DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 07/02/2025, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The following is a Final Office Action on the merits in response to applicant’s filing from 04/22/2026.
Claims 10-13 and 15-29 are pending and have been considered below.
Priority
The application claims foreign priority to EP 24186262, filed on 07/03/2024. The priority is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/02/2025, 08/01/2025, and 02/27/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant argument that neither Salkic or Steinel teaches or suggests “at least one eccentric stop in the at least one side wall at a distance from the elongated hole”, Examiner respectfully disagrees, because a flat wall spaced away from an oval structure can be considered an eccentric wall in structural or mechanical engineering contexts, as "eccentric" generally describes components that do not share a common center or are shifted from a central, aligned position. Therefore, Salkic discloses at least one eccentric stop in the at least one side wall at a distance from the elongated hole, because Salkic discloses two U-shaped stop portions formed in the sidewall above and below the elongated hole, and these sidewalls are configured to stop a sliding member within the elongated hole in the vertical direction (above and below).
Furthermore, just because Salkic does not ever explicitly disclose that these side wall portions function as stoppers, this does not limit the structure from being considered a stopper (especially because the function of the eccentric stop is not claimed in claim 10). And just because FRP may not be the ideal material that one of ordinary skill in the art would use for a stopper, this also does not limit the structure of Salkic from being considered a stopper (especially because the material of the eccentric stop is not claimed in claim 10). Therefore, Examiner maintains that Salkic in view of Steinel discloses all the aspects of claim 10, because Salkic discloses all the structure of the eccentric stop as claimed in claim 10.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 07/02/2025. These drawings are acceptable.
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 10-13, 15, 17, 21-23, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salkic (DE 102013/015184), as cited by Applicant, in view of Steinel (DE 102017200675), as cited by Applicant.
Regarding claim 10, Salkic discloses a control arm {1} for a wheel suspension in a motor vehicle {“This relates in particular to regions of the vehicle body in which forces and/or torques are introduced, that is to say… in the region of the wheel drives and/or chassis suspension” [0002]}, the control arm {1} comprising:
a control arm body {2} having two side walls {two side walls of control arm body 2 (upper and lower sides in Fig. 2)};
an elongated hole {1’ (Fig. 2)} in at least one side wall {side walls of control arm body 2 (Fig. 2)} of the two side walls {two side walls of control arm body 2}, at least one eccentric stop {inner stop surface of the two U-shaped sides of control arm body 2, facing the elongated hole 1’ (Figs. 2, 6)} in the at least one side wall {side walls of control arm body 2} at a distance from the elongated hole {1’ (above and below the longer side of elongated hole 1’)}.
wherein at least one wall section {central portion of 4 (Figs. 2, 4, 6)} of an inner wall {surface of 1+2 defining elongated hole 1’} of the elongated hole {1’} is configured by a reinforcing element {3: “In the embodiment with the two-part bushing 4 from FIG. 2, the force introduction element 3, which can be a metal strip, for example made of spring steel, extends between the two bushing parts 4 as far as the passage opening 1', as can also be seen from the longitudinal sectional view in FIG. 4 and the cross sectional view in FIG. 6” [0039]}, the reinforcing element {3} including a material {“steel” [0039]} with higher hardness than a material {“fiber composite plastic” [0035]} of the at least one side wall {side walls of control arm body 2 (Fig. 2)}, and the reinforcing element {3} is arranged in a recess {recess running through a central portion of 2+4 (Figs. 2, 4, 6)} in the at least one side wall {side walls of control arm body 2 (Fig. 2)} adjacent to the elongated hole {1’}.
However, Salkic does not explicitly disclose the adjusting device is an eccentric adjusting device.
Steinel teaches an elongated hole {7 (12): “The rear leg 10 has a recess 12 at the receptacles 7” [0020]} of a suspension side wall {10} configured to receive an eccentric adjusting device {13 (14+15): “The adjusting element 13 is formed by a fixing element 14, for example designed as a screw or bolt, and at least one eccentric element 15, for example designed as a disc” [0020]}.
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 control arm, as disclosed by Salkic, such that the adjusting device is an eccentric adjusting device, as taught by Steinel, “thus enabling precise and easy tracking adjustment” [0022].
Regarding claim 11, Salkic and Steinel disclose all the aspects of claim 10. Salkic further discloses the reinforcing element {3: “force introduction element 3” [0035]} is press-fitted {form-fitted or force-fitted: “Within the passage openings, metallic bushes are arranged, which are in a form-fit or force-fit connection with the force introduction elements. The force introduction elements act as force transmission from the FRP into the bushings. The force introduction elements are arranged at least in the region of the bushings, but can also extend through the entire stiffening strut or extend along the entire strut length” [0009]} in the recess {recess running through a central portion of 2+4 (Figs. 2, 4, 6)}.
Regarding claim 12, Salkic and Steinel disclose all the aspects of claim 10. Salkic further discloses the reinforcing element {3} extends along at least 80% of a length {100% of a length} of a longitudinal side of the elongated hole {1’ (Figs. 2, 4, 6)}.
Regarding claim 13, Salkic and Steinel disclose all the aspects of claim 10. Salkic further discloses the reinforcing element {3} has a plurality of form-fitting surfaces {top and bottom surfaces of 3 (Figs. 2, 4, 6)} which interface correspondingly with a plurality of contact surfaces {top and bottom surfaces of the central recess of 2+4 (Figs. 2, 4, 6)} of the recess {recess running through a central portion of 2+4 (Figs. 2, 4, 6)}.
Regarding claim 15, Salkic and Steinel disclose all the aspects of claim 14. Salkic further discloses the at least one eccentric stop {two U-shaped sides of control arm body 2 (Figs. 2, 6)} comprises a deformation {deformed empty space between the two U-shaped sides of control arm body 2} in the at least one side wall {side walls of control arm body 2}, the deformation {deformed empty space between the two U-shaped sides of control arm body 2} includes a support surface {inner surfaces of the two U-shaped sides of control arm body 2 facing elongated hole 1’ (Figs. 2, 6)}, and the support surface {inner surfaces of the two U-shaped sides of control arm body 2 facing elongated hole 1’ (Figs. 2, 6)} is aligned parallel to a longitudinal axis of the elongated hole {1’}.
However, Salkic does not explicitly disclose the support surface is aligned transversely to a longitudinal axis of the elongated hole.
Steinel teaches at least one eccentric stop {16 (eccentric due to the curvature of 20+21)} comprises a deformation {deformed empty space between the two stops 16 (Fig. 3b)} in the at least one side wall {10 (8)}, the deformation {deformed empty space between the two stops 16} includes a support surface {inner surfaces of 16 facing towards elongated hole 19 (Fig. 3b)} for an eccentric disc {15 (Fig. 2)} of the eccentric adjusting device {13 (14+15): “It is advantageously dimensioned such that the guide sections 16 and the eccentric element 15 have a sufficiently large contact area with each other, so that the forces occurring when adjusting the track can be transferred from the eccentric element 15 via the guide sections 16 into the receptacle 6, 7” [0025]}, and the support surface {inner surfaces of 16 facing towards elongated hole 19 (Fig. 3b)} is aligned transversely to a longitudinal axis {V direction (Fig. 3a)} of the elongated hole {19 (Figs. 3a-3b): “elongated hole 19” [0024]}.
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 control arm, as disclosed by Salkic and Steinel, such that control arm includes additional stops and support surfaces that are aligned transversely to a longitudinal axis of the elongated hole, as taught by Steinel, “thus enabling precise and easy tracking adjustment” [0022].
Regarding claim 17, Salkic and Steinel disclose all the aspects of claim 10. Salkic further discloses the reinforcing element {3} comprises steel {“the force introduction element 3, which can be a metal strip, for example made of spring steel” [0039]}.
Regarding claim 21, Salkic and Steinel disclose all the aspects of claim 10. Salkic further discloses the at least one eccentric stop {inner stop surface of the two U-shaped sides of control arm body 2, facing the elongated hole 1’ (Figs. 2, 6)} comprises eccentric stops {inner stop surface of the two U-shaped sides of control arm body 2, facing the elongated hole 1’ (Figs. 2, 6)} arranged on opposite sides of the elongated hole {1’}, and on a longitudinal axis of the elongated hole {1’ (the stops are facing the longitudinal sides of the elongated hole 1’)}.
Regarding claim 22, Salkic and Steinel disclose all the aspects of claim 21. Salkic further discloses the hardness of the material of the reinforcing element {3: “force introduction element 3 made of metal” [0035]} is higher than a hardness of the eccentric stops {inner stop surface of the two U-shaped sides of control arm body 2, facing the elongated hole 1’ (Figs. 2, 6): “an elongate U-shaped strut profile 2 made of fiber composite plastic” [0035]}.
Regarding claim 23, Salkic and Steinel disclose all the aspects of claim 21. Salkic further discloses the eccentric stops {inner stop surface of the two U-shaped sides of control arm body 2, facing the elongated hole 1’ (Figs. 2, 6)} are parts of a single piece of material {“an elongate U-shaped strut profile 2 made of fiber composite plastic” [0035]} in or from the at least one side wall {side walls of control arm body 2} of the control arm body {2}.
PNG
media_image1.png
335
439
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Salkic: Annotated Fig. 2
Regarding claim 25, Salkic and Steinel disclose all the aspects of claim 21. Salkic further discloses the eccentric stops {inner stop surface of the two U-shaped sides of control arm body 2, facing the elongated hole 1’ (Figs. 2, 6)} have inner stop surfaces {inner side surfaces of the two U-shaped sides of control arm body 2 that extend between 20-80 degrees of the distance of the at least one sidewall facing the elongated hole 1’} facing the elongated hole {1’} and extending at an angle of 200 to 800 {Theta1, Theta2 (Annotated Fig. 2)} relative to a surface of the at least one side wall {side walls of control arm body 2}.
Regarding claim 26, Salkic and Steinel disclose all the aspects of claim 21. Salkic further discloses the eccentric stops {inner stop surface of the two U-shaped sides of control arm body 2, facing the elongated hole 1’ (Figs. 2, 6)} have inner stop surfaces {inner side surfaces of the two U-shaped sides of control arm body 2 that extend between 30-60 degrees of the distance of the at least one sidewall facing the elongated hole 1’} facing the elongated hole {1’} and extending at an angle of 300 to 600 {Theta1, Theta2 (Annotated Fig. 2)} relative to a surface of the at least one side wall {side walls of control arm body 2}.
Regarding claim 27, Salkic and Steinel disclose all the aspects of claim 21. Salkic further discloses the at least one side wall {side walls of control arm body 2} comprises deformations {gaps between the two side walls, form a deformation space between and defines the two side walls shape, while creating the U-shape} correspondingly forming the eccentric stops {inner stop surface of the two U-shaped sides of control arm body 2, facing the elongated hole 1’ (Figs. 2, 6)}, and the deformations {gaps between the two side walls, form a deformation space between and defines the two side walls shape, while creating the U-shape} have support surfaces {inner side surfaces of the two U-shaped sides of control arm body 2 facing the elongated hole 1’} facing the elongated hole {1’} and extending parallel to the longitudinal axis of the elongated hole {1’}.
However, Salkic does not explicitly disclose the deformations have support surfaces facing the elongated hole and extending orthogonally to the longitudinal axis of the elongated hole (emphasis added).
Steinel teaches at least one eccentric stop {16 (eccentric due to the curvature of 20+21)} comprises a deformation {deformed empty space between the two stops 16 (Fig. 3b)} in the at least one side wall {10 (8)}, the deformation {deformed empty space between the two stops 16} includes a support surface {inner surfaces of 16 facing towards elongated hole 19 (Fig. 3b)} for an eccentric disc {15 (Fig. 2)} of the eccentric adjusting device {13 (14+15): “It is advantageously dimensioned such that the guide sections 16 and the eccentric element 15 have a sufficiently large contact area with each other, so that the forces occurring when adjusting the track can be transferred from the eccentric element 15 via the guide sections 16 into the receptacle 6, 7” [0025]}, and the support surface {inner surfaces of 16 facing towards elongated hole 19 (Fig. 3b)} is aligned orthogonally to a longitudinal axis {V direction (Fig. 3a)} of the elongated hole {19 (Figs. 3a-3b): “elongated hole 19” [0024]}.
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 control arm, as disclosed by Salkic and Steinel, such that control arm includes additional stops and support surfaces that are aligned orthogonally to a longitudinal axis of the elongated hole, as taught by Steinel, “thus enabling precise and easy tracking adjustment” [0022].
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salkic and Steinel as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Vingnesengen (US 20240174038).
Regarding claim 16, Salkic and Steinel disclose all the aspects of claim 10. However, Salkic does not explicitly disclose the control arm body comprises aluminum or an aluminum alloy.
Vingnesengen teaches the control arm body {2 (of chassis component 1)} comprises aluminum or an aluminum alloy {“the chassis component is made of a light metal material, for example an aluminum alloy” [0022]}.
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 control arm, as disclosed by Salkic and Steinel, such that the control arm body comprises aluminum or an aluminum alloy, as taught by Vingnesengen, because “This reduces the weight of the chassis component, which has an advantageous effect on the driving characteristics and fuel consumption of the motor vehicle” [0022].
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salkic and Steinel as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Fortmeier (US 2020/0247204).
Regarding claim 18, Salkic and Steinel disclose all the aspects of claim 10. However, Salkic does not explicitly disclose the reinforcing element comprises a surface coating.
Fortmeier teaches a steel component {1: “a motor vehicle control arm 1, according to the invention. It has a first and second profile 2, 3 made from a metallic material. The material is a steel alloy” [0065]} comprises a surface coating {“The steel sheet is advantageously provided with a zinc coating, which protects against corrosion” [0008]}.
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 control arm, as disclosed by Salkic and Steinel, such that the reinforcing element comprises a surface coating, as taught by Fortmeier, in order to protect “against corrosion” [0008].
Regarding claim 19, Salkic, Steinel and Fortmeier disclose all the aspects of claim 18. Salkic, as modified by Fortmeier in the rejection of claim 18, further discloses the surface coating comprises zinc {“a zinc coating” [0008]}.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salkic, Steinel and Fortmeier as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Schoerner (DE 102008/055716).
Regarding claim 20, Salkic, Steinel, and Fortmeier disclose all the aspects of claim 18. However, Salkic does not explicitly disclose the surface coating comprises zinc flake coating.
Schoerner teaches the surface coating comprises zinc a flake coating {6: “zinc flake coating” [0029]}.
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 control arm, as disclosed by Salkic, Steinel and Fortmeier, such that the surface coating comprises a zinc flake coating, as taught by Schoerner, in order to provide “good corrosion protection” [0010].
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salkic and Steinel as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Meyer (US 2024/0140157).
Regarding claim 24, Salkic and Steinel disclose all the aspects of claim 21. Salkic further discloses the eccentric stops {inner stop surface of the two U-shaped sides of control arm body 2, facing the elongated hole 1’ (Figs. 2, 6)} are parts of a single piece of material {“an elongate U-shaped strut profile 2 made of fiber composite plastic” [0035]} that also includes the at least one side wall {side walls of control arm body 2} of the control arm body {2}.
However, Salkic does not explicitly disclose the eccentric stops are stamped parts of a single piece of material.
Meyer teaches the at least one sidewall {5, 6} comprising eccentric stops {9+14+17: “The upper collar section 9 and the lower collar section 14 of a side wall profile 5, 6 merge into one another at a first front end 16 of the side wall profiles 5, 6 via an arced collar section 17. In this way, the upper collar section 9, the arced collar section 17, and the lower collar section 14 form an outwardly directed edge 18 which is continuous on three sides of a side wall profile 5, 6” [0057]} is a stamped part {“The side wall profiles are produced as stamped components” [0022]}.
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 control arm, as disclosed by Salkic and Steinel, such that the eccentric stops are stamped parts of a single piece of material, as taught by Meyer, because “This is advantageous in terms of production technology” [0022].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 28-29 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 28, Salkic and Steinel disclose all the aspects of claim 21. Salkic further discloses the at least one side wall {side walls of control arm body 2} has an inner side {bottom (flat) side of the side walls (Figs. 2-3)}, and an outer side {top (U-shaped) side of the side walls (Figs. 2-3)} opposite to the inner side {bottom (flat) side of the side walls (Figs. 2-3)}, the eccentric stops {inner stop surface of the two U-shaped sides of control arm body 2, facing the elongated hole 1’ (Figs. 2, 6)} are raised and protrude from the outer side {top (U-shaped) side of the side walls (Figs. 2-3)} of the at least one side wall {side walls of control arm body 2}, away from the inner side {bottom (flat) side of the side walls (Figs. 2-3)}.
However, Salkic does not explicitly disclose the at least one side wall has, on the inner side, an indentation extending around the eccentric stops and the elongated hole.
Vingnesengen (US 2024/0174038) teaches {Fig. 3A} an indentation {12} on the inside, and eccentric stops {6 (7)} on the outside. But does not disclose the indentation extending around the eccentric stops and the elongated hole.
Therefore, regarding claim 28, none of the prior art of record, either alone or in obvious combination, discloses the control arm according to claim 21, wherein the at least one side wall has an inner side, and an outer side opposite to the inner side, the eccentric stops are raised and protrude from the outer side of the at least one side wall, away from the inner side, and the at least one side wall has, on the inner side, an indentation extending around the eccentric stops and the elongated hole (emphasis added).
Accordingly, claim 29 is in condition for allowance by virtue of dependence from claim 28.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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