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 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 1-11 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 6, the phrase "preferably" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "not necessarily" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 9, 10, and 11, the phrase "particularly" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the car" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schaible (US 6,398,202)
In Re claim 1, Schaible disclose a motor vehicle (Abstract) with at least one suspension assembly (fig. 1) between a wheel and a vehicle body (20) comprising: an intermediate body (3) interposed between a second end (top, 6) of the suspension assembly (see fig. 2) and the vehicle body (20); a first elastic element (16) disposed between the second end of the suspension assembly and the intermediate body; and at least a second elastic element (12) disposed between the intermediate body and the vehicle body.
In Re claim 3, see elastic bushings (12, 16).
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 and 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carabelli et al. (US 2008/0012262) in view of Elterman (US 2018/0370312).
In Re claim 1, Carabelli et al. disclose a motor vehicle (200) with at least one suspension assembly (fig. 2) between a wheel (2, 3) and a vehicle body (17) comprising: an intermediate body (14) interposed between the second end (top) of the suspension assembly (see 14a) and the vehicle body (17). Carabelli et al. fail to disclose elastic bodies between the suspension assembly, the intermediate body, and the vehicle body.
Elterman is related to the art of vehicle suspension assemblies (par. 0001), and teaches providing an elastic bushing (see elastomeric rings 30 in fig. 2) between relatively rotatable components (see 24 and 22 in fig. 2) to cushion any radial forces between the relatively rotatable components thus allowing free rotation and providing an improved operating life compared to other known bushing devices (par. 0005). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the relatively rotatable connections within the suspension of Carabelli et al. with elastic bushings, as taught by Elterman, to cushion any radial forces between the relatively rotatable components and provide an improved operating life compared to other known bushing devices.
In Re claim 3, see par. 0009 of Elterman.
In Re claim 4, with reference to figs. 1 and 2 of Carabelli et al., the elastic elements would be positioned parallel to the direction of vehicle travel.
In Re claims 5, 6, and 8, see shock absorbers (18); intermediate body (14); and pivotable connections (14a, 14b) of Carabelli et al..
In Re claim 7, see vehicle chassis (17); suspension forks (wishbone portions 10-13); and intermediate body (14) Carabelli et al..
In Re claim 9, see additional source of vibrations (see left and right-side suspension assemblies) of Carabelli et al..
In Re claim 10, the intermediate body (14) is a component of the vehicle (1).
In Re claim 11, see fig. 7 of Carabelli et al., which shows a front and rear suspension of the vehicle. The examiner notes that the intermediate member indirectly supports other vehicle components through it’s connection with the shock absorbers (18) of the suspension.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carabelli et al. (US 2008/0012262) in view of Elterman (US 2018/0370312) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Di Tanna et al. (US 2019/0232749).
In Re claim2, Carabelli et al. fail to specifically disclose a hub supporting the wheel.
Di Tanna et al. is related to the art of tilting vehicles (Abstract), and discloses that it was well known in the art to provide a suspension assembly (figs. 6+) with a wheel hub bracket (20L, 20R) connected with the shock absorber (24L, 24R) and supporting the wheel (12L, 12R). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the use of a wheel hub bracket in the suspension assembly of Carabelli et al., as taught by Di Tanna et al., simply to securely support and connect the wheel and bearing unit to the vehicle’s suspension system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS W IRVIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3095. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
/THOMAS W IRVIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights