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 Status
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9-10, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipate by Katahira et al. (US 2017/0158210 A1) hereinafter Katahira.
Claim 1:
Katahira discloses a frame assembly for a vehicle body [1], the frame assembly comprising: a beam [3a] that is configured to be connected to a lower portion of the vehicle body [3] and extend in a width direction of the vehicle body [shown in Fig. 2]; axles disposed at two opposite sides of the beam and configured to receive tires that are mounted on the axles [13, 24, 27]; and vehicle height adjustment parts that are configured to be connected to the beam and the axles [81] and configured to raise or lower the beam relative to the axles to thereby adjust a vehicle height, the vehicle height corresponding to a height of the vehicle body with respect to a ground surface [¶87].
Claim 2:
Katahira, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Katahira also discloses wherein each of the vehicle height adjustment parts defines: a first fixing region configured to be fixed to a respective axle of the axles [attachment point near 61a], a second fixing region configured to be fixed to the beam and configured to connect the first fixing region and the beam [where 3a meets 81], and a power providing region configured to provide power to the second fixing region to thereby raise or lower the second fixing region relative to the first fixing region [¶87].
Claim 9:
Katahira discloses a vehicle comprising: a vehicle body [1]; and a frame assembly configured to support the vehicle body, wherein the frame assembly comprises: a beam that is connected to a lower portion of the vehicle body and extends in a width direction of the vehicle body [3a], axles disposed at two opposite sides of the beam and configured receive tires, the tires being mounted on the axles [13, 24, 27], and vehicle height adjustment parts that are connected to the beam and the axles [81] and configured to raise or lower the beam relative to the axles to thereby adjust a vehicle height, the vehicle height corresponding to a height of the vehicle body with respect to a ground surface [¶87].
Claim 10:
Katahira, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Katahira also discloses wherein the vehicle height adjustment parts comprise a first vehicle height adjustment part and a second vehicle height adjustment part [81], wherein each of the vehicle height adjustment parts defines: a first fixing region fixed to a respective axle of the axles [attachment point near 61a], a second fixing region that is fixed to the beam and connects the first fixing region and the beam [where 3a meets 81], and a power providing region configured to provide power to the second fixing region to thereby raise or lower the second fixing region relative to the first fixing region [¶87], wherein the width direction corresponds to a direction that is parallel to a leftward and rightward direction along the beam [Fig. 2], wherein the axles comprise: a first axle disposed at a left side of the beam, and a second axle disposed at a right side of the beam [13, 24, 27], wherein the first fixing region of the first vehicle height adjustment part is fixed to a right side of the first axle and the first fixing region of the second vehicle height adjustment part is fixed to a left side of the second axle [Fig. 2; 81], wherein the vehicle body defines an overlap region, wherein the overlap region overlaps a portion of the respective axle along a direction that is parallel to the leftward and rightward direction, and wherein a width of the overlap region along the leftward and rightward direction is less than a distance between the first fixing region of the first vehicle height adjustment part and the first fixing region of the second vehicle height adjustment part along the leftward and rightward direction [1, 3a, 13, 24, 27; since the "portion of the respective axle" can be broadly defined as any width of the axle, the claimed dimension can be very broadly interpreted and therefore is shown in Katahira].
Claim 13:
Katahira discloses a frame assembly for a vehicle body [1], the frame assembly comprising: a beam that is configured to be connected to a lower portion of the vehicle body [3] and extend in a width direction of the vehicle body [shown in Fig. 2]; a first axle that is disposed at the beam and configured to receive a tire, the tire being mounted on the first axle [13, 24, 27]; and a vehicle height adjustment part that is configured to be connected to the beam and the first axle [81] and configured to raise or lower the beam relative to the first axle to thereby adjust a vehicle height, the vehicle height corresponding to a height of the vehicle body with respect to a ground surface [¶87].
Claim 14:
Katahira, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Katahira also discloses wherein the vehicle height adjustment part defines: a first fixing region configured to be fixed to the first axle [attachment point near 61a], a second fixing region configured to be fixed to the beam and configured to connect the first fixing region and the beam [where 3a meets 81], and a power providing region configured to provide power to the second fixing region to thereby raise or lower the second fixing region relative to the first fixing region [¶87].
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katahira as applied to claims 2 and 14 above, and further in view of Becker et al. (US 2008/0195278 A1) hereinafter Becker.
Claim 4:
Katahira, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 2.
Katahira doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the power providing region comprises: a hydraulic cylinder that defines cylinder hole and is configured to accommodate at least a portion of the second fixing region via the cylinder hole; and a hydraulic pressure generation part configured to generate hydraulic pressure in the cylinder hole.
However, Becker does disclose wherein the power providing region comprises: a hydraulic cylinder that defines cylinder hole and is configured to accommodate at least a portion of the second fixing region via the cylinder hole; and a hydraulic pressure generation part configured to generate hydraulic pressure in the cylinder hole. [¶23]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the suspension system of Katahira with the hydraulic cylinder of Becker to provide a known power providing means.
Claim 16:
Katahira, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 14.
Katahira doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the power providing region comprises: a hydraulic cylinder that defines cylinder hole and is configured to accommodate at least a portion of the second fixing region via the cylinder hole; and a hydraulic pressure generation part configured to generate hydraulic pressure in the cylinder hole.
However, Becker does disclose wherein the power providing region comprises: a hydraulic cylinder that defines cylinder hole and is configured to accommodate at least a portion of the second fixing region via the cylinder hole; and a hydraulic pressure generation part configured to generate hydraulic pressure in the cylinder hole. [¶23]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the suspension system of Katahira with the hydraulic cylinder of Becker to provide a known power providing means.
Claim(s) 8, 12, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katahira as applied to claims 8, 9, and 13 above, and further in view of Beno et al. (US 5,999,868) hereinafter Beno.
Claim 8:
Katahira, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Katahira doesn’t explicitly disclose further comprising: a controller configured to, based on an input of a driver of a vehicle, control the vehicle height adjustment parts to adjust the vehicle height.
However, Beno does disclose further comprising: a controller configured to, based on an input of a driver of a vehicle, control the vehicle height adjustment parts to adjust the vehicle height. [col. 4, line 52 to col. 5, line 5]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the suspension system of Katahira with the ride height selection of Beno to enable the operator to select a ride height appropriate for driving conditions.
Claim 12:
Katahira, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 9.
Katahira doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the frame assembly further comprises: a controller configured to, based on an input of a driver of a vehicle, control the vehicle height adjustment parts to adjust the vehicle height.
However, Beno does disclose wherein the frame assembly further comprises: a controller configured to, based on an input of a driver of a vehicle, control the vehicle height adjustment parts to adjust the vehicle height. [col. 4, line 52 to col. 5, line 5]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the suspension system of Katahira with the ride height selection of Beno to enable the operator to select a ride height appropriate for driving conditions.
Claim 20:
Katahira, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 13.
Katahira doesn’t explicitly disclose further comprising: a controller configured to, based on an input of a driver of a vehicle, control the vehicle height adjustment part to adjust the vehicle height.
However, Beno does disclose further comprising: a controller configured to, based on an input of a driver of a vehicle, control the vehicle height adjustment part to adjust the vehicle height. [col. 4, line 52 to col. 5, line 5]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the suspension system of Katahira with the ride height selection of Beno to enable the operator to select a ride height appropriate for driving conditions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5-7, 11, 15, and 17-19 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the indicated claims recite structure which would be incompatible or otherwise not obvious in view of the cited prior art of record. Modifying Katahira with any other prior art to reach the claimed inventions would either require impermissible hindsight or would render Katahira inoperable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KURT P LIETHEN whose telephone number is (313)446-6596. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 8 AM - 4 PM.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571)272-1196. 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.
KURT P. LIETHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/KURT PHILIP LIETHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747