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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 2-17 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the second suspension system" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 3-17 are rejected due to their dependency on the rejected claim 2.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 7950726 B2) in view of Husson (US 8678477 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Brown discloses a vehicle (Brown, Fig. 1) comprising: a cab (Brown, 12 in Fig. 7) for a driver (Brown, Col. 2 lines 20-21, operator) of the vehicle, the cab comprising an inner structure having a floor (Brown, Fig. 6-7, bottom of cab 12) and a seat (Brown, 14 in Fig. 7) mounted to the floor and an outer structure having a frame (Brown, Fig. 7, side of cab 12 where 48 is mounted to) surrounding the inner structure; and a suspension system (Brown, Fig. 7, system including airbags 44 and 78 and shock absorbers 42) mounting the cab; wherein the inner structure and the outer structure of the cab are capable of movement relative to one another (Brown, Fig. 7, inner structure includes the seat, which is movable relative to the outer structure due to the air suspension below the seat; can also move relative to the housing below since 42 is extendable and air supply of the airbags is controllable), and wherein the suspension system comprises a first suspension subsystem (Brown, Fig. 7, suspension on the side that include 42) connecting the outer structure and a second suspension subsystem (Brown, Fig. 7, suspension in the middle that includes airbags 78 and 44) connecting the inner structure.
Brown discloses a transmission housing 22 but fails to disclose a chassis.
Husson teaches transmission housing can be the chassis (Husson, Col. 2 lines 52-54, such that the transmission housing of Brown can be the chassis to meet the claim limitations).
Husson is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle cab suspension as Brown.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle as taught by Brown to incorporate the teachings of Husson with a reasonable expectation of success and have the transmission housing be the chassis such that the cab and the suspension system meets the claimed limitations. Doing so saves space by making the chassis multifunctional and provides adequate support and protection to the transmission components, the cab, and the suspension system.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Brown in view of Husson teaches the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the first suspension subsystem comprises a first plurality of suspension mounts (Brown, Fig. 7, two mounts on the sides for 42) and the second suspension system comprises a second plurality of suspension mounts (Brown, Fig. 7, mounts in the middle for airbags 44 and 78).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Brown in view of Husson teaches the vehicle of claim 10, wherein the spring damper comprises a coiled spring and/or a passive air spring (Brown, Fig. 7, the airbags can be passive air spring when not actively controlled e.g. when the control button is not operated).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Brown in view of Husson teaches the vehicle of claim 2, wherein an axial spring constant of each of the first plurality of suspension mounts is greater than an axial spring constant of each of the second plurality of suspension mounts (Brown, Col. 3 lines 51-56, can be greater since spring constant is controllable by inflating/deflating).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Brown in view of Husson teaches the vehicle of claim 2, wherein at least one of the first suspension subsystem and the second suspension subsystem comprises an active damping system (Brown, Col. 3 lines 50-55, airbag suspensions can be controlled).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Brown in view of Husson teaches the vehicle of claim 15, wherein the active damping system comprises a hydraulic or pneumatic actuator (Brown, Col. 4 lines 24-29, pneumatic).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Brown in view of Husson teaches the vehicle of claim 2, further comprising a seat suspension mount (Brown, Fig. 7, parts above and below the airbags 78, which attaches the seat to the airbags and then to the floor; alternative can be seat suspension mount can be 78 since the second plurality of suspension mounts can be 44) connecting the seat to the floor of the cab.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Brown in view of Husson as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Jang (US 20100276959 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Brown in view of Husson teaches the vehicle of claim 2, wherein the second plurality of suspension mounts comprise second and third suspension mounts located at a rear of the cab (Brown, Fig. 6-7, airbags 44 are at the rear).
The combination of Brown in view of Husson fails to teach a first suspension mount located at a front of the cab.
Jang teaches a first suspension mount located at a front of the cab (Jang, Fig. 1, 20 at the front, and Fig. 4 shows 21 at the front).
Jang is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle cab suspension as Brown in view of Husson.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle as taught by Brown in view of Husson to incorporate the teachings of Jang with a reasonable expectation of success and have a front suspension mount. Doing so provides additional support for the cab front portion making it more stable, and provides more control/tuning over the cab’s motion.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Brown in view of Husson as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Staalhammar (WO 2010005346 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Brown in view of Husson teaches the vehicle of claim 2, wherein the first plurality of suspension mounts comprise third and fourth suspension mounts located at a rear of the cab (Brown, Fig. 7, suspension mounts of 42 are in the rear, since they are attached to the bracket 16 which is in the rear as described in claim 8).
The combination of Brown in view of Husson fails to teach first and second suspension mounts located at a front of the cab.
Staalhammar teaches first and second suspension mounts located at a front of the cab (Staalhammar, Fig. 1-2, two front suspension mounts).
Staalhammar is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle cab suspension as Brown in view of Husson.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle as taught by Brown in view of Husson to incorporate the teachings of Staalhammar with a reasonable expectation of success and have two front suspension mounts. Doing so provides additional support for the cab front portion making it more stable, and provides more control/tuning over the cab’s motion.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Brown in view of Husson as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Knevels (US 20110266727 A1).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Brown in view of Husson teaches the vehicle of claim 2, but fails to teach an elastomeric bearing having a first mounting surface connected to the outer structure and a second mounting surface connected to the chassis.
Knevels teaches an elastomeric bearing (Knevels, Fig. 3 and paragraph 22, bearing 84) having a first mounting surface connected to the outer structure (after combination to modify the suspension mounts of 42 in Brown, the top surface connected to the cab side which is the outer structure) and a second mounting surface connected to the chassis (after combination, lower surface, connect to the chassis indirectly).
Knevels is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle cab suspension as Brown in view of Husson.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle as taught by Brown in view of Husson to incorporate the teachings of Knevels with a reasonable expectation of success and have an elastomeric bearing. Doing so provides improved Noise Vibration and Harshness (NVH) characteristics (Knevels, paragraph 23).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Brown in view of Husson teaches the vehicle of claim 2, wherein at least one of the second plurality of suspension mounts comprises a spring damper (Brown, Fig. 7, airbags 44 are air springs) connected between the inner structure and the chassis.
The combination of Brown in view of Husson fails to teach an elastomeric bearing.
Knevels teaches an elastomeric bearing (Knevels, Fig. 3 and paragraph 22, bearing 84; can use it on the mounts of airbag suspension 44 in Brown).
Knevels is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle cab air spring suspension as Brown in view of Husson.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle as taught by Brown in view of Husson to incorporate the teachings of Knevels with a reasonable expectation of success and have an elastomeric bearing. Doing so provides improved Noise Vibration and Harshness (NVH) characteristics (Knevels, paragraph 23).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Brown in view of Husson and Knevels as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Verzicht et al. (DE 4139377 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Brown in view of Husson and Knevels teaches the vehicle of claim 10, but fails to teach the elastomeric bearing is a spherical elastomeric bearing.
Verzicht teaches a spherical elastomeric bearing (Verzicht, Fig. 3, bearing 10 has spherical surface 15).
Verzicht is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle suspension as Brown in view of Husson and Knevels.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle as taught by Brown in view of Husson and Knevels to incorporate the teachings of Verzicht with a reasonable expectation of success and have a spherical elastomeric bearing. Doing so provides multi-directional rotation capacity, lower rotational resistance, and more uniform stress distribution.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Brown in view of Husson and Knevels as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Weber (US 20190359024 A1).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Brown in view of Husson and Knevels teaches the vehicle of claim 10, but fails to teach first and second elastomeric bearings connected on opposing ends of the spring damper.
Weber teaches first and second elastomeric bearings connected on opposing ends of the spring damper (Weber, paragraph 41 and 43, two elastomeric bearings on opposing ends of air spring damper).
Weber is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle cab suspension as Brown in view of Husson and Knevels.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle as taught by Brown in view of Husson and Knevels to incorporate the teachings of Weber with a reasonable expectation of success and have two elastomeric bearings. Doing so provides more energy absorption capacity and allows more movement of the cab to accommodate different needs.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reason for the allowance of the claims is the inclusion in the claims of the limitations directed to one or more of the second plurality of suspension mounts connects the inner structure to the outer structure as claimed in claim 3; and the one or more of the second plurality of suspension mounts are elevated relative to a remaining one or more of the second plurality of suspension mounts such that a roll axis of the cab relative to the chassis is partially above a floor level of the cab as claimed in claim 4. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. Primary reference Brown teaches in Fig. 6 that suspension 78 is above suspension 44, but fails to disclose a roll axis of the cab relative to the chassis is partially above a floor level of the cab.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references that are not relied upon all disclose vehicle cab suspensions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wenwei Zhuo whose telephone number is (571)272-5564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. EST.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at (571) 272-5109. 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.
/WENWEI ZHUO/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights