vehicle suspension {“suspension system” [0016]} comprising a fixed portion {10 (Fig. 1)} and a movable portion {20 (Fig. 1)} configured to be movable relative to the fixed portion {10: “Two ends of the suspension frame 20 are respectively disposed on two ends of the fixing frame 10 at two sides of the opening, which can be selectively moved up and down along a height direction of the fixing frame 10” [0016]}, the movable portion {20} comprising a longitudinal beam {21 (Fig. 4)} and being configured to be coupled, at a predetermined part {25 (26)}, with a vehicle wheel {30 (Figs. 2-4)}, the fixed portion {10} and the movable portion {20} being movably linked via two damper devices {12 (Figs. 2-3)} and at least two prismatic joints {11+13+14+22: “The sliding groove 11 is formed along a height direction of the U-shaped fixing frame 10, that is, the sliding groove 11 is formed vertically, and the two ends of the suspension frame 20 are disposed in the two sliding grooves 11 in a slidable manner” [0016]; Paragraphs [0018-0019] explain how 11 combines with 13+14+22 to form the prismatic joint; and Figs. 1-3 show the two prismatic joints (11+13+14+22) assembled (in Fig. 1) and blown up (in Figs. 2-3)} so as to be able to move reciprocally one to the other along an axis {vertical axis [0016]}, a set {11+12+13+14+22 (left side)} comprising one damper device {12 (left side)} and at least one prismatic joint {11+13+14+22 (left side)} being disposed opposite to another set {11+12+13+14+22 (right side)} comprising one damper device {12 (right side)} and at least one prismatic joint {11+13+14+22 (right side)} relative to the predetermined part {25 (26)}, wherein the at least two prismatic joints {11+12+13+14+22 (left, right)} are each connected to the longitudinal beam {21}.
However, Xiong does not explicitly disclose the movable portion being configured to be coupled, at a predetermined part, with a shaft carrying a vehicle wheel, wherein two first prismatic joints and two second prismatic joints of the at least two prismatic joints are each connected to the longitudinal beam.
Lehmkuhl teaches a movable portion {2} being configured to be coupled, at a predetermined part {center portion of 2 that merges with the axle journal: “The axle journal of the wheel 1 merges into a steering knuckle 2” [0018]}, with a shaft {11: “axle journal 11” [0021]} carrying a vehicle wheel {1: “the wheel 1 rotatably mounted on the axle journal 11” [0021]}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle suspension, as disclosed by Xiong, such that the movable portion is configured to be coupled, at a predetermined part, with a shaft carrying a vehicle wheel, as taught by Lehmkuhl, in order “to transfer the reaction forces that occur during braking or, in the case of driven wheels, during acceleration to the vehicle” [0021].
Zink teaches {Figs. 12-13} two first prismatic joints {70+72 (left, right)} and two second prismatic joints {22+34+36 (left, right): “The connecting brackets 34, 36 are designed as elongate bodies, preferably tubular bodies. In each case one of the guide columns 22 is mounted in the connecting brackets 34, 36. In the case of the independent wheel suspension 12A, the guide columns 22 are mounted fixedly or immovably in the connecting brackets 34, 36. It is also possible for the guide columns 22 to be mounted displaceably in the connecting brackets 34, 36” [0119]} are each connected to a longitudinal beam {27+28} and associated with a single wheel {of wheel hub 24}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle suspension, as disclosed by Xiong and Lehmkuhl, such that two first prismatic joints and two second prismatic joints of the at least two prismatic joints are each connected to the longitudinal beam (such that the spring 12 stays in the same spot at 22, and has a first and second prismatic joint to the left and right of 12+22, respectively, such that there are a first and second prismatic joint to the left of wheel 30 and a first and second prismatic joint to the right of the wheel), as taught by Zink, “In order to realize a shock-damping and height-adjustable connection” [0173].
Regarding claim 2, Xiong discloses each prismatic joint {11+13+14+22 (left and right side)} comprises a rod {14: “slider 14” [0018]} slidably engaged in a sleeve {11+13: “inside each of the two sliding grooves 11, a sliding rail 13 is disposed. Each sliding rail 13 is disposed with a slider 14, where the slider 14 can be selectively slid along the sliding rail 13. Each of the mounting blocks 22 is fixedly connected with each slider 14” [0018]}.
Regarding claim 3, Xiong, Lehmkuhl and Zink disclose all the aspects of claim 2. However, Xiong does not explicitly disclose a portion of the rod and a portion of the sleeve slidably engaged with each other have a circular cross section.
Zink teaches a portion {entire portion (Fig. 13)} of the rod {22’} and a portion {top portions of 38 sleeved around rods 22’ (Fig. 13)} of the sleeve {38} slidably engaged with each other have a circular cross section {Fig. 13}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle suspension, as disclosed by Xiong, Lehmkuhl and Zink, such that a portion of the rod and a portion of the sleeve slidably engaged with each other have a circular cross section, as taught by Zink, so that the “height adjustability can advantageously have the effect that a structural length of the independent wheel suspension 12C is not restricted, or is restricted only to a minor extent, by a length of the guide columns” [0188].
Regarding claim 4, Xiong {as modified by Zink in claim 1} discloses an even number 2N of prismatic joints {four: 71+72 (left of wheel, right of wheel), 22+34+36 (left of wheel, right of wheel)}, N prismatic joints {two} being disposed opposite to each other {left of wheel, right of wheel} relative to the predetermined part {25 (26)}.
Regarding claim 5, Xiong {as modified by Zink in claim 1} discloses the two first prismatic joints {70+72} among the at least two prismatic joints extend in first plane {longitudinal plane through 70+72 (Fig. 13)}.
Regarding claim 6, Xiong discloses the two second prismatic joints {22+34+36 (as modified by Zink in claim 1)} among the 2N prismatic joints {four: 71+72 (left of wheel, right of wheel), 22+34+36 (left of wheel, right of wheel)}, distinct from the two first prismatic joints {70+72}, extending in a second plane {longitudinal plane through 22 (Fig. 13)}, distinct from the first plane {longitudinal plane through 70+72}, the first plane {longitudinal plane through 70+72} and the second plane {longitudinal plane through 22} being parallel to each other {Fig. 13}.
Regarding claim 7, Xiong discloses {Figs. 1-4} the two damper devices {12} extend in a third plane {longitudinal plane through 12}.
Regarding claim 8, Xiong discloses the first plane {longitudinal plane through 70+72 (as modified by Zink in claims 1 and 5)} and the third plane {longitudinal plane through 12} are distinct from each other and parallel to each other {the first plane is longitudinal and farthest from the wheel, and the third plane is longitudinal and in between the first and second plane}.
Regarding claim 9, Xiong discloses the first plane {longitudinal plane through 70+72 (as modified by Zink in claim 1)}, the second plane {longitudinal plane through 22 (Fig. 13)} and the third plane {longitudinal plane through 12} are distinct from each other and parallel to each other {the second plane is longitudinal and closest to the wheel, the first plane is longitudinal and farthest from the wheel, and the third plane is longitudinal and in between the first and second plane}.
Regarding claim 10, Xiong discloses the first plane {longitudinal plane through 70+72 (as modified by Zink in claim 1)} and the second plane {longitudinal plane through 22 (Fig. 13)} are disposed on the same side {same wheel side of the vehicle} relative to the third plane {the second plane is longitudinal and closest to the wheel, the first plane is longitudinal and farthest from the wheel, and the third plane is longitudinal and in between the first and second plane}.
Regarding claim 12, Xiong discloses the longitudinal beam {21 (Fig. 4)} extends perpendicularly {horizontally (Figs. 1-4)} to the axis {vertical axis [0016]} and the axis {vertical axis [0016]} is parallel to one or more plane(s) {one or more vertical planes}.
Regarding claim 13, Xiong discloses each damper device {12 [0025]} comprises a coil spring {Figs. 2-3}.
Regarding claim 14, Xiong discloses the fixed portion {10} comprises a plate {15 (Figs. 2-3)} configured to be fixed to a chassis {40, C (Fig. 5)} of a vehicle {60 [0027]}.
However, Xiong does not explicitly disclose the fixed portion comprises several brackets configured to be fixed to a chassis of a vehicle.
Lehmkuhl teaches a fixed portion {10} comprises several brackets {10 (Fig. 2)} configured to be fixed to a chassis {7 (Fig. 2)} of a vehicle {“vehicle” [0009]}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle suspension, as disclosed by Xiong and Lehmkuhl, such that the fixed portion comprises several brackets configured to be fixed to a chassis of a vehicle, as taught by Lehmkuhl, in order “to transfer the reaction forces that occur during braking or, in the case of driven wheels, during acceleration to the vehicle” [0021].
Regarding claim 15, Xiong discloses the fixed portion {10} is fixed to a portion {40} of a chassis {C} of the vehicle {60 (Figs. 5-6)}.
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 Daniel M Keck whose telephone number is (571)272-5947. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-4:00.
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 on (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.
/Daniel M. Keck/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614