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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. The references not cited on an IDS are listed on page 1 of the specification, lines 7 and 12.
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 4, 5, and 6 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.
Claims 4 and 5 recites the limitation "the protrusion" in line 3 of each claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in each claim. There are no previous recitations of a protrusion in the claims or any of those from which the claims depend. There also lacks structural elements in the claims to provide enough information for understanding the protrusion and its location or appearance. It appears that claims 4 and 5 would be better suited to depend from claim 2, which does claim and define the protrusion. Examiner recommends changing claim dependency to clarify claim and rectify antecedent basis issues, or to amend the claim to properly claim and define a protrusion. In order to further prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the claims as being any protrusion with no other limitations, which is the broadest reasonable interpretation. Claim 6 is rejected due to its dependency from claim 5.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 10 merely repeats most of the limitations of claim 1, from which it depends. Claim 10 does not include any limitations that would further limit claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2017/095900 to Chua et al. (hereinafter Chua).
Regarding claim 1, Chua discloses an axle structure (22 and 24; see Figures 1, 2, and 16-18) for a commercial vehicle chassis, having a wheel axis (not shown but through hubs/axle at 26a and 28a), the spatial position of which is determined by axes of rotation of at least two wheels (not shown, but hubs shown at 26a/b and 28a/b) arranged on opposite sides of the axle structure (22 and 24), the wheels (not shown, but attached at 26a/b; 28a/b) are each held via a wheel carrier (26a/b; 28a/b) on a control arm (32) connected thereto, the control arms (32) are arranged at a distance from one another along the wheel axis (see Figures 1, 2, and 16-18) and are each oriented in a direction transverse to the wheel axis (see Figures 1, 2, and 16-18), the control arms (32) each have at a first end a pivot bearing (34), at a first distance from the pivot bearing (34) an interface (see Modified Figure 1 above) for attaching a wheel carrier (26, 28) to the respective control arm (32), and at a second distance from the pivot bearing (34) a support section (17) for connecting the respective control arm (32) to a spring element (160), characterized in that the control arms (32) are connected together via an axle bridge (22) on the side of the wheel axis facing away from the pivot bearings (34) and a fastening bracket (see Modified Figure 1 above) for attaching suspension struts (see Modified Figure 1 above) is formed in the central region of the axle bridge (22).
Regarding claim 8, Chua discloses the control arms (32) and the axle bridge (22) are each connected together by at least three screw connections (see Modified Figure 1 above).
Regarding claim 10, Chua discloses a commercial vehicle (see paragraph [0053]) having an axle structure (22 and 24; see Figures 1, 2, and 16-18) for a commercial vehicle chassis, having a wheel axis (not shown but through hubs/axle at 26a and 28a), the spatial position of which is determined by axes of rotation of at least two wheels (not shown, but hubs shown at 26a/b and 28a/b) arranged on opposite sides of the axle structure (22 and 24), the wheels (not shown, but attached at 26a/b; 28a/b) are each held via a wheel carrier (26a/b; 28a/b) on a control arm (32) connected thereto, the control arms (32) are arranged at a distance from one another along the wheel axis (see Figures 1, 2, and 16-18) and are each oriented in a direction transverse to the wheel axis (see Figures 1, 2, and 16-18), the control arms (32) each have at a first end a pivot bearing (34), at a first distance from the pivot bearing (34) an interface (see Modified Figure 1 above) for attaching a wheel carrier (26, 28) to the respective control arm (32), and at a second distance from the pivot bearing (34) a support section (17) for connecting the respective control arm (32) to a spring element (160), characterized in that the axle structure (22) is designed as per the characterizing features of claim 1 (see above).
Claims 1, 4, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Publication 2013/0154225 to Johnson et al. (hereinafter Johnson).
Regarding claim 1, Johnson discloses an axle structure (18) for a commercial vehicle chassis (28), having a wheel axis (through center of axle 18), the spatial position of which is determined by axes of rotation of at least two wheels (not shown, part of a commercial vehicle) arranged on opposite sides of the axle structure (18), the wheels are each held via a wheel carrier (not shown) on a control arm (12) connected thereto, the control arms (12) are arranged at a distance from one another along the wheel axis (see Figures 1) and are each oriented in a direction transverse to the wheel axis (see Figures 1), the control arms (12) each have at a first end a pivot bearing (46), at a first distance from the pivot bearing (46) an interface (16) for attaching a wheel carrier (see Figure 1; wheel carrier attached to end of 18) to the respective control arm (12), and at a second distance from the pivot bearing (46) a support section (56) for connecting the respective control arm (12) to a spring element (30), characterized in that the control arms (12) are connected together via an axle bridge (24) on the side of the wheel axis facing away from the pivot bearings (46; see at least Figures 2 and 3) and a fastening bracket (24) for attaching suspension struts (20) is formed in the central region of the axle bridge (24).
Regarding claim 4, Johnson discloses fastening elements (24) for fastening suspension struts (20) are formed on the protrusion (see protrusion at 24 in Figure 3), the direction of tension of said fastening elements being oriented, when viewed from above (see Figure 3), at an angle (a) < 450 and > 0° to the direction of extension of the axle bridge (18/24; see Figure 3).
Regarding claim 8, Johnson discloses the control arms (12) and the axle bridge (24) are each connected together by at least three screw connections (88, see Figure 6).
Regarding claim 10, Johnson discloses a commercial vehicle (see Abstract and Figure 1) having an axle structure (18) for a commercial vehicle chassis (28), having a wheel axis (through center of axle 18), the spatial position of which is determined by axes of rotation of at least two wheels (not shown, part of a commercial vehicle) arranged on opposite sides of the axle structure (18), the wheels are each held via a wheel carrier (not shown) on a control arm (12) connected thereto, the control arms (12) are arranged at a distance from one another along the wheel axis (see Figures 1) and are each oriented in a direction transverse to the wheel axis (see Figures 1), the control arms (12) each have at a first end a pivot bearing (46), at a first distance from the pivot bearing (46) an interface (16) for attaching a wheel carrier (see Figure 1; wheel carrier attached to end of 18) to the respective control arm (12), and at a second distance from the pivot bearing (46) a support section (56) for connecting the respective control arm (12) to a spring element (30), characterized in that the control arms (12) are connected together via an axle bridge (24) on the side of the wheel axis facing away from the pivot bearings (46; see at least Figures 2 and 3) and a fastening bracket (24) for attaching suspension struts (20) is formed in the central region of the axle bridge (24), characterized in that the axle structure (see Figure 1) is designed as per the characterizing features of claim 1 (see above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 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.
Claims 2-3, 7 and 9 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 closest prior art of record is cited on the PTO-892 and used in the rejections above. Neither Chua or Johnson, alone or in combination, disclose, suggest or render obvious having the details of claims 2-3, 7 and 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited on the PTO-892 are all axle bridge configurations that include specific suspension mounting.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tiffany L. Webb whose telephone number is (571)272-3950. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30-5.
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, Paul Dickson can be reached at 571-272-7742. 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.
/T.L.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/PAUL N DICKSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614