Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “pitching axis” at line 2 should be replaced with “pitch axis”. 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 – 4 and 6 – 8 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, 3, 6 and 8 each recite the limitation "the front vertex”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 2, 3 and 7 each recite the limitation "the frame”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the vehicle support plane". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 6 and 7 each recite the limitation "the rear vertex”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marella et al (US Patent Publication US 20220153350 A1).
With regards to Claim 1: Marella et al teaches a road vehicle having a roll axis, a pitch axis, a yaw axis, a chassis (14) and two front wheels (17); wherein each front wheel comprises a front suspension lever (161) connecting the corresponding front wheel to the chassis; wherein each front suspension lever is substantially shaped in the form of a triangle (seen in Fig 2) with a first vertex (at 17) coupled to the corresponding front wheel and the remaining two vertices (at 162 in Fig 2) coupled to the chassis respectively to a front attachment point and a rear attachment point with respect to the direction of travel along the roll axis; characterized in that the coupling between the front vertex of the front suspension lever and the chassis comprises a break-in invitation zone (at bolt 163 in para [0037]).
With regards to Claim 4: Marella et al teaches the vehicle as claimed in claim 1, wherein the front suspension lever (161) substantially triangularly shaped is substantially within a plane orthogonal to the yaw axis such that it is substantially parallel to the vehicle support plane (seen in Fig 2).
With regards to Claim 7: Marella et al teaches the vehicle as claimed in claim 1, wherein the rear vertex coupled to the frame of the front suspension lever (161) is pivotally shaped and is inserted in a bushing (162) having an axis parallel to the roll axis coupled to the frame (14 per Fig 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasebe et al (US Patent Publication US 20020180171 A1).
With regards to Claim 1: Hasebe et al teaches a road vehicle having a roll axis, a pitch axis, a yaw axis, a chassis (12) and two front wheels (at 11a); wherein each front wheel comprises a front suspension lever (11) connecting the corresponding front wheel to the chassis; wherein each front suspension lever is substantially shaped in the form of a triangle (seen in Fig 1) with a first vertex (at 11a) coupled to the corresponding front wheel and the remaining two vertices (at 17 and 18) coupled to the chassis respectively to a front attachment point and a rear attachment point with respect to the direction of travel along the roll axis; characterized in that the coupling between the rear vertex of the front suspension lever and the chassis comprises a break-in invitation zone (para [0028]).
Hasebe et al does not teach that the coupling between the front vertex of the front suspension lever and the chassis comprises a break-in invitation zone.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to reverse the vertices with the break-in invitation zone such that the suspension lever collapse in the desired manner during a collision event. Furthermore it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
With regards to Claim 4: Hasebe et al teaches the vehicle as claimed in claim 1, wherein the front suspension lever (11) substantially triangularly shaped is substantially within a plane orthogonal to the yaw axis such that it is substantially parallel to the vehicle support plane (seen in Fig 1).
With regards to Claim 7: Hasebe et al teaches the vehicle as claimed in claim 1, wherein the rear vertex coupled to the frame of the front suspension lever (11) is pivotally shaped and is inserted in a bushing (17) having an axis parallel to the roll axis coupled to the frame (12 per Fig 1).
With regards to Claim 8: Hasebe et al teaches the vehicle as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first vertex (at 11a) and the front vertex (at 17 in Fig 1) of the lever are substantially aligned along a direction parallel to the pitching axis (seen in Fig 1).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marella et al (US Patent Publication US 20220153350 A1) in view of Zimmerman et al (US Patent Publication US 20180135716 A1).
With regards to Claim 2: Marella et al teaches the vehicle as claimed in claim 1, wherein the coupling between the front vertex (at 162 in Fig 2) of the front suspension lever (161) and the chassis (14) is realized by providing: the front vertex of the front suspension lever is shaped in the form of a bushing (162) with its axis parallel to the roll axis; a through pin (163) inserted into the front bushing of the front suspension lever with a central portion coupling with the bushing and two ends fixed to the frame, respectively a front end and a rear end from opposite sides to the bushing (seen in Figs 1 and 5).
Marella et al does not teach the central portion and the front end the pin comprises a narrowing or reduced cross-sectional area.
Zimmerman et al teaches a through pin (20) inserted into a bushing (42) of a vehicle suspension; wherein between the central portion and the front end the pin comprises a narrowing or reduced cross-sectional area (from thicker portion 26 seen in Fig 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the road vehicle disclosed in Marella et al with the bushing and through pin taught in Zimmerman et al with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have allowed the front suspension lever to collapse in the desired manner during a collision event.
With regards to Claim 3: Marella et al teaches the vehicle as claimed in claim 1, wherein the coupling between the front vertex (at 162 in Fig 2) of the front suspension lever (161) and the chassis (14) is made by providing: the front vertex of the front suspension lever is shaped in the form of a bushing (162) with its axis parallel to the roll axis; a through pin (163) inserted into the front bushing of the front suspension lever with a central portion coupling with the bushing and two ends fixed to the frame, respectively a front end and a rear end from opposite sides to the bushing (seen in Figs 1 and 5).
Marella et al does not teach the central portion and the rear end the pin comprises a narrowing or reduced-section zone.
Zimmerman et al teaches a through pin (20) inserted into a bushing (42) of a vehicle suspension; wherein between the central portion and the rear end the pin comprises a narrowing or reduced cross-sectional area (from thicker portion 26 seen in Fig 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the road vehicle disclosed in Marella et al with the bushing and through pin taught in Zimmerman et al with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have allowed the front suspension lever to collapse in the desired manner during a collision event.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasebe et al (US Patent Publication US 20020180171 A1) in view of Fei et al (CN Patent CN 109649100 A).
With regards to Claim 5: Hasebe teaches the vehicle as claimed in claim 1, but does not teach the first vertex (at 11a) of the front suspension lever (11) coupled to the corresponding front wheel (at 11a) is shaped in the form of a bushing with its axis parallel to the yaw axis.
Fei et al teaches a vehicle comprising a front suspension lever (1) with a first vertex (at 4) of the front suspension lever coupled to the corresponding front wheel (at 4) is shaped in the form of a bushing (3) with its axis parallel to the yaw axis.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the road vehicle disclosed in Hasebe et al with the bushing at the front wheel taught in Fei et al with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have allowed the wheel to turn to allow steering the vehicle on the road.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasebe et al (US Patent Publication US 20020180171 A1) in view of Kato (DE Patent DE 19522916 A1).
With regards to Claim 6: Hasebe et al teaches the vehicle as claimed in claim 1, wherein the front suspension lever (11) comprises a rib extending substantially from the first vertex coupled to the corresponding front wheel (at 11a) to the rear vertex (at 18 in Fig 1) coupled to the chassis (12) in such a manner as to increase in the event of an angled frontal impact the force acting on the weakened coupling between the front vertex of the front suspension lever and the chassis.
Kato teaches a vehicle comprising a front suspension lever (10) with a rib (21a) extending substantially from the first vertex (at 10c) coupled to the corresponding front wheel (12) to the rear vertex (at 10b) coupled to the chassis (11) in such a manner as to increase in the event of an angled frontal impact the force acting on the weakened coupling between the front vertex of the front suspension lever and the chassis (page 2 para 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the road vehicle disclosed in Hasebe et al with the rib taught in Kato with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have allowed the front suspension lever to collapse in the desired manner during a collision event.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee et al (DE Patent DE 19847356 A1), Cao et al (CN Patent CN 118877079 A), Kuno et al (JP Patent Publication JP 2024050291 A), and White et al (US Patent US 10759244 B2) teach an arm suspension for a vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew J Ganci whose telephone number is (571)272-6577. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30AM to 5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jason Shanske can be reached at (571) 270-5985. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW JOSEPH GANCI/Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights