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 Status
Claims 1-10 were cancelled in the preliminary amendment submitted with the original filing of this application. Claims 11-30 are pending and examined on the merits below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 20 objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 and line 3, respectively, recite “can be rotatably supported.” Examiner suggests changing to “is configured to be rotatably supported.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3 recites “can be fastened.” Examiner suggests changing to “is configured to be fastened.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 14, 22, and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 in each claim recites “can be hinged,” and “can be connected” in line 3. Examiner suggests changing to “is configured to be hinged.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 16, 29, and 30 are objected to for a minor grammatical error in line 2 where it recites “an sweep angle.” Examiner suggests changing to “a sweep angle.”
Claim 20 is objected to for having duplicative elements in the claim. Interpreting the claim such that the limitations of claim 11 are required, the claim is duplicative by introducing all of the elements twice.
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 11-30 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 11 and 20 recite the limitation "the chassis links" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The previous references in the claim are to “two chassis links” and also to link assemblies. Examiner suggests clarifying which links correspond to the claimed language.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the wheel center" in lined 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the installed position" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 11 and 20 recite the limitation “the wheel support rotational axis” in line 11. The previous recitation is to “a virtual wheel support rotational axis.” It is unclear whether another axis is being claimed of the two claimed elements are the same axis.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the chassis links" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The previous references in the claims are to “two chassis links” and also to link assemblies. Examiner suggests clarifying which links correspond to the claimed language.
Claims 13 and 21 recite the limitation "the chassis links" in lines 1, 3, and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. The previous references in the claims are to “two chassis links” and also to link assemblies. Examiner suggests clarifying which links correspond to the claimed language.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the third orthant” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitations "the third orthant" in lines 4-5 and “the fourth orthant” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 14, 22, and 23 recite the limitation "the chassis links" in lines 1, 4, and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. The previous references in the claims are to “two chassis links” and also to link assemblies. Examiner suggests clarifying which links correspond to the claimed language.
Claims 14, 22, and 23 recite “the second kinematic points of the chassis link of the first assembly” and “the second kinematic points of the chassis links of the second link assembly.” The claims only previous mention having “chassis links … hinged … via a second kinematic point to a body.” Examiner suggest clarifying as there is a singular point that is claims, and then multiple points for various elements is claimed. Examiner suggests clarifying.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the fourth orthant" in lines 3-4 and “the third orthant” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claims 15, 24, 25, and 26 recite the limitation "the chassis links" in lines 1-2 and 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The previous references in the claims are to “two chassis links” and also to link assemblies. Examiner suggests clarifying which links correspond to the claimed language.
Claims 16, 27, 28, and 29 recite the limitation "the chassis links" multiple times in lines 1-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The previous references in the claims are to “two chassis links” and also to link assemblies. Examiner suggests clarifying which links correspond to the claimed language.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the second kinematic point" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Neither claim 17, nor claim 11 from which 17 depends, mentions a second kinematic point. Further, the claims also do not mention a first kinematic point. Examiner suggests clarifying the elements of the claim and also providing proper antecedent basis.
Claim 18 recites “a distance between the kinematic points of the first chassis link of the first link assembly” in lines 1-2, “track rod kinematic points of the track rod” in line 3, and “the distance between the kinematics points of the second chassis link of the first assembly” in line 4, “the distance between the kinematic points of the second chassis link of the first link assembly” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Neither claim 18, nor claim 11, from which claim 18 depends, claims kinematic points other than a single track rod kinematic point. Examiner suggests clarifying each of the terms and providing proper antecedent basis.
Claim 19 recites the limitations "the first kinematic point of the first chassis link of the first link assembly" in lines 1-2, “the first kinematic point of the first chassis link of the second link assembly” in lines 2-3, “the first kinematic point of the second chassis link of the first link assembly” in line 4, and “the first kinematic point of the second chassis link of the second link assembly” in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Neither claim 19, nor claim 11 front which claim 19 depends, claims kinematics points for the various links. Examiner suggests clarifying terms and distances in the claims.
Claim 20 recites “in particular a wheel suspension” in line 1. The use of “in particular” makes it unclear if the limitations of claim 11 are, or are not, required.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “the fourth orthant” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 24 recites the limitations “the fourth orthant” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claims 12-19 and 21-30 are rejected due to their dependence from rejected claim 11.
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 11-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 1 364 816 B1 to Oda et al. (hereinafter Oda).
Regarding claims 11 and 20, Oda discloses a motor vehicle (see paragraph [0071]) having a wheel suspension for a motor vehicle (see Figure 1), comprising: a wheel support (11) on which a wheel hub (see Figure 3) is rotatably supported or can be rotatably supported (see Figure 3) about a wheel hub rotational axis by a wheel bearing (see Figure 3), and comprising two chassis links (6,7) of a first link assembly, two chassis links (8,9) of a second link assembly and a track rod (10) which is hinged to a track rod kinematic point (27) on the wheel support (11; see Figure 3), wherein the chassis links (6, 7, 8, and 9) are hinged to the wheel support (11) in such a way that the wheel support describes a rotational movement about a virtual wheel support rotational axis (see Figure 3; paragraph [0085]), when the track rod (11) is displaced, and wherein a horizontal plane which receives the wheel center and which is aligned horizontally and a vertical plane which receives the wheel center and which is perpendicular to the horizontal plane delimit multiple orthants from one another (see Figures 3 and 4), wherein in the installed position of the wheel suspension the track rod kinematic point (27) is arranged in a first orthant of the orthants (see Figure 3), wherein the wheel support rotational axis runs (see near K) through a second orthant of the orthants opposite the first orthant with respect to the wheel hub rotational axis (see Figure 3).
Regarding claim 12, Oda discloses a wheel center plane receiving the wheel center is arranged in the axial direction with respect to the wheel hub rotational axis in the center of a wheel which is fastened or can be fastened to the wheel hub (see Figures 2 and 3), wherein each of the chassis links (6, 7, 8, and 9) has a longitudinal center axis intersecting the wheel center plane in the second orthant or in a third of the orthants present on the same side of the vertical plane (see axes and intersections in Figure 3).
Regarding claims 13 and 21, Oda discloses the chassis links (6, 7, 8, 9) are each hinged to the wheel support via a first kinematic point (27; see Figure 3), wherein the first kinematic points of the chassis links of the first link assembly are located in the first orthant and/or in the third orthant (see Figure 3), and/or in that the first kinematic points of the chassis links of the second link assembly are located in the second orthant and/or a fourth orthant (see Figure 3) of the orthants arranged on the same side of the horizontal plane (see Figures 3 and 5).
Regarding claim 14, 22, and 23, Oda discloses the chassis links (6, 7, 8, 9) are respectively hinged or can be hinged via a second kinematic point to a body (19a, 19b, 19c, 18a; see Figure 5) or to an auxiliary frame (3) which is connected or can be connected to the body, wherein the second kinematic points of the chassis link of the first link assembly (19a, 19b, 19c, 18a; see Figure 5)are located in the first orthant and/or the third orthant (see Figures 3 and 5) and/or the second kinematic points of the chassis links of the second link assembly (19a, 19b, 19c, 18a; see Figure 5) are located in the second orthant and/or the fourth orthant (see Figures 3 and 5).
Regarding claim 15, 24, 25, and 26, Oda discloses a first of the chassis links (6) of the first link assembly and a first of the chassis links (8) of the second link assembly are arranged in such a way that their second kinematic points (19a/b) are arranged in the first orthant and/or the fourth orthant (see Figures 4 and 5), and/or in that a second of the chassis links (7) of the first link assembly and a second of the chassis links (9) of the second link assembly are arranged in such a way that their second kinematic points (19c/18a) are arranged in the second orthant and/or the third orthant (see Figures 3 and 5).
Regarding claim 16, 27, 28, 29, 30, Oda discloses the chassis links (6, 7, 8, 9) intersect the vertical plane (see Figure 6) in each case at a sweep angle, wherein a mean sweep angle of the chassis links of the first link assembly and a mean sweep angle of the chassis links of the second link assembly have different signs (based on the definition provided on page 15 of the current written description, the mean sweep angle have different signs when the links of the first assembly and the second assembly are inclined in different direction with respect to the vertical place when viewed in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle; see Figure 5 showing the longitudinal view with the first links 6, 7 angling up while second links 8, 9 are angled in different direction; see dashed lines for each shown in Figure 5).
Regarding claim 17, Oda discloses the track rod (10) has on its side facing away from the track rod kinematic point (27) a further track rod kinematic point (see Figure 3) which has a distance from the vertical plane which is at least 80% and at most 120% of a distance between the vertical plane and the second kinematic point of the first chassis link of the second link assembly (19a, b, c, 18a; see at least Figure 3 showing distances).
Regarding claim 18, Oda discloses a distance between the kinematic points (27/19b) of the first chassis link (6) of the first link assembly and/or a distance between the track rod kinematic points of the track rod (11, 27; see Figure 3) is at least 50% and/or at most 75% of the distance (see Figures 3 and 5) between the kinematic points (27, 19c) of the second chassis link (7) of the first link assembly and/or of the distance between the kinematic points (27/18a) of the second chassis link (9) of the second link assembly (see Figures 3 and 5 showing distances).
Regarding claim 19, Oda discloses the first kinematic point (27) of the first chassis link (6) of the first link assembly and/or the first kinematic point (27) of the first chassis link (8) of the second link assembly have a distance from the vertical plane which is smaller than a distance of the first kinematic point (27) of the second chassis link (7) of the first link assembly from the vertical plane and/or as a distance of the first kinematic point (27) of the second chassis link (9) of the second link assembly from the vertical plane (see Figure 5 showing points and distances).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited on the attached PTO-892 all relate to various multi-link suspension arrangements for vehicles.
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, 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.
/T.L.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614
