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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: K. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
This objection could be overcome by changing “16” to --K-- in Fig. 1.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
References to specific claims (as on page 1, lines 4 and 5, page 3, lines 2 and 3, and page 19, line 6) should not be made in the specification because claim numbers and/or claim dependencies may change during the prosecution of the application.
On page 3, line 11, “axis” should be changed to --axle--.
On page 3, line 14, “axis” should be changed to --axle--.
On page 5, line 14, “is” should be changed to --is in--.
On page 12, line 8, “axial” should be changed to --axle--.
On page 19, line 2, “collusion” should be changed to --collision--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-16 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the spatial position” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome by changing “the spatial” to --a spatial-- in line 2.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the respective link arm" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome by changing “the respective” to --a respective-- in line 7.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "that side of the wheel axis (R) that faces away from the pivot bearings" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome by changing “that side” to --a side-- in line 10.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the outer ends of the axle bridge" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome by changing “the outer” to --outer-- in line 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the longitudinal center axis (L) of which" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome by changing “the longitudinal” to --a longitudinal-- in lines 4-5
The limitation “one end of the sleeve (44) is an intermediate space (50) in which a connecting element (52) of a link arm (8) is inserted” in claim 2, lines 9-10 does not accurately describe the invention because the one end of the sleeve (i.e., 44) is not an intermediate space (i.e., 50). This rejection could be overcome by changing “is” to --is in-- in line 9.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "that side of one of the two plates (42a, 42b) that faces away from the sleeve" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome by changing “that side” to --a side-- in line 13.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the upper and lower profile limbs" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome by changing “the upper” to --upper-- in line 3.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the base plate" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome by changing “the base” to --a base-- in line 3.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the cover plate" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome by changing “the cover” to --a cover-- in line 3.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation “the plates (42a, 42b) are outwardly facing extensions of the upper and lower profile limbs”, and the claim also recites “in particular of the base plate(30) and of the cover plate (38), of the axle bridge (22)” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. This rejection could be overcome by changing “the plates (42a, 42b) are outwardly facing extensions of the upper and lower profile limbs, in particular of the base plate (30) and of the cover plate (38), of the axle bridge (22)” to --the plates (42a, 42b) are outwardly facing extensions of a base plate (30) of the axle bridge (22) and a cover plate (38) of the axle bridge (22)--.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the plates" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the longitudinal center axis of the rest of the axle bridge" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The above rejections of claim 4 could be overcome by changing (i) claim 3, as suggested above; (ii) “1” to --3-- in line 2; (ii) “plates” to --base plate and the cover plate-- in line 2; and “the longitudinal center axis of the rest” to --a longitudinal center axis of a central region-- in lines 3-4.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the upper of the two plates (42a, 42b) that are located at one end of the axle bridge" in lines 2-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since an upper plate of the two plates was not previously introduced and since it was not previously established that the two plates are located at one end of the axle bridge. This rejection could be overcome by changing “the upper of the two plates (42a, 42b) that are located at one end of the axle bridge (22) and has been fixedly connected to the axle bridge (22)” to --an upper plate of the two plates (42a, 42b) and has been fixedly connected to the axle bridge (22), wherein the two plates (42a, 42b) are located at one end of the axle bridge (22)-- in lines 2-4.
Claim 8 suffers from double inclusion, since it can be read to include the same element twice (i.e., “a spring element” is introduced in claim 1, line 9, and then “a spring element” is recited again in claim 8, line 3, both recitations being drawn to the same element (i.e., 14)). MPEP § 2173.05(o). This rejection could be overcome by changing “a spring” to --the spring-- in line 3.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the width of the axle bridge" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome by changing “the width” to --a width-- in line 3.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the outer peripheral regions" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome by changing "the outer” to --outer-- in line 5.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the central region of the axle bridge" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome by changing “the central” to --a central-- in line 3.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the upper edge of the axle bridge" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome by changing “the upper” to --an upper-- in line 2.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the direction of extent of the axle bridge" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome by changing “the direction” to --a direction-- in line 3.
Claim 12 suffers from double inclusion, since it can be read to include the same element twice (i.e., “fastening elements (28a) for fastening suspension struts” are introduced in claim 11, line 4, and then “fastening elements (28a) for fastening suspension struts” are recited again in claim 12, lines 1-2). MPEP § 2173.05(o). This rejection could be overcome by changing “fastening” to --the fastening-- in line 1.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the associated fastening element(s)" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome by changing “the associated” to --an associated-- or --associated-- in line 4.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the link arm (8) associated with this suspension strut" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome by changing “the link” to --a link-- in line 7.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the direct line" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome by changing “the direct” to --a direct-- in line 8.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the associated fastening point" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome by changing “the associated” to --an associated-- in line 8.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the center" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome by changing “the center” to --a center-- in line 9.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the associated wheel" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome by changing “the associated” to --an associated-- in line 9.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the fastening element (28b) for attaching a toe management device" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome by changing “the fastening” to --a fastening-- in line 2.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the opposite side of the axle bridge" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome by changing “the opposite” to --an opposite-- in line 3.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the fastening bracket (24) for attaching suspension struts" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome by changing “the fastening” to --a fastening-- in line 3.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the spatial position” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome by changing “the spatial” to --a spatial-- in line 2.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the respective link arm" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection could be overcome by changing “the respective” to --a respective-- in line 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 5, 6, 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chua et al. (US 2018/0361811 A1). Chua discloses a commercial vehicle (paragraph 0053) which has an axle structure for a commercial vehicle chassis (said chassis comprising frame rails 20a and 20b), having a wheel axis, the spatial position of which is determined by axes of rotation of at least two wheels (e.g., a wheel is shown at 344 in Fig. 22) located on opposite sides of the axle structure, the wheels are each held, via a wheel carrier (e.g., at 26a in Fig. 1), on a link arm (e.g., 32 and also, optionally, 62) connected to the wheel carrier, the link arms are spaced apart from one another along the wheel axis and are each oriented in a direction transverse to the wheel axis, the link arms each have a pivot bearing (e.g., 62) at a first end, an interface (e.g., where the link arm is connected to axle clamp assembly components 42), at a first spacing from the pivot bearing, for attaching a wheel carrier to the respective link arm, and a support portion (e.g., at 148a), at a second spacing from the pivot bearing, for connecting the respective link arm to a spring element (e.g., 160a), characterized in that the link arms, on that side of the wheel axis that faces away from the pivot bearings, are connected to one another via an axle bridge (e.g., 150), wherein the axle bridge is screwed to the link arms (e.g., via bolts 151a). The axle bridge at its outer ends has a respective fastener for connection to an air-spring (e.g., 160a) bellows (Figs. 2, 16, 18 and 22). A corresponding end of the axle bridge is connected both to the link arm and to the air-spring bellows at a connection node (Figs. 2, 16, 18 and 22). The connection between the axle bridge and the link arm is configured such that it is possible to mount a spring element on at least one of these elements without needing to detach the connection between the axle bridge and the link arm (Figs. 2, 16, 18 and 22).
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.
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chua et al. (US 2018/0361811 A1) in view of Kamiya (JP H06239121 A). Chua teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above. Chua further teaches a bellows carrier (e.g., the bottom of air spring 160a – see Figs. 1, 2, 16, 18 and 22). Chua does not teach the limitations of claim 2. Kamiya teaches an axle structure, characterized in that the outer ends of an axle bridge (e.g., 1) have two plates (10) which are spaced apart from one another and, when the axle structure has been mounted on a vehicle, are oriented at least approximately horizontally, wherein between the two plates there is at least one sleeve (e.g., 6), the longitudinal center axis of which, when the axle structure has been installed in a vehicle, extends in an at least approximately vertical direction (Figs. 1 and 2), at least one of the two plates having, in the continuation of the longitudinal center axis of the sleeve, a passage opening (e.g., 11) through which a threaded bolt (e.g., 2) that fits into the sleeve is guided, formed between the two plates and one end of the sleeve is an intermediate space in which a connecting element of a link arm (e.g., 3) is inserted, the connecting element of the link arm also having, in the continuation of the longitudinal center axis of the sleeve, a passage opening (e.g., 5) through which the threaded bolt that fits into the sleeve is guided, and at least that side of one of the two plates that faces away from the sleeve has a clamping surface, against which a threaded nut or a head of the threaded bolt is screwed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect an axle bridge and a trailing arm as taught by Chua using two plates, a sleeve and bolt, according to the known technique taught by Kamiya, since “the torsional rigidity of the bush 6 determines the roll rigidity and alignment characteristics, and different vehicle types can be addressed by changing the bush 6” (paragraph 0007). “Furthermore, these bushings also serve to absorb some shock, resulting in an improved ride comfort” (paragraph 0009). Such a combination would naturally result in an invention characterized in that the bellows carrier is placed on the upper plate of the two plates that are located at one end of the axle bridge and fixedly connected to the axle bridge. All the claimed elements were known in the cited prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results. MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chua et al. (US 2018/0361811 A1) in view of Kamiya (JP H06239121 A) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Merkle (DE 3526272 A1). Neither Chua nor Kamiya teaches the limitations of claim 3. Merkle teaches an axle bridge 12 that is in the form of a welded structure (paragraphs 0005, 0009, 0010 and 0016) which on its underside has a base plate 40, which extends across the width of the axle bridge in an at least approximately constant plane and has a greater overall height in its central portion than in the outer peripheral regions (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make an axle bridge as taught by Chua in the form of a welded structure, according to the known technique taught by Merkle, since such an axle bridge would advantageously be “characterized by lightweight construction and is easy and quick to manufacture” (paragraph 0007). Such a combination would naturally result in an invention wherein the plates are outwardly facing extensions of the upper and lower profile limbs, in particular of the base plate and of the cover plate, of the axle bridge. All the claimed elements were known in the cited prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results. MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claims 1, 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imre et al. (US 2006/0237938 A1) in view of Chua et al. (US 2018/0361811 A1). Imre teaches a commercial vehicle which has an axle structure for a commercial vehicle chassis (said chassis comprising a pair of frame rails 10), having a wheel axis, the spatial position of which is determined by axes of rotation of at least two wheels (Fig. 1) located on opposite sides of the axle structure, the wheels are each held, via a wheel carrier (e.g., 45), on a link arm (said link arm comprising a trailing arm 15) connected to the wheel carrier, the link arms are spaced apart from one another along the wheel axis and are each oriented in a direction transverse to the wheel axis, the link arms each have a pivot bearing (e.g., at 9) at a first end, an interface (e.g., where the link arm is connected to the wheel carrier), at a first spacing from the pivot bearing, for attaching a wheel carrier to the respective link arm, and a support portion (e.g., at 55), at a second spacing from the pivot bearing, for connecting the respective link arm to a spring element (e.g., 75 or, alternatively, just the coil spring of element 75), characterized in that the link arms, on that side of the wheel axis that faces away from the pivot bearings, are connected to one another via an axle bridge (e.g., 30). The connection between the axle bridge and the link arm is configured such that it is possible to mount a spring element on at least one of these elements without needing to detach the connection between the axle bridge and the link arm (Figs. 2-4). Imre does not teach that the axle bridge is screwed to the link arms. Chua teaches a commercial vehicle (paragraph 0053) which has an axle structure for a commercial vehicle chassis (said chassis comprising frame rails 20a and 20b), having a wheel axis, the spatial position of which is determined by axes of rotation of at least two wheels (e.g., a wheel is shown at 344 in Fig. 22) located on opposite sides of the axle structure, the wheels are each held, via a wheel carrier (e.g., at 26a in Fig. 1), on a link arm (e.g., 32 and also, optionally, 62) connected to the wheel carrier, the link arms are spaced apart from one another along the wheel axis and are each oriented in a direction transverse to the wheel axis, the link arms each have a pivot bearing (e.g., 62) at a first end, an interface (e.g., where the link arm is connected to axle clamp assembly components 42), at a first spacing from the pivot bearing, for attaching a wheel carrier to the respective link arm, and a support portion (e.g., at 148a), at a second spacing from the pivot bearing, for connecting the respective link arm to a spring element (e.g., 160a), characterized in that the link arms, on that side of the wheel axis that faces away from the pivot bearings, are connected to one another via an axle bridge (e.g., 150), wherein the axle bridge is screwed to the link arms (e.g., via bolts 151a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to screw the axle bridge in Imre to the link arms, according to the known technique taught by Chua, in order to attach the axle bridge to the link arms. A screwed connection would advantageously facilitate individual replacement of the axle bridge and/or the link arm(s). All the claimed elements were known in the cited prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results. MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chua et al. (US 2018/0361811 A1) in view of Merkle (DE 3526272 A1). Chua teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above. Chua does not teach the limitations of claim 3. Merkle teaches an axle bridge 12 that is in the form of a welded structure (paragraphs 0005, 0009, 0010 and 0016) which on its underside has a base plate 40, which extends across the width of the axle bridge in an at least approximately constant plane and has a greater overall height in its central portion than in the outer peripheral regions (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make an axle bridge as taught by Chua in the form of a welded structure, according to the known technique taught by Merkle, since such an axle bridge would advantageously be “characterized by lightweight construction and is easy and quick to manufacture” (paragraph 0007). All the claimed elements were known in the cited prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results. MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imre et al. (US 2006/0237938 A1) in view of Chua et al. (US 2018/0361811 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Merkle (DE 3526272 A1). Neither Imre nor Chua teaches the limitations of claim 9. Merkle teaches an axle bridge 12 that is in the form of a welded structure (paragraphs 0005, 0009, 0010 and 0016) which on its underside has a base plate 40, which extends across the width of the axle bridge in an at least approximately constant plane and has a greater overall height in its central portion than in the outer peripheral regions (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make an axle bridge as taught by Imre in the form of a welded structure, according to the known technique taught by Merkle, since such an axle bridge would advantageously be “characterized by lightweight construction and is easy and quick to manufacture” (paragraph 0007). All the claimed elements were known in the cited prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results. MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imre et al. (US 2006/0237938 A1) in view of Chua et al. (US 2018/0361811 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brown et al. (US 2019/0168559 A1). Imre further teaches a toe management device comprising a Watt linkage formed on the axle bridge (paragraphs 0014 and 0019). Imre does not explicitly teach that a fastening element for attaching the toe management device is formed on the axle bridge, characterized in that the fastening element is a shaft for connection to a Watt linkage. Brown teaches a fastening element (e.g., 133; paragraph 0037) for attaching a toe management device that is a shaft for connection to a Watt linkage. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an invention based on a combination of Imre and Chua, as set forth above, with a fastening element that is a shaft, as taught by Brown, in order to define a “first rotational axis” (paragraph 0037 of Brown) for the Watt linkage. All the claimed elements were known in the cited prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results. MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claims 1, 8 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Mazyek et al. (WO 2024/037934 A1) in view of Chua et al. (US 2018/0361811 A1). The related document US 2026/0048632 A1 may be used as an English translation of WO 2024/037934 A1. Mazyek teaches a commercial vehicle which has an axle structure for a commercial vehicle chassis, having a wheel axis A, the spatial position of which is determined by axes of rotation of at least two wheels (implicit) located on opposite sides of the axle structure, the wheels are each held, via a wheel carrier (Fig. 1), on a link arm (e.g., 50) connected to the wheel carrier, the link arms are spaced apart from one another along the wheel axis and are each oriented in a direction transverse to the wheel axis, the link arms each have a pivot bearing at a first end (Fig. 1), an interface (e.g., where the link arm is connected to the wheel carrier), at a first spacing from the pivot bearing, for attaching a wheel carrier to the respective link arm, and a support portion (e.g., 52), at a second spacing from the pivot bearing, for connecting the respective link arm to a spring element (Fig. 1; paragraph 0028), characterized in that the link arms, on that side of the wheel axis that faces away from the pivot bearings, are connected to one another via an axle bridge (e.g., 40). The connection between the axle bridge and the link arm is configured such that it is possible to mount a spring element on at least one of these elements without needing to detach the connection between the axle bridge and the link arm (Fig. 1). A fastening bracket (e.g., 43) for attaching suspensions struts (e.g., 44) is formed in the central region of the axle bridge. The fastening bracket is in the form of a projection which is beneath the upper edge of the axle bridge and extends in a direction transverse to the direction of extent of the axle bridge, wherein fastening elements for fastening suspension struts (e.g., 44) are formed on the projection and have a direction of tension which, when viewed from above, is at an angle (α)<45° and > 0° with respect to the direction of extent of the axle bridge (Fig. 1). Fastening elements for fastening suspension struts (e.g., 44) are formed on opposite sides of the projection, at least one respective suspension strut being rotatably and/or articulatedly connected to the associated fastening element(s), on each side of the projection, at the fastening elements, and this suspension strut extends from the associated fastening element, when the axle structure is mounted and inactive in a commercial vehicle, to a point of attachment of the suspension strut to the link arm associated with this suspension strut, at an angle which deviates from the direct line between the associated fastening point and the center in the associated wheel by an angular dimension (Fig. 1). A fastening element for attaching a toe management device is formed on the axle bridge, characterized in that the fastening element is a shaft (e.g., the shaft that extends through central opening 31 – see Fig. 1) for connection to a Watt linkage (abstract). The fastening element for attaching a toe management device is arranged on the opposite side of the axle bridge from the fastening bracket for attaching suspension struts (Fig. 1). Mazyek does not teach that the axle bridge is screwed to the link arms. Chua teaches a commercial vehicle (paragraph 0053) which has an axle structure for a commercial vehicle chassis (said chassis comprising frame rails 20a and 20b), having a wheel axis, the spatial position of which is determined by axes of rotation of at least two wheels (e.g., a wheel is shown at 344 in Fig. 22) located on opposite sides of the axle structure, the wheels are each held, via a wheel carrier (e.g., at 26a in Fig. 1), on a link arm (e.g., 32 and also, optionally, 62) connected to the wheel carrier, the link arms are spaced apart from one another along the wheel axis and are each oriented in a direction transverse to the wheel axis, the link arms each have a pivot bearing (e.g., 62) at a first end, an interface (e.g., where the link arm is connected to axle clamp assembly components 42), at a first spacing from the pivot bearing, for attaching a wheel carrier to the respective link arm, and a support portion (e.g., at 148a), at a second spacing from the pivot bearing, for connecting the respective link arm to a spring element (e.g., 160a), characterized in that the link arms, on that side of the wheel axis that faces away from the pivot bearings, are connected to one another via an axle bridge (e.g., 150), wherein the axle bridge is screwed to the link arms (e.g., via bolts 151a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to screw the axle bridge to the link arms in Mazyek, according to the known technique taught by Chua, in order to reversibly connect the axle bridge to the link arms. Such a connection would advantageously facilitate individual replacement of the axle bridge and/or the link arm(s). All the claimed elements were known in the cited prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results. MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
The applied reference (i.e., Mazyek et al. (WO 2024/037934 A1)) has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8 of copending Application No. 19/109,818 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of said claims of the instant application (i.e., 19/109,832) are essentially recited in said claims of copending Application No. 19/109,818.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 16 of copending Application No. 19/109,827 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of said claims of the instant application (i.e., 19/109,832) are essentially recited in said claims of copending Application No. 19/109,827.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, Johansson (US 2025/0033426 A1) teaches an axle structure comprising an axle bridge.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH J FRISBY whose telephone number is (571)270-7802. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM - 5:00PM.
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.
/KEITH J FRISBY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights