DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/21/2026 regarding claims 1-11 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. However, since Applicant is relying on different sections of Schlangen et al. (US 2014/0124279) to maintain the rejection, this action will be a second action non-final. Applicant argues (1) the Examiner's reliance on Aller is misplaced. Optimization of a range constitutes routine skill only where the general conditions of a claim are fully disclosed in the prior art. In this case, neither Keller nor Gagnon teaches or suggests a suspension layout where the high- travel attachment points are positioned in the upper vertical section of the vehicle chassis. In fact, the Examiner even concedes that Keller "is not clear" regarding this feature (Page 6, lines 20 - 22). The person of ordinary skill cannot "optimize" a parameter or range that is absent from the primary reference's design; (2) to justify the further modification based on Schlangen, there must be some teaching, suggestion, or motivation, whether in the prior art references themselves or within the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in the prior art to modify the primary reference in the manner suggested by the Examiner. Applicant maintains that is not present. First, Schlangen's Para. [0098] does not state that the frame attachment location is positioned at least 60% (or 70% in claim 11) of the total vehicle height. Per MPEP §2125 patent drawings cannot define precise proportions and may not be relied upon to establish particular dimensions where the specification is silent. FIG. 29 is unscaled and purely illustrative. Accordingly, because Schlangen lacks any clear disclosure of the required vertical proportions, it cannot provide the necessary teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the primary reference to arrive at the claimed invention; (3) Keller and Schlangen utilize fundamentally distinct suspension architectures tailored to entirely different vehicular dynamic behaviors. Forcing a frame attachment location to a height of at least 60% of the total height of the vehicle will alter the vehicle dynamics of the Keller chassis in highly unpredictable ways. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that blindly raising a suspension pivot point to this extreme upper threshold would degrade stability and handling characteristics unless the entire chassis/frame structure was itself redesigned.
Regarding (1), the general conditions of the claim are fully disclosed in the prior art. As shown below, Schlangen et al. (US 2014/0124279) clearly discloses the frame attachment location (shown as the middle horizontal line) is positioned vertically at least 70% (77.5% = 3.4375 / 4.4375).
Regarding (2), Schlangen et al. clearly states in paragraph 92 “the shock mount brackets 218 are positioned high in the frame 20. This allows (front) shock absorber 376 to be substantially longer than shock absorbers on prior vehicles and has an increased shock stroke length.” Although this section details the front shock absorber paragraph 94 states the “Shock absorbers 464 are similar to front shock absorbers” and since the rear shock absorber is mounted at a higher point one having ordinary skill in the art has a clear teaching, suggestion, or motivation to mount the rear shock absorber at a high frame mounting point in order to obtain an increased stroke length.
Regarding (3), Keller et al. (US 2013/0277937) discloses the invention was directed towards “recreational off-highway vehicles ("ROVs") are meant to travel over rough terrain, in various conditions and at a variety of speeds. The suspension system supporting the vehicle should accommodate uneven terrain as the wheels move up and down relative to the vehicle chassis by minimizing the movement of the vehicle and operator relative to the ground. In general, the larger the travel capability of the suspension, the better the vehicle will perform, especially in greatly uneven terrain. ” (Paragraph 2.) (Emphasis added.) Keller et al. discloses the shock absorber (190) “is coupled to the first trailing arm 130 at an approximate midpoint of the first trailing arm 130 between the vehicle 10 and the knuckle 180. Accordingly, the displacement distance of the shock absorber 190 can be at least approximately equal to half the total travel path of the suspension system 100. The shock absorber 190 can alternatively be placed nearer to the wheel or to the chassis, in which case the displacement distance of the shock absorber 190 will accordingly be larger or smaller, respectively.” (paragraph 21.) (Emphasis added.) This directly disputes Applicant’s argument “blindly raising a suspension pivot point to this extreme upper threshold would degrade stability and handling characteristics”. As noted above Schlangen et al. (US 2014/0124279) discloses the rear shock absorber (464) is also mounted on a rear trailing arm (462) (fig. 28) and is designed to be positioned high on a frame (paragraph 92) in order to have an increased shock stroke length (paragraph 92); with the front and rear suspensions are similar (paragraph 94).
[AltContent: textbox (Horizontal line showing upper mounting point of rear shock absorber higher than upper mounting point of front shock absorber)]
[AltContent: textbox (4 7/16 or 4.4375in)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (3 7/16 or 3.4375 in)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
350
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant's arguments filed 07/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive regarding claims 12-20.
Applicant argues the conclusion that the rear frame members are "aligned" is drawn from unscaled perspective and plan-view figures that do not establish that the recited rearmost portions are coplanar in a plane orthogonal to the longitudinal axis. Thus, here the Examiner has not shown how Lambri defines the precise proportions of the elements and falls far short of demonstrating anticipation by Lambri when the drawings have to be relied upon to establish particular dimensions or geometric relationships where the specification is silent as to those relationships. Again, Lambri's written description (the Paras. [0036] and [0037] cited by the Examiner and mentioned above) does not describe the rearmost portions of the upper and lower rear frame members as lying on a common plane orthogonal to the longitudinal axis.
In response, Examiner notes in Lambri which are the upper and lower rear frame members and then references fig. 7 showing a top plan view of the vehicle and showing the upper and lower rear frame members aligned and not offset from one another in any way and references fig. 8 as a side view which shows the upper and lower rear frame members aligned and not offset from one another in any way. These views are not perspective views and clearly show the arrangement of the frame members in relation to one another.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a rear most portion of the lower rear frame member and a rear most portion of the upper rear frame member lie on a common plane that is orthogonal to a longitudinal axis of the off-road vehicle; and a removable rear subframe including a rear bulkhead the removable rear subframe being removable from a main portion of the frame at one or more rear disconnects to permit removal of a rear drive assembly from the frame as a module.” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The embodiment showing the removable subframe (118) does not show rear frame members (16, 18) on a common plane orthogonal to a longitudinal axis of the vehicle (figs. 18, 21); in fact, they show the ends (at 124 and 136) as offset. No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
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 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 1-2, 5, 7-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller et al. (US 2013/0277937) in view of Gagnon (US 8,479,854) and Schlangen et al. (US 2014/0124279), as cited by Applicant.
With respect to claims 1 and 11, Keller et al. discloses an off-road vehicle (10) comprising: a main frame (fig. 1); a seating area (fig. 1); a front suspension (fig. 1 appears to show suspension arms at the front wheel); and a rear suspension (100) pivotably coupled to the main frame (10), the rear suspension comprising a first trailing arm (130 or 140) and a rear spring/shock (190), wherein the first trailing arm (130 or 140) has a first end (fig. 2) pivotally connected to the main frame (paragraph 14) and a second end (fig. 2) connected to a rear wheel hub (paragraph 14), wherein the rear spring/shock (190) is coupled between the first trailing arm (130 or 140) and the main frame (10) at a frame attachment location (paragraph 21) (regarding the rear spring/shock 190 being coupled to element 140, paragraph 23 describing ‘the shock absorber 190 can be mounted to the second trailing arm 140, in which case the second trailing arm 140 may have a larger cross-sectional dimension’). (Figs. 1-5, paragraphs 13-28.) Keller et al. shows front suspension arms in fig. 1 but does not disclose specifics of the front suspension. Gagnon teaches of a front suspension (13A) pivotably coupled to the main frame (12). (Figs. 8, 11, col. 7.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Gagnon into the invention of Keller et al. with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce vibration for the occupants and improve ride control. Keller et al., as modified, discloses the invention was directed towards “recreational off-highway vehicles ("ROVs") are meant to travel over rough terrain, in various conditions and at a variety of speeds. The suspension system supporting the vehicle should accommodate uneven terrain as the wheels move up and down relative to the vehicle chassis by minimizing the movement of the vehicle and operator relative to the ground. In general, the larger the travel capability of the suspension, the better the vehicle will perform, especially in greatly uneven terrain” (paragraph 2) but does not clearly show the frame attachment connection in relation to the total height of the vehicle. Schlangen et al. clearly shows the frame attachment location (modified fig. 29 below; paragraph 98) is positioned vertically at least 70% the total height of the vehicle (2). (Figs. 28-29, paragraphs 92-98.) Schlangen et al. clearly states in paragraph 92 “the shock mount brackets 218 are positioned high in the frame 20. This allows (front) shock absorber 376 to be substantially longer than shock absorbers on prior vehicles and has an increased shock stroke length.” Although this section details the front shock absorber paragraph 94 states the “Shock absorbers 464 are similar to front shock absorbers” and since the rear shock absorber is mounted at a higher point one having ordinary skill in the art has a clear teaching, suggestion, or motivation to mount the rear shock absorber at a high frame mounting point in order to obtain an increased stroke length. Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). However, the picture must show all the claimed structural features and how they are put together. Jockmus v. Leviton, 28 F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1928). MPEP 2125. Schlangen et al. clearly teaches these dimensions in fig. 29. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Schlangen et al. into the invention of Keller et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase shock stroke length. (Paragraph 92.)
[AltContent: textbox (Horizontal line showing upper mounting point of rear shock absorber higher than upper mounting point of front shock absorber)]
[AltContent: textbox (4 7/16 or 4.4375in)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (3 7/16 or 3.4375 in)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
350
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Keller et al., as modified, discloses the rear spring/shock (190) is comprised of a coil-over spring (paragraph 21). (Figs. 1-5, paragraphs 13-28.)
With respect to claim 5, Keller et al., as modified, discloses a plurality of lateral links (150a-c) and a wheel hub (fig. 2), the lateral links (150a-c) coupled to the main frame (10) and the wheel hub (fig. 2), wherein the lateral links (150a-c) extend laterally and rearwardly (fig. 2). (Figs. 1-5, paragraphs 13-28.)
With respect to claim 7, Keller et al., as modified, discloses a second trailing arm (130) extending generally parallel with the first trailing arm (140), the first trailing arm (140) being above the second trailing arm (130), wherein the rear spring/shock (190) is connected to the first trailing arm (140) (paragraph 23 describing ‘the shock absorber 190 can be mounted to the second trailing arm 140, in which case the second trailing arm 140 may have a larger cross-sectional dimension’). (Figs. 1-5, paragraphs 13-28.)
With respect to claim 8, Keller et al., as modified, discloses the first trailing arm (140) has a greater cross-sectional area than the second trailing arm (130) (paragraph 23 describing ‘the shock absorber 190 can be mounted to the second trailing arm 140, in which case the second trailing arm 140 may have a larger cross-sectional dimension’). (Figs. 1-5, paragraphs 13-28.)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller et al., Gagnon and Schlangen et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brady et al. (US 2014/0251712).
With respect to claim 3, Keller et al., as modified, is silent regarding the arm relative to the seatback. Brady et al. teaches of the first end of the first trailing arm (34) is pivotally connected (paragraph 44) to the main frame (20) at a location rearward (see figs. 1, 3 showing the trailing arm connection to the frame rearward of the seating area) of the seating area. (Figs. 1-31, paragraphs 42-87.) Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). However, the picture must show all the claimed structural features and how they are put together. Jockmus v. Leviton, 28 F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1928). MPEP 2125. Brady et al. clearly teaches these dimensions in fig. 1, 3. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Brady et al. into the invention of Keller et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a suspension with increased vertical travel. (Paragraph 3.)
Claims 4 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller et al., Gagnon and Schlangen et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Safranski et al. (US 2012/0031688), as cited by Applicant.
With respect to claim 4, Keller et al., as modified, is silent regarding the arm relative to the seatback. Safranski et al. teaches of the first trailing arm (526) is connected to the main frame (112) forward (figs. 3-4, 31) of a rear of the seating area (211). (Figs. 3-4, 31, paragraphs 72, 116, 118, 121-124, 129, 135-139.) Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). However, the picture must show all the claimed structural features and how they are put together. Jockmus v. Leviton, 28 F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1928). MPEP 2125. Safranski et al. clearly teaches these dimensions in figs. 3-4, 31. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Safranski et al. into the invention of Keller et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a vehicle softer at normal ride heights and stiffer when suspension is compressed. (Paragraph 126.) Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to at least one of the first trailing arm and the second trailing arm are connected to the main frame forward of a rear of a seatback, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
With respect to claim 9, Keller et al., as modified, is silent regarding the arm relative to the seatback. Safranski et al. teaches of having a trailing arm (526) connected to the main frame (112) forward (figs. 3-4, 31) of a rear of the seating area (211). (Figs. 3-4, 31, paragraphs 72, 116, 118, 121-124, 129, 135-139.) Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). However, the picture must show all the claimed structural features and how they are put together. Jockmus v. Leviton, 28 F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1928). MPEP 2125. Safranski et al. clearly teaches these dimensions in figs. 3-4, 31. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Safranski et al. into the invention of Keller et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a vehicle softer at normal ride heights and stiffer when suspension is compressed. (Paragraph 126.) Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to at least one of the first trailing arm and the second trailing arm are connected to the main frame forward of a rear of a seatback, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. By implementing the teaching of Safranski et al. into Keller et al., as modified; Keller et al., as modified, discloses the second trailing arm (130) is connected to the main frame (fig. 1) forward of a rear of a seatback located in the seating area (Keller et al. discloses there both trailing arms are approximately the same length with both connected to the frame through a vertical universal joint so both trailing arms would extend forward of a rear of a seatback).
With respect to claim 10, Keller et al., as modified, is silent regarding the arm relative to the seatback. Safranski et al. teaches of at least one of the first trailing arm (526) and the second trailing arm are connected to the main frame (112) forward (figs. 3-4, 31) of a rear of the seating area (211). (Figs. 3-4, 31, paragraphs 72, 116, 118, 121-124, 129, 135-139.) Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). However, the picture must show all the claimed structural features and how they are put together. Jockmus v. Leviton, 28 F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1928). MPEP 2125. Safranski et al. clearly teaches these dimensions in figs. 3-4, 31. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Safranski et al. into the invention of Keller et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a vehicle softer at normal ride heights and stiffer when suspension is compressed. (Paragraph 126.) Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to at least one of the first trailing arm and the second trailing arm are connected to the main frame forward of a rear of a seatback, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brady et al. (US 2014/0251712) in view of Gagnon (US 8,479,854) and Schlangen et al. (US 2014/0124279).
With respect to claim 1, Brady et al. discloses an off-road vehicle (2) comprising: a main frame (20, 600); a seating area (figs. 1-2); a front suspension (22) coupled to the main frame (20); and a rear suspension (630) pivotably coupled to the main frame (20, 600) (paragraph 70), the rear suspension (630) comprising at least a first trailing arm (650) and a rear spring/shock (680), wherein the first trailing arm (650) has a first end pivotally connected to the main frame (600) and a second end (fig. 16) connected to a rear wheel hub (660), wherein the rear spring/shock (680) is coupled between the first trailing arm (650) and the main frame (600) at a frame attachment location (fig. 16). (Figs. 1-31, paragraphs 42-87.) Brady et al. discloses the front suspension (22) coupled to the main frame (20) but does not disclose a pivotable connection. Gagnon teaches of a front suspension (13A) pivotably coupled to the main frame (12). (Figs. 8, 11, col. 7.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Gagnon into the invention of Brady et al. with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce vibration for the occupants and improve ride control. Brady et al., as modified, does not clearly show the frame attachment location (fig. 1) is positioned vertically at least 60% the total height of the vehicle (10). Schlangen et al. clearly shows the frame attachment location (modified fig. 29 above; paragraph 98) is positioned vertically at least 60% the total height of the vehicle (2). (Figs. 28-29, paragraphs 92-98.) Schlangen et al. clearly states in paragraph 92 “the shock mount brackets 218 are positioned high in the frame 20. This allows (front) shock absorber 376 to be substantially longer than shock absorbers on prior vehicles and has an increased shock stroke length.” Although this section details the front shock absorber paragraph 94 states the “Shock absorbers 464 are similar to front shock absorbers” and since the rear shock absorber is mounted at a higher point one having ordinary skill in the art has a clear teaching, suggestion, or motivation to mount the rear shock absorber at a high frame mounting point in order to obtain an increased stroke length. Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). However, the picture must show all the claimed structural features and how they are put together. Jockmus v. Leviton, 28 F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1928). MPEP 2125. Schlangen et al. clearly teaches these dimensions in fig. 29. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Schlangen et al. into the invention of Brady et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase shock stroke length. (Paragraph 92.)
With respect to claim 6, Brady et al., as modified, discloses the rear spring/shock (680) is coupled to the first trailing arm (650) along a line extending between a center of the wheel hub (660) coupled to the first trailing arm (650) and the location at which the first trailing arm (650) is coupled to the main frame (600), and wherein the first trailing arm (650) is configured to move along an arc (paragraph 70; “(t)railing arms 650 are pivotally coupled to frame 600 about pivot axis 652 at a forward end, and are attached to wheel hubs 660 at a rearward end”). (Figs. 1-31, paragraphs 42-87.)
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lambri et al. in view of Koehr et al. (EP 1 661 794 A1).
With respect to claim 12, Lambri et al. discloses an off-road vehicle (10) comprising: a frame (12), the frame comprising: a plurality of tubular frame members (fig. 1), including an upper rear frame member (See modified fig. 6 – below) and lower rear frame member (See modified fig. 6 – below), the upper and lower rear frame members each having a portion thereof extending laterally (fig. 6), wherein a rear most portion of the lower rear frame member and a rear most portion of the upper rear frame member lie on a common plane that is orthogonal to a longitudinal axis of the off-road vehicle (see fig. 7 showing a top view of the vehicle in which the rear frame members are aligned and fig. 8 showing the rear frame members are aligned as well). (Figs. 1-8, paragraphs 36-37.) Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). However, the picture must show all the claimed structural features and how they are put together. Jockmus v. Leviton, 28 F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1928). MPEP 2125. Lambri et al. clearly teaches these dimensions in figs. 7-8. Lambri et al. is silent regarding a removable subframe. Koehr et al. teaches of a removable rear subframe (13, 19) including a rear bulkhead (fig. 4 showing a rear bulkhead) the removable rear subframe (13, 19) being removable (shown in figs. 2-3) from a main portion of the frame (4) at one or more rear disconnects (bolt holes shown in fig. 4) to permit removal of a rear drive assembly (7; fig. 1) from the frame (12) as a module. (Figs. 1-5, Machine Translation of Description ‘MTD’ paragraphs 9-14.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Koehr et al. into the invention of Lambri et al. with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide easy installation and removal of support units for the drive unit. (MTD Paragraph 7.)
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Lower rear frame member)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Upper rear frame member)]
PNG
media_image2.png
447
570
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lambri et al. and Koehr et al., as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Keller et al.
With respect to claims 13-16, Lambri et al., as modified, is silent regarding details of the suspension. Keller et al. teaches of a 5-link rear suspension (150a-c; 130, 140); wherein the 5-link rear suspension comprises: a plurality of lateral links (150a-c) extending laterally and rearwardly (fig. 2) from the frame (10) to the wheel hub (fig. 2); and first (140) and second (130) trailing arms extending rearwardly from the frame (10) to the wheel hub (fig. 2); wherein the first (140) and second (130) trailing arms are generally parallel (fig. 5) to one another, the first trailing arm (140) being above the second trailing arm (130), wherein the first trailing arm (140) has a greater cross-sectional area than the second trailing arm (130) (paragraph 23 describing ‘the shock absorber 190 can be mounted to the second trailing arm 140, in which case the second trailing arm 140 may have a larger cross-sectional dimension’). (Figs. 1-5, paragraphs 13-28.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Keller et al. into the invention of Lambri et al. with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a large travel distance while maintaining wheel orientation. (Paragraph 1.)
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lambri et al., Koehr et al. and Keller et al., as applied to claims 12-14 above, and further in view of Safranski et al.
With respect to claim 17, Lambri et al., as modified, is silent regarding the arm relative to the seatback. Safranski et al. teaches of at least one of the first trailing arm (526) and the second trailing arm are connected to the main frame (112) forward (figs. 3-4, 31) of a rear of the seating area (211). (Figs. 3-4, 31, paragraphs 72, 116, 118, 121-124, 129, 135-139.) Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). However, the picture must show all the claimed structural features and how they are put together. Jockmus v. Leviton, 28 F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1928). MPEP 2125. Safranski et al. clearly teaches these dimensions in figs. 3-4, 31. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Safranski et al. into the invention of Keller et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a vehicle softer at normal ride heights and stiffer when suspension is compressed. (Paragraph 126.) Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to at least one of the first trailing arm and the second trailing arm are connected to the main frame forward of a rear of a seatback, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lambri et al. and Koehr et al., as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Schlangen et al.
With respect to claims 18-20, Lambri et al., as modified, is silent regarding the front suspension arrangement. Schlangen et al. teaches of a coil-over shock (376) and an A-arm front suspension (370) including a lower A-arm member (372) and an upper A-arm member (374), the coil over shock being pivotally attached to the lower A-arm (372; figs. 24-25); wherein a rear link (402) of the upper A-arm (374) is located forward (fig. 24) of the coil-over shock (376); wherein the rear link (402) of the upper A-arm (374) is perpendicular (fig. 24) to a longitudinal axis of the vehicle (figs. 24-25, paragraphs 87-92). (Figs. 1-41, paragraphs 58-138.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure as described in Schlangen et al. into the invention of Lambri et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allows shock absorber to be substantially longer than shock absorbers on prior vehicles and has an increased shock stroke length. (Paragraph 92.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A ENGLISH whose telephone number is (571)270-7014. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Saturday.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES A ENGLISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights