CTFR 18/982,179 CTFR 87081 DETAILED ACTION Applicant submitted remarks in response to the latest Office action on 5 May 2026. Therein, Applicant submitted substantive arguments. Applicant did not amend, add or cancel any claims. The submitted remarks are considered below. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserted that Paielli fails to disclose or suggest "receive distance data of a vertical distance between a position on the chassis and a wheel axle of one of the first and second wheels," and "control the height adjuster to move the mounting arrangement in a vertical direction in response to the vertical distance being outside a predetermined distance range such that an angle of the first and second output shafts relative to the corresponding wheel axle of the first and second wheels is within a predetermined angle range," as recited in independent claim 1. Specifically, Applicant argues that “Paielli fails to describe that a height adjuster is controlled to move the mounting arrangement…in a vertical direction in response to a vertical direction…being outside a predetermined distance range”. Examiner does not agree. The claimed “mounting arrangement” is interpreted to be an electric traction system and includes axels extending to wheels on both sides of the vehicle. This is disclosed by Paielli teaching that the differential transmits electric energy in conjunction with the CV joints and axles (see col. 5:9-24). To eliminate as much parasitic loss of energy as possible, one of ordinary skill in the art would have the basic knowledge that the electric motor would need to be directly attached or extremely close proximity to the differential. Thus, as Paielli teaches moving the differential, this discloses moving of the claimed “mounting arrangement”. Relatedly, Paielli teaches a distance data for positions between an axle and the chassis (see col. 7:15-24). Further, the claimed height adjuster moving the mounting arrangement when out of a range is also disclosed by the prior art of record (see col. 11:4-48). These teachings and others of Paielli disclose the limitations asserted by Applicant as not taught. Lastly, in the previous Office action, Examiner acknowledged that the claimed predetermined angle range was not explicitly taught. Examiner then provided a reasoned analysis of the teachings of Paielli and how they were combined with ordinary skill in the art to be modified to read on the limitation at issue. This reasoning is still valid and applicable. The rejection is maintained. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paielli, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,396,215) . For claim 1, Paielli discloses an electric traction motor arrangement for a vehicle, the electric traction motor arrangement comprising: an electric motor system comprising an electric traction motor (see col. 5:9-24), the electric motor system comprising a first output shaft (see Fig. 3, #206) configured to connect the electric traction motor to a first wheel of a wheel pair (see Fig. 3), and a second output shaft (see Fig. 3, #208) configured to connect the electric traction motor to a second wheel of the wheel pair (see Fig. 3), a mounting arrangement attached to, and supporting, the electric motor system (see col. 3:8-14, col. 5:9-24, frame provides mounting points, differential integrated with electric motor for minimization of parasitic torque loss, combined with CV joints, axles), a height adjuster (see col. 11:5-8, 11:17-22) connected to the mounting arrangement and connectable to a chassis of the vehicle (see col.11:17-22), the height adjuster being configured to controllably adjust a position of the mounting arrangement relative to the chassis (see col. 4:28-67), and a computer system (see col. 4:44-67; Fig. 1, #14) comprising processing circuitry operatively coupled to the height adjuster (see col. 4:28-67), the processing circuitry being configured to: receive distance data of a vertical distance between a position on the chassis and a wheel axle of one of the first and second wheels (see col. 4:4-27), and control the height adjuster to move the mounting arrangement in a vertical direction in response to the vertical distance being outside a predetermined distance range (see col. 4:28-54, col. 11:4-48) such that a measurement of the first and second output shafts relative to the corresponding wheel axle of the first and second wheels is within a predetermined range (see col. 4:28-54). Paielli does not explicitly disclose that the height adjustment change is based on a predetermined angle between the wheel axle and respective output shaft. However, Paielli teaches that a change in angular displacement may be sensed and the estimated change in ride height may be a function of a change in angular displacement (see col. 8:34-40). Based on this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing that basing changing the height of the vehicle when out of range on the ride height is functionally equivalent to changing the height of the vehicle when out of range of the measured angle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Paielli to measure the angle to control the ride height based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve methods and systems for estimation of a ride height of a vehicle axle via a linear displacement sensor. With reference to claim 2, Paielli further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to control the height adjuster to move the mounting arrangement in a direction away from the chassis in response to the vertical distance being above an upper limit of the predetermined distance range (see col. 4:28-54). Regarding claim 3, Paielli further discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to control the height adjuster to move the mounting arrangement in a direction towards the chassis in response to the vertical distance being below a lower limit of the predetermined distance range (see col. 4:28-54). Pertaining to claim 4, Paielli does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitation. However, fluid control is extremely well known to one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Paielli to include fluidly controlled height adjustment based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve methods and systems for estimation of a ride height of a vehicle axle via a linear displacement sensor. With regards to claim 5, Paielli further discloses wherein the fluidly controlled actuator is a pneumatically controlled cylinder (see col. 3:34-54). For claim 6, Paielli further discloses wherein the height adjuster comprises a valve arranged in fluid communication between the pneumatically controlled cylinder and a source of pressurized air, wherein the processing circuitry is operatively coupled to the valve for controlling a supply of pressurized air to and from the pneumatic cylinder (see col. 3:34-54). Pertaining to claims 7 and 8, Paielli does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitation. However, fluid control via hydraulics is extremely well known to one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Paielli to include hydraulically controlled height adjustment based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve methods and systems for estimation of a ride height of a vehicle axle via a linear displacement sensor. With reference to claim 9, Paielli further teaches wherein the mounting arrangement comprises a hinge connectable to the chassis (see col. 5:56-67). Regarding claim 10, Paielli further discloses wherein the height adjuster comprises an electric motor operatively coupled to the processing circuitry, the electric motor being connected to the hinge to cause the mounting arrangement to rotate relative to the chassis (see col. 6:1-13). For claim 11, Paielli further discloses wherein the electric traction motor comprises a motor shaft, and wherein electric motor system further comprises an output shaft connector element connected between each of the first and second output shafts and the motor shaft (see col. 5:9-24). With regards to claim 12, Paielli does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitation. However, using a single motor shaft would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The modifications necessary would have been well within the ordinary reasonable skill. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Paielli to include a single motor shaft based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve methods and systems for estimation of a ride height of a vehicle axle via a linear displacement sensor. For claim 13, Paielli does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitation. However, mounting the motor and output shaft to the frame/chassis would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The modifications necessary would have been well within the ordinary reasonable skill. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Paielli to connect the motor to the chassis based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve methods and systems for estimation of a ride height of a vehicle axle via a linear displacement sensor. With reference to claim 14, Paielli further teaches further comprising a sensor configured to detect the vertical distance between the position on the chassis and the wheel axle of one of the first and second wheels, wherein the sensor is further configured to transmit data in the form of the distance data to the processing circuitry (see col. 6:4 to col. 7:14). Regarding claim 15, Paielli does not explicitly disclose a radar. However, Paielli discloses that other sensors may be used to carry out the same functionality (see col. 12:41-64). One of ordinary skill in the art would have the requisite knowledge that a “radar” sensor could make the necessary measurements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Paielli to include a “radar” sensor for the height measurements based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve methods and systems for estimation of a ride height of a vehicle axle via a linear displacement sensor. Pertaining to claim 16, Paielli does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitation. However, Paielli discloses that the vehicle height may be “maintained” (see col. 11:40-48, maintaining is functionally equivalent to “locking”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Paielli to lock the vehicle height based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve methods and systems for estimation of a ride height of a vehicle axle via a linear displacement sensor. For claim 17, Paielli further discloses a vehicle comprising the electric traction motor arrangement of claim 1 (see abstract). Claims 18-20 define substantially similar subject matter with substantially similar elements. Therefore, claims 18-20 are rejected based on the similar citations and reasoning outlined above in claims 1-16. Conclusion As previously stated, Applicant is considered to have implicit knowledge of the entire disclosure once a reference has been cited. This includes any teachings within the reference that were not explicitly cited in the previous Office action. Therefore, any previously cited figures, columns and lines should not be considered the only relevant teachings. Any new citation of additional teachings of the previously cited art is not a new ground of rejection. Taking the references as a whole, the art supports the rejection of the claims and the rejection is maintained. 07-39 AIA 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 ADAM D TISSOT whose telephone number is (571)270-3439. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30. 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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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. /ADAM D TISSOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663 Application/Control Number: 18/982,179 Page 2 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 18/982,179 Page 3 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 18/982,179 Page 4 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 18/982,179 Page 5 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 18/982,179 Page 6 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 18/982,179 Page 7 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 18/982,179 Page 8 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 18/982,179 Page 9 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 18/982,179 Page 10 Art Unit: 3663
Prosecution Insights