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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 5/5/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 6-12 under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hayashida and Schmid, see attached translation and arguments below.
Applicant argues that Hayashida and Keeler fail to disclose or suggest: the at least two vehicle wheels are pivotable relative to the vehicle frame by an electric drive device, and the electric drive device is pivotable relative to the vehicle frame around the pivot axis by the adjusting device. Applicant further argues that the differential of Hayashida is neither an electric drive device nor pivotable relative to the vehicle frame around the pivot axis. This argument is persuasive with respect to the previous rejection but is not persuasive as to the rejection set forth herein. The present rejection no longer relies upon the differential of Hayashida as corresponding to the claimed electric drive device. Hayashida is relied upon for teaching a steerable vehicle axle that is pivotable relative to the vehicle frame by an adjusting device, while Schmid is relied upon for teaching an electric drive device mounted to the steerable vehicle axle. A combination incorporates the known electric axle driven of Schmid into the steerable axle arrangement of Hayashida in order to obtain the known benefits of electrically driven vehicle axles while retaining the steering functionality of Hayashida. As modified, the electric drive device is mounted to the pivotable vehicle axle and therefore pivots together with the vehicle axle relative to the vehicle frame when the adjusting device steers the axle. Accordingly, the combination teaches or at least suggests both disputed limitations.
Applicant argues the Keeler does not disclose an electric drive device. This argument is not persuasive because the present rejection of claim 6 does not rely upon Keeler for teaching the electric drive device. Keeler is relied upon only where specifically cited with respect to the gas spring limitations of dependent claim 12.
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 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashida (JP 2569933) as and further in view of Schmid (DE 102009036299)(see attached original and translated document).
In regards to claim 6, Hayashida discloses a chassis (10) for a commercial vehicle (truck) (see fig. 1), the chassis comprising:
a vehicle axle (16) configured to support at least two vehicle wheels (18) of the commercial vehicle on a vehicle frame of the commercial vehicle (chassis frame 10), wherein the at least two vehicle wheels (18) are pivotable around a respective wheel rotational axis (see fig. 1-3); and
at least one adjusting device (48) configured so that the vehicle axle (16) is mounted to pivot relative to the vehicle frame(10) around a pivot axis running oblique or perpendicular to the respective wheel rotational axis to achieve cornering or changes of direction of the commercial vehicle (rear wheel actuators, hydraulic cylinders, 48, operating levers 44, lower radius rods 38, and upper radius rods 26 cooperating to pivot rear axle housing 16 about the apex pivot connection of the upper radius rod relative to chassis frame 10 to steer the vehicle),
Hayashida fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least two vehicle wheels (18) are pivotable relative to the vehicle frame (10) by an electric drive device, and wherein the electric drive device is pivotable relative to the vehicle frame (10) around the pivot axis by the adjusting device (48).
However, Schmid teaches wherein the at least two vehicle wheels (12) are pivotable relative to the vehicle frame (1) by an electric drive device (4)(see fig. 1, and abstract), and
wherein the electric drive device (4) is pivotable relative to the vehicle frame (1) around the pivot axis by the adjusting device (along with the axle 2 and housing 3 with the suspension. As shown in fig. 1, an electric portal axle including electric machines integrated into the axle housing, each electric machine 4 driving a respective wheel 12 through reduction gearing, wherein the electric drive devices 4 form part of the axle assembly itself. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the pivotable rear axle assembly of Hayashida by replacing its conventional drive arrangement with the axle integrated electric drive arrangement of Schmid in order to provide electric propulsion while retaining the known pivotable steering axle configuration, since electrically driven axles were known alternatives to conventional drivetrains and merely substituted one known drive technology for another to obtain the predictable benefit of electric propulsion.
As modified, the electric drive devices Schmid teaches would be mounted to Hayashida’s pivotable rear axle housing. Accordingly, when Hayashida’s rear wheel steering actuators pivot the rear axle housing relative to the chassis frame about the claimed pivot axis, the axle mounted electric drive devices likewise pivot relative to the chassis frame about the same pivot axis together with the axle housing.
In regards to claim 7, Hayashida and Schmid discloses wherein the adjusting device (Hayashida, 48) is a hydraulic adjusting device (hydraulic cylinder).
In regards to claim 8, Hayashida, as combined by Schmid, teaches wherein a link rod (38), which is movable translationally relative to the vehicle frame, is configured to couple the lever to the vehicle axle (lower radius rod 38 coupling operating lever 44 to rear axle housing 16, fig. 2-4, lower radius rod 38 connected between lever 44 and axle housing 16) in such a way that pivoting of the vehicle axle (16) can be achieved by pivoting the lever (44) via the translational movement of the link rod (38) (operating lever 44 pivoting about pivot pin 42, translating lower radius rod 38, which pivots rear axle housing 16 relative to chassis frame 10 about the pivot axis established by upper radius rod 26, fig. 2-4).
In regards to claim 9, Hayashida in combination with Schmid teaches wherein the pivot axis runs through the vehicle axle (16, see fig. 3, evidenced by the rear axle housing pivoting about the apex connection of upper radius rod 26 at the central portion of rear axle housing 16 during steering).
In regards to claim 10, Hayashida and Schmid in combination teach wherein the pivot axle is a beam axle (see fig. 1, axle 16).
In regards to claim 11, Hayashida as combined discloses at least one lever (44) pivotable relative to the vehicle frame (10) around a lever axis running oblique or perpendicular to the pivot axis (the vertical direction, pivotably mounted about pivot pin 42, fig. 2,3), wherein, by the at least one lever (44), an adjusting part (50) of the adjusting device (48) is moveable translationally relative to the vehicle frame (10), wherein the adjusting part is coupled to the vehicle axle (10) in such a way that pivoting the vehicle axle (16) can be achieved by the translational movement of the adjusting part via the pivoting of the lever (44) (see fig. 2-4, cylinder device 48 including piston rod 50 coupled to operating lever 44, wherein extension and retraction of piston rod 50 causes translational movement of the adjusting part relative to the chasses frame 10, and actuating operating lever 44, which moves lower radius rod 38, thereby pivoting rear axle housing 16, relative to chassis frame 10 about the pivot connection of the upper radius rod 26 to steer the rear axle).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashida (JP 2569933) and Schmid (DE 102009036299) as applied to claims above and further in view of Keeler (US 20160332497).
In regards to claim 12, Hayashida, as combined, discloses at least one gas spring (24) configured so that the vehicle axle (16) is supported on the vehicle frame (10) (fig. 1-3).
Hayashida fails to disclose wherein the at least one gas spring has a working chamber configured to receive a fluid and a piston element at least partially delimiting the working chamber and coupled to the vehicle axle in such a way that the piston element is movable translationally in a first movement direction relative to the vehicle frame by translational movement of the vehicle axle relative to the vehicle frame in the first movement direction, wherein capacity of the working chamber can be changed, and the piston element is movable in a second movement direction relative to the vehicle frame, different from the first movement direction, by pivoting the vehicle axle around the pivot axis.
Keeler teaches wherein the at least one gas spring has a working chamber configured to receive a fluid (bellows chamber V2, piston chamber V1, bellows 241, piston 242, fig. 6) and a piston element at least partially delimiting the working chamber (piston 242, disc 270, piston chamber V1, fig. 6) and coupled to the vehicle axle in such a way that,
the piston element (piston 242) is movable translationally in a first movement direction relative to the vehicle frame by translational movement of the vehicle axle relative to the vehicle frame in the first movement direction, wherein capacity of the working chamber can be changed (see piston 242, attached to suspension assembly, bellows 241 attached to vehicle frame, relative suspension travel causing translational movement and corresponding volume change of piston chamber V1 and bellows V2, figs. 5-7).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the known internal gas spring construction of Keeler within the gas spring suspension of Hayashida because Keeler teaches a conventional heavy duty vehicle air spring providing a working chamber, piston, and variable chamber volume while retaining the known suspension function. The substitution employs one known air spring construction for another to obtain predictable suspension characteristics, therefore, the piston element is movable in a second movement direction relative to the vehicle frame by pivoting the vehicle axle around the pivot axis. After incorporation of Keeler’s air spring into Hayashida’s pivoting axle suspension, the air spring remains coupled between the chassis frame and the pivotable axle. When Hayashida pivots the axle about the pivot axis during steering, the piston and bellows necessarily undergo the corresponding relative movement while remaining connected between the frame and axle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for a list of prior art, specifically Vreed (US 20240001748) teaching and electric drive device integrated in a vehicle axle, and Langhorst (US 20170008361) teaching a similar chassis system for a motor vehicle, see also Kielar (US 6039143) and Schoon (US 6852061).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CAITLIN ANNE MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4356. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-5:00pm (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, Jason Shanske can be reached at (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.
/C.A.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/JASON D SHANSKE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights