DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 09/22/2025, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The following is a Non-Final Office Action on the merits in response to applicant’s filing from 09/22/2025.
Claims 1-19 are pending and have been considered below.
Priority
The application claims foreign priority to FI 20235333, filed on 03/22/2023; and is a 371 of PCT/FI2024/050135, filed on 03/21/2024. The priority is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/22/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “14” has been used to designate both 12 and 14 in Fig. 10. 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.
Figures 2-5 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, lines 4-5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the wheel” should read, “a wheel of the at least three wheels”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, line 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the vertical direction” should read, “a vertical direction”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, lines 17-18 is objected to because of the following informalities: “in which the vehicle is support on the surface” should read, “in which the vehicle is supported on the surface”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6, lines 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “is arranged extend” should read, “is arranged to extend”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6, lines 5-6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the one or more spring element” should read, “the one or more spring elements”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6, lines 8-9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “in a strut angle” should read, “at a strut angle”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6, lines 11-12 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the trajectory angle of the wheel suspension trajectory corresponding the strut angle” should read, “the trajectory angle of the wheel suspension trajectory corresponding to the strut angle”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8, line 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “to strut” should read, “to the strut”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11, lines 3-4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “in which strut direction the strut” should read, “in which the strut direction of the strut”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14, line 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the wheels” should read, “the at least three wheels”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14, line 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the wheel is” should read, “a wheel of the at least three wheels is”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14, line 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the three wheels” should read, “the at least three wheels”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14, line 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “by suspension support” should read, “by the suspension support”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14, line 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the vertical direction” should read, “a vertical direction”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14, lines 14, 15 and 24 (2x) are objected to because of the following informalities: “the vehicle” should read, “the electric vehicle”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14, lines 24-25 is objected to because of the following informalities: “is support on” should read, “is supported on”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16, line 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “such that wheel suspension trajectory” should read, “such that the wheel suspension trajectory”. 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 2 and 14-15 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 2 and 14-15 recite a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation in the same claim. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Note the explanation given by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ2d 2031,2033 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989), as to where broad language is followed by "such as" and then narrow language. The Board stated that this can render a claim indefinite by raising a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Note also, for example, the decisions of Ex parte Steigewald, 131 USPQ 74 (Bd. App. 1961); Ex parte Hall, 83 USPQ 38 (Bd. App. 1948); and Ex parte Hasche, 86 USPQ 481 (Bd. App. 1949). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation “the trajectory angle is: 20 to 70 degrees in relation to the vertical direction”, and the claim also recites “or 25 to 60 degrees in relation to the vertical direction" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation; claim 14 also recites the broad recitation “an electric motor operatively connected to at least one of the three wheels”, and the claim also recites “a separate electric motor operatively connected to each of the at least three wheels" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation; claim 15 recites the broad recitation “the trajectory angle is between 20 to 70 degrees”, and the claim also recites “preferably 25 to 60 degrees in relation to the vertical direction” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Therefore, these claim limitations are indefinite by raising a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 18 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 18 depends from claim 14. Claim 14 recites, “a separate electric motor operatively connected to each of the at least three wheels”. Claim 18 recites, “the electric motors are provided to the at least three wheels”. Therefore, claim 18 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim from which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-8 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oswald (US 4,600,069), as cited by Applicant, in view of Taniguchi (US 2007/0272458), as cited by Applicant.
Regarding claim 1, Oswald discloses a vehicle suspension arrangement {Fig. 6}, comprising at least three wheels {128} and each of the at least three wheels {128} are independently supported to a chassis {122} of a vehicle {10} with a separate suspension support {126}, the suspension support {126} comprises a strut {126c, 126e} connected between the wheel {128} and the chassis {122} of the vehicle {10} for supporting the wheel {128} in a suspended manner to the chassis {122}, and the suspension support {126} being configured to define a wheel suspension trajectory {via the pivotal motion trajectory of 126 (see dotted line vs solid line of the front 126 in Fig. 6): “pivotal motion of the endmost secondary frames 126e is controlled by the coil springs 140 and the shock absorbers 146 mounted therein, and pivotal movement of the center secondary frame 126c is controlled by the coil spring 140' and the shock absorber 146' mounted therein. Upward pivotal movement of the secondary frames 126 is against the action of the springs and is limited by stop arms 174 mounted on the primary frame 122. (The arm 132 connected to the spring/shock absorber/cylinder assembly 136 also serves as a stop arm for the endmost secondary frame 126e adjacent thereto.) Downward pivotal movement of the secondary frames 126 is limited by full collapse of the springs 140 and 140'. In actual practice, the extent of upward pivotal movement of the secondary frames 126 as permitted by the stop arms is approximately 20.degree. and downward pivotal movement of the secondary frames 126 as permitted by the full collapse of the springs is approximately 10.degree” (Col. 9, lines 33-51)} along which the wheel {128} is arranged to move in the suspended manner in relation to the chassis {122}, the wheel suspension trajectory {pivotal motion range of 128} defined by the suspension support {126} is configured to extend transversely to the vertical direction in a basic support position {Fig. 6} of the vehicle {10} in which the vehicle {10} is supported on a surface {horizontal surface underneath wheels 128 (Fig. 6)} extending perpendicularly to the vertical direction {“When the clevis 172 is so extended the wheel member 128 mounted on the secondary frame 126c is allowed to pivot upwardly to the position shown in FIG. 10” (Col. 10, lines 1-4)}, wherein the vehicle suspension arrangement {Fig. 6} comprises at least three wheels {128} arranged successively {Fig. 6}.
However, Oswald does not explicitly disclose the at least three wheels are provided with electric motors, and the wheel suspension trajectory defined by the suspension support is configured to have a trajectory angle between 15 to 80 degrees in relation to the vertical direction in the basic support position of the vehicle in which the vehicle is support on the surface extending perpendicularly to the vertical direction.
Oswald further teaches the wheel suspension trajectory {pivotal motion range of 128} defined by the suspension support {126} is configured to have a trajectory angle between about 45 to 75 degrees {wheel is oriented at ~55 degrees (see Fig. 6) in its basic support position, and can pivot 20 degrees upward and 10 degrees downward (Col. 9, lines 33-51)} in relation to the vertical direction in the basic support position {Fig. 6} of the vehicle {10} in which the vehicle {10} is support on the surface extending perpendicularly to the vertical direction {Fig. 6}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the trajectory angle between 15 to 80 degrees in relation to the vertical direction in the basic support position of the vehicle, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Taniguchi teaches every wheel {14} of a (4-wheel) motor vehicle {10} is provided with an electric motor {20: “As shown in FIG. 2, the motor 20 of each of the wheels 14 is further connected to the controller 60. In FIG. 2, FL denotes the motor for the front left wheel, FR denotes the motor for the front right wheel, RL denotes the motor for the rear left wheel, and RR denotes the motor for the rear right wheel” [0076]}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle suspension arrangement, as disclosed by Oswald, such that the at least three wheels are provided with electric motors, as taught by Taniguchi, so that “the drive torque acting on the wheel 14 currently being controlled is instantaneously reduced” [0090].
Regarding claim 2, Oswald and Taniguchi disclose all the aspects of claim 1. However, Oswald does not explicitly disclose the trajectory angle is: 20 to 70 degrees in relation to the vertical direction; or 25 to 60 degrees in relation to the vertical direction.
Oswald further teaches the wheel suspension trajectory {pivotal motion range of 128} defined by the suspension support {126} is configured to have a trajectory angle between about 45 to 75 degrees {wheel is oriented at ~55 degrees (see Fig. 6) in its basic support position, and can pivot 20 degrees upward and 10 degrees downward (Col. 9, lines 33-51)} in relation to the vertical direction in the basic support position {Fig. 6} of the vehicle {10} in which the vehicle {10} is support on the surface extending perpendicularly to the vertical direction {Fig. 6}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to make the trajectory angle between 25 to 60 degrees in relation to the vertical direction, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 3, Oswald and Taniguchi disclose all the aspects of claim 1. Oswald further discloses the suspension support {126} is configured to define a linear wheel suspension trajectory {126 (due to rigid member 126 pivoting about one end, see Fig. 6)}.
Regarding claim 4, Oswald and Taniguchi disclose all the aspects of claim 1. Oswald further discloses the suspension support {126} is provided with one or more spring elements {134 (140), 136 (140’)} configured to enable suspension movement of the wheel {128} in relation to the chassis {122} in the suspended manner along the wheel suspension trajectory {pivotal motion range of 128 (Fig. 6)}.
Regarding claim 5, Oswald and Taniguchi disclose all the aspects of claim 4. Oswald further discloses the strut {126c, 126e} is provided with the one or more spring elements {134 (140), 136 (140’)}, the strut {126c, 126e} and the one or more spring elements {134 (140), 136 (140’)} are configured to define the wheel suspension trajectory {pivotal motion range of 128} together and to enable the suspension movement {S, T} of the wheel {14} in relation to the chassis {122} in the suspended manner along the wheel suspension trajectory {pivotal motion range of 128}.
Regarding claim 6, Oswald and Taniguchi disclose all the aspects of claim 5. Oswald further discloses the strut {126c, 126e} is arranged to extend in a strut direction from the chassis {122} transversely to the vertical direction in the basic support position {Fig. 6} of the vehicle {10}, the wheel suspension trajectory {pivotal motion range of 128} is arranged extend in the strut direction and the one or more spring element {134 (140), 136 (140’)} are configured to enable the suspension movement of the wheel {128} in the strut direction {Fig. 6}; or
the strut {126c, 126e} is arranged to extend in a strut direction from the chassis {122} in a strut angle {pivotal motion range of 126c, 126e} in relation to the vertical direction in the basic support position {Fig. 6} of the vehicle {10}, the one or more spring elements {134 (140), 136 (140’)} are configured to enable the suspension movement of the wheel {128} in the strut direction {Fig. 6}, the trajectory angle of the wheel suspension trajectory {pivotal motion range of 128} corresponding the strut angle {pivotal motion range of 126c, 126e}.
Regarding claim 7, Oswald and Taniguchi disclose all the aspects of claim 4. Oswald further discloses the one or more spring elements {134 (140), 136 (140’)} are arranged between the strut {126c, 126e} and the chassis {122} of the vehicle {10}, the strut {126c, 126e} and the one or more spring elements {134 (140), 136 (140’)} are configured to define the wheel suspension trajectory {pivotal motion range of 128} together and to enable the suspension movement of the wheel {128} in relation to the chassis {122} in the suspended manner along the wheel suspension trajectory {pivotal motion range of 128}.
Regarding claim 8, Oswald and Taniguchi disclose all the aspects of claim 7. Oswald further discloses the strut {126c, 126e} is pivotably connected to the chassis {122} and arranged to extend from the chassis {122}, the strut {126c, 126e} is arranged to move with a pivotable strut movement {Fig. 6} in relation to the chassis {122}, the strut {126c, 126e} and the pivotable strut movement {Fig. 6} are configured to define the wheel suspension trajectory {pivotal motion range of 128}, the one or more spring elements {134 (140), 136 (140’)} are configured to apply spring force to strut {126c, 126e} during the pivotable strut movement of the strut {126c, 126e}, the one or more spring elements {134 (140), 136 (140’)} are configured to enable the suspension movement of the wheel {128} along the wheel suspension trajectory {pivotal motion range of 128} upon the pivotable strut movement {Fig. 6} of the strut {126c, 126e}; or
the strut {126c, 126e} is pivotably connected to the chassis {122} and arranged to extend from the chassis {122}, the strut {126c, 126e} is arranged to move with a pivotable strut movement {Fig. 6} around a horizonal strut pivot axis {182 (Fig. 11)} in relation to the chassis {122}, the strut {126c, 126e} and the pivotable strut movement {Fig. 6} are configured to define the wheel suspension trajectory {pivotal motion range of 128}, the one or more spring elements {134 (140), 136 (140’)} are configured to apply spring force to strut {126c, 126e} during the pivotable strut movement {Fig. 6} of the strut {126c, 126e}, the one or more spring elements {134 (140), 136 (140’)} are configured to enable the suspension movement of the wheel {128} along the wheel suspension trajectory {pivotal motion range of 128} upon the pivotable strut movement {Fig. 6} of the strut {126c, 126e} around the horizontal strut pivot axis {182}.
Regarding claim 11, Oswald and Taniguchi disclose all the aspects of claim 6. Oswald further discloses the suspension arrangement {Fig. 6} comprises a strut adjustment mechanism {134, 136 (130+132+140/140’)} arranged to adjust the strut direction of the strut {126c, 126e}, in which strut direction the strut {126c, 126e} is arranged to extend from the chassis {122} transversely to the vertical direction in the basic support position {Fig. 6} of the vehicle {10}.
Regarding claim 12, Oswald and Taniguchi disclose all the aspects of claim 4. Oswald further discloses the suspension support {126} further comprises an additional suspension element {130, 132} arranged between the one or more spring elements {134 (140), 136 (140’)} and the chassis {122}.
Regarding claim 13, Oswald and Taniguchi disclose all the aspects of claim 1. Oswald further discloses the vehicle suspension arrangement {Fig. 6} comprises at least three wheels {128} arranged successively in a first line and at least three wheels {128} arranged successively in a second line, the first line and the second line being arranged adjacent to each other {Figs. 6, 25-57}.
Regarding claim 14, Oswald discloses an electric vehicle {10} comprising:
a chassis {122};
a suspension arrangement {Fig. 6} comprising:
at least three wheels {128}, and
a separate suspension support {126} for each of the at least three wheels {128}, each of the wheels {128} being independently supported to the chassis {122} of the electric vehicle {10} with the suspension support {126} in a suspended manner, the suspension support {126} being configured to define a wheel suspension trajectory {via the pivotal motion trajectory of 126 (see dotted line vs solid line of the front 126 in Fig. 6): “pivotal motion of the endmost secondary frames 126e is controlled by the coil springs 140 and the shock absorbers 146 mounted therein, and pivotal movement of the center secondary frame 126c is controlled by the coil spring 140' and the shock absorber 146' mounted therein. Upward pivotal movement of the secondary frames 126 is against the action of the springs and is limited by stop arms 174 mounted on the primary frame 122. (The arm 132 connected to the spring/shock absorber/cylinder assembly 136 also serves as a stop arm for the endmost secondary frame 126e adjacent thereto.) Downward pivotal movement of the secondary frames 126 is limited by full collapse of the springs 140 and 140'. In actual practice, the extent of upward pivotal movement of the secondary frames 126 as permitted by the stop arms is approximately 20.degree. and downward pivotal movement of the secondary frames 126 as permitted by the full collapse of the springs is approximately 10.degree” (Col. 9, lines 33-51)} along which the wheel {128} is arranged to move in the suspended manner in relation to the chassis {122}; wherein
the wheel suspension trajectory {pivotal motion range of 128} defined by suspension support {126} is configured to extend transversely to the vertical direction in a basic support position {Fig. 6} of the vehicle {10} in which the vehicle {10} is supported on a surface {horizontal surface underneath wheels 128 (Fig. 6)} extending perpendicularly to the vertical direction {“When the clevis 172 is so extended the wheel member 128 mounted on the secondary frame 126c is allowed to pivot upwardly to the position shown in FIG. 10” (Col. 10, lines 1-4)},
the suspension arrangement {Fig. 6} comprises at least three wheels {128} arranged successively {Fig. 6}.
However, Oswald does not explicitly disclose an electric motor operatively connected to at least one of the three wheels, a separate electric motor operatively connected to each of the at least three wheels for providing driving power, and the wheel suspension trajectory defined by the suspension support is configured to have a trajectory angle between 15 to 80 degrees in relation to the vertical direction in the basic support position of the vehicle in which the vehicle is support on the surface extending perpendicularly to the vertical direction.
Oswald further teaches the wheel suspension trajectory {pivotal motion range of 128} defined by the suspension support {126} is configured to have a trajectory angle between about 45 to 75 degrees {wheel is oriented at ~55 degrees (see Fig. 6) in its basic support position, and can pivot 20 degrees upward and 10 degrees downward (Col. 9, lines 33-51)} in relation to the vertical direction in the basic support position {Fig. 6} of the vehicle {10} in which the vehicle {10} is support on the surface extending perpendicularly to the vertical direction {Fig. 6}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the trajectory angle between 15 to 80 degrees in relation to the vertical direction in the basic support position of the vehicle, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Taniguchi teaches every wheel {14} of a (4-wheel) motor vehicle {10} is provided with an electric motor {20: “As shown in FIG. 2, the motor 20 of each of the wheels 14 is further connected to the controller 60. In FIG. 2, FL denotes the motor for the front left wheel, FR denotes the motor for the front right wheel, RL denotes the motor for the rear left wheel, and RR denotes the motor for the rear right wheel” [0076]} for providing driving power.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle suspension arrangement, as disclosed by Oswald, to include a separate electric motor operatively connected to each of the at least three wheels for providing driving power, as taught by Taniguchi, so that “the drive torque acting on the wheel 14 currently being controlled is instantaneously reduced” [0090].
Regarding claim 15, Oswald and Taniguchi disclose all the aspects of claim 14. However, Oswald does not explicitly disclose the trajectory angle is between 20 to 70 degrees and preferably 25 to 60 degrees in relation to the vertical direction.
Oswald further teaches the wheel suspension trajectory {pivotal motion range of 128} defined by the suspension support {126} is configured to have a trajectory angle between about 45 to 75 degrees {wheel is oriented at ~55 degrees (see Fig. 6) in its basic support position, and can pivot 20 degrees upward and 10 degrees downward (Col. 9, lines 33-51)} in relation to the vertical direction in the basic support position {Fig. 6} of the vehicle {10} in which the vehicle {10} is support on the surface extending perpendicularly to the vertical direction {Fig. 6}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to make the trajectory angle between 20 to 70 degrees and preferably 25 to 60 degrees in relation to the vertical direction, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 16, Oswald and Taniguchi disclose all the aspects of claim 14. Oswald further discloses the suspension support {126} is arranged to define the wheel suspension trajectory {pivotal motion range of 128} such that wheel suspension trajectory {pivotal motion range of 128} is configured to be inclined in relation to the vertical direction according to the trajectory angle in a direction opposite to the moving direction of the electric vehicle {10 (Fig. 1)}.
Regarding claim 17, Oswald and Taniguchi disclose all the aspects of claim 14. Oswald further discloses the suspension arrangement {Fig. 6} comprises at least three wheels {128} arranged successively in a first line and at least three wheels {128} arranged successively in a second line, the first line and the second line being arranged adjacent to each other {Figs. 6, 25-57}.
Regarding claim 18, Oswald and Taniguchi disclose all the aspects of claim 14. Oswald further discloses the electric motors {20 (as modified by Taniguchi in the claim 14 rejection)} are provided to the at least three wheels {128}.
Regarding claim 19, Oswald and Taniguchi disclose all the aspects of claim 1. Oswald further discloses an electric vehicle {10} comprising the vehicle suspension arrangement {Fig. 6} according to claim 1.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oswald and Taniguchi as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Trintignac (FR 2528364), as cited by Applicant.
Regarding claim 9, Oswald and Taniguchi disclose all the aspects of claim 4. However, Oswald does not explicitly disclose the strut is provided as a flexible strut, the flexible strut is configured to form the one or more spring elements and to bend in a strut bending direction transverse to the vertical direction in the basic support position of the vehicle, the flexible strut and the strut bending direction are configured to define the wheel suspension trajectory and to enable the suspension movement of the wheel in relation to the chassis in the suspended manner along the wheel suspension trajectory.
Trintignac teaches the strut {1+2} is provided as a flexible strut {1+2}, the flexible strut {1+2} is configured to form the one or more spring elements {1+2} and to bend in a strut bending direction transverse to the vertical direction in the basic support position {Fig. 1} of the vehicle, the flexible strut {1+2} and the strut bending direction are configured to define the wheel suspension trajectory and to enable the suspension movement of the wheel {11} in relation to the chassis {5} in the suspended manner along the wheel suspension trajectory {Fig. 1: “During suspension travel, by deformation of the leaves, the movement of the steering knuckle is carried out” (bottom Paragraph of page 2)}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle suspension arrangement, as disclosed by Oswald and Taniguchi, such that the strut is provided as a flexible strut, the flexible strut is configured to form the one or more spring elements and to bend in a strut bending direction transverse to the vertical direction in the basic support position of the vehicle, the flexible strut and the strut bending direction are configured to define the wheel suspension trajectory and to enable the suspension movement of the wheel in relation to the chassis in the suspended manner along the wheel suspension trajectory, as taught by Trintignac, in order “to increase the comfort and habitability… by minimizing the weight and bulk of the axle” {2nd paragraph on page 1}.
Regarding claim 10, Oswald, Taniguchi and Trintignac disclose all the aspects of claim 9. Oswald further discloses the flexible strut {1+2 (as modified by Trintignac in the claim 9 rejection)} is provided as a longitudinal arch-shaped strut {Fig. 1} and arranged to extend from the chassis {5} of the vehicle {“vehicle” (Page 1)}.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel M Keck whose telephone number is (571)272-5947. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-4:00.
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 on (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.
/Daniel M. Keck/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights