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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/20/2025 and 4/29/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: “hydraulically or hydraulically damped” should be rewritten as “hydraulic or hydraulically damped”. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 6, 8-10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohrlock (US20170015359A1), henceforth referred to as Mohrlock, in view of Rapp (DE102012024145A1), henceforth referred to as Rapp.
Regarding claim 1, Mohrlock discloses a front axle of a motor vehicle, comprising: two wheel suspensions (Paragraph [0025]: "Turning now to the drawing, and in particular to FIG. 1, there is shown a partial bottom view of a wheel suspension according to the present invention, by way of example on a front axle, for steered front wheels 1 of a two-track motor vehicle. The wheel suspension is installed in relation to a vehicle longitudinal axis L as mirror image also on the opposite side in the front axle"), each with a control arm (Figure 1: longitudinal arm 11), and a subframe, (Paragraph [0026]: "According to another advantageous feature of the present invention, the longitudinal link, disposed in the lower link plane, can be arranged in the vehicle longitudinal direction on a collision-proximal side of the two-point link to assume a function as a tension strut"), wherein the control arms are each designed in a tension strut arrangement and have a tension strut (Claim 15: "The wheel suspension of claim 7, wherein the longitudinal link is arranged in a vehicle longitudinal direction on a collision-proximal side of the two-point link to assume a function as a tension strut"), at least one transverse arm (Figure 1: transverse link 9), and at least one steering bearing with a bearing axis (Figure 1: attachment point 15 is formed as a pivot bearing with a bearing axis), wherein the subframe has longitudinal members in the vehicle longitudinal direction (Figure 1: subframe 7 comprises longitudinal members extending in the vehicle longitudinal direction), and at least one cross member in the vehicle transverse direction, wherein the longitudinal members are each rigidly connected to the at least one cross member in a connecting region (Annotated Figure 1: longitudinal members of subframe 7 attach to transversely extending crossmember portion of subframe 7), and wherein the transverse arms are each mounted between the wheel suspension and a longitudinal member (Figure 1: transverse link 9 mounted between wheel carrier 3 and longitudinal member of subframe 7), wherein the cross member has a central base region running perpendicular to the vehicle longitudinal direction (Annotated Figure 1: crossmember base portion runs generally perpendicular to the vehicle longitudinal direction), and, at one respective end of the base region, a cantilever region formed in an oblique direction relative to the vehicle's longitudinal direction (Annotated Figure 1: cantilever region formed in an oblique direction relative to the vehicle's longitudinal direction), wherein the control arms are each mounted in an articulated manner on the cantilever region of the cross member by the steering bearings in the cantilever region, (Figure 1: longitudinal arm 11 is mounted in an articulated manner on the cantilever region by bearing attachment point 15).
However, Mohrlock does not teach that the cantilever region is formed in a forward oblique direction, or a barrier in the small lateral overlap region of the vehicle. Rapp discloses that at one respective end of the base region, a cantilever region formed in an oblique forward direction relative to the vehicle's longitudinal direction (Figure 1: cantilever region formed at the end of front cross-member 12 is formed in an oblique forward direction), and wherein the free end of the cantilever region is formed with a barrier with a lateral extension within the region of the small lateral overlap of the motor vehicle (Figure 1: cantilever region formed at the end of front cross-member 12 is formed with protective element 30 which extends into the small lateral overlap region). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the subframe of Mohrlock with the front small lateral overlap barrier of Rapp in order to achieve a desired deformation, and lower the tendency of the front wheel to turn in the event of a collision (Paragraphs [0027-0028]).
PNG
media_image1.png
579
849
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Mohrlock as modified discloses the bearing axis of the steering bearing corresponds to the longitudinal axis of the cantilever region of the cross member or the bearing axis of the steering bearing is formed parallel to the longitudinal axis of the cantilever region (Figure 1: axis of bearing attachment point 15 is parallel with the longitudinal axis of the cantilever region).
Regarding claim 6, Mohrlock as modified discloses the cantilever region and base region are rigidly connected (Annotated Figure 1: cantilever region and base region are rigidly connected).
Regarding claim 8, Mohrlock as modified discloses the longitudinal axis of the cantilever region is formed at an angle α of greater than or equal to 20° and less than or equal to 80° to a transverse axis of the motor vehicle (Annotated Figure 1: the longitudinal axis of the cantilever region is formed at approximately a 45 degree angle relative to a transverse axis of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 9, Mohrlock as modified discloses the free end of the cantilever region is rounded (Annotated Figure 1: free end of cantilever region is rounded).
Regarding claim 10, Mohrlock as modified discloses a motor vehicle with a front axle, comprising: two control arms each with a steering bearing (Figure 1: bearing attachment point 15, and Paragraph [0025]: "Turning now to the drawing, and in particular to FIG. 1, there is shown a partial bottom view of a wheel suspension according to the present invention, by way of example on a front axle, for steered front wheels 1 of a two-track motor vehicle. The wheel suspension is installed in relation to a vehicle longitudinal axis L as mirror image also on the opposite side in the front axle").
Regarding claim 17, Mohrlock as modified discloses the cantilever region and base region are rigidly connected (Annotated Figure 1: cantilever region and base region are rigidly connected).
Claims 3-4, 11-13, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohrlock and Rapp as applied to claims 1 and 2 respectively, in further view of Conrad (EP2767419A1), henceforth referred to as Conrad.
Regarding claim 3, Mohrlock and Rapp do not teach a hydraulic bearing. Conrad discloses the front steering bearing is designed as a hydraulically or hydraulically damped bearing (Paragraph [0010]: "the bearing on the subframe side is designed as a hydraulically damped elastomer bearing"). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the bearing of Mohrlock and Rapp for the hydraulic bearing of Conrad, as "the oscillations which occur when driving over unevenness of the road surface are effectively damped by the hydraulically damped bearing. It is now advantageously ensured that the required longitudinal compliance is made possible when driving over unevenness of the road, so that the driving comfort of the vehicle is improved (Paragraph [0010]).
Regarding claim 4, Mohrlock and Rapp do not teach a support element. Conrad discloses on the side of the longitudinal member facing away from the cantilever region, a support element is formed between the longitudinal member and the base region of the cross member (Annotated Figure 1: support element formed between longitudinal and base region of the cross member). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the subframe of Mohrlock and Rapp with the support element of Conrad in order to increase the strength of the joint between the longitudinal members and the cross members.
PNG
media_image2.png
475
677
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Mohrlock and Rapp do not teach a hydraulic bearing. Conrad discloses the front steering bearing is designed as a hydraulically or hydraulically damped bearing (Paragraph [0010]: "the bearing on the subframe side is designed as a hydraulically damped elastomer bearing"). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the bearing of Mohrlock and Rapp for the hydraulic bearing of Conrad, as "the oscillations which occur when driving over unevenness of the road surface are effectively damped by the hydraulically damped bearing. It is now advantageously ensured that the required longitudinal compliance is made possible when driving over unevenness of the road, so that the driving comfort of the vehicle is improved (Paragraph [0010]).
Regarding claim 12, Mohrlock and Rapp do not teach a support element. Conrad discloses on the side of the longitudinal member facing away from the cantilever region, a support element is formed between the longitudinal member and the base region of the cross member (Annotated Figure 1: support element formed between longitudinal and base region of the cross member). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the subframe of Mohrlock and Rapp with the support element of Conrad in order to increase the strength of the joint between the longitudinal members and the cross members.
Regarding claim 13, Mohrlock and Rapp do not teach a support element. Conrad discloses on the side of the longitudinal member facing away from the cantilever region, a support element is formed between the longitudinal member and the base region of the cross member (Annotated Figure 1: support element formed between longitudinal and base region of the cross member). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the subframe of Mohrlock and Rapp with the support element of Conrad in order to increase the strength of the joint between the longitudinal members and the cross members.
Regarding claim 18, Mohrlock as modified discloses the cantilever region and base region are rigidly connected (Annotated Figure 1: cantilever region and base region are rigidly connected).
Regarding claim 19, Mohrlock as modified discloses the cantilever region and base region are rigidly connected (Annotated Figure 1: cantilever region and base region are rigidly connected).
Claims 5, 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohrlock and Rapp as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, respectively, in further view of Kurokawa (US-20170137071-A1), henceforth referred to as Kurokawa.
Regarding claim 5, Mohrlock and Rapp do not teach the cross member formed as a unit from materially bonded shell elements. Kurokawa discloses the cross member is formed as a unit from materially bonded shell elements (Figure 1: the vehicle subframe, including front cross member 13, is formed as a unit by materially bonding shell elements via welding, further, Paragraph [0070]: "Because the front body mounts 14 and the rear cross-member 16 are formed in open cross section shapes of which the vehicle lower sides are open, assembly (joining) thereof to the front cross-member 13, the side rails 20 and the like is simple"). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the subframe of Mohrlock and Rapp with the construction of Kurokawa, in order that "an assembly procedure of the suspension member 12 may be simplified" (Paragraph [0070]).
Regarding claim 7, Mohrlock and Rapp do not teach a cross member material. Kurokawa discloses the cross member is made of steel or aluminum (Paragraph [0037]: "The front cross-member 13 and the side rails 20 are formed in constant rectangular closed cross section shapes by extrusion molding of a lightweight metal material such as an aluminum alloy or the like"). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the subframe of Mohrlock and Rapp with the aluminum material choice of Kurokawa in order to reduce weight and the number of components (Paragraph [0071]).
Regarding claim 14, Mohrlock and Rapp do not teach the cross member formed as a unit from materially bonded shell elements. Kurokawa discloses the cross member is formed as a unit from materially bonded shell elements (Figure 1: the vehicle subframe, including front cross member 13, is formed as a unit by materially bonding shell elements via welding, further, Paragraph [0070]: "Because the front body mounts 14 and the rear cross-member 16 are formed in open cross section shapes of which the vehicle lower sides are open, assembly (joining) thereof to the front cross-member 13, the side rails 20 and the like is simple"). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the subframe of Mohrlock and Rapp with the construction of Kurokawa, in order that "an assembly procedure of the suspension member 12 may be simplified" (Paragraph [0070]).
Regarding claim 20, Mohrlock as modified discloses the cantilever region and base region are rigidly connected (Annotated Figure 1: cantilever region and base region are rigidly connected).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohrlock, Rapp, and Conrad as applied to claims 3 and 4 above, respectively, in further view of Kurokawa.
Regarding claim 15, Mohrlock, Rapp, and Conrad do not teach the cross member formed as a unit from materially bonded shell elements. Kurokawa discloses the cross member is formed as a unit from materially bonded shell elements (Figure 1: the vehicle subframe, including front cross member 13, is formed as a unit by materially bonding shell elements via welding, further, Paragraph [0070]: "Because the front body mounts 14 and the rear cross-member 16 are formed in open cross section shapes of which the vehicle lower sides are open, assembly (joining) thereof to the front cross-member 13, the side rails 20 and the like is simple"). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the subframe of Mohrlock, Rapp, and Conrad with the construction of Kurokawa, in order that "an assembly procedure of the suspension member 12 may be simplified" (Paragraph [0070]).
Regarding claim 16, Mohrlock, Rapp, and Conrad do not teach the cross member formed as a unit from materially bonded shell elements. Kurokawa discloses the cross member is formed as a unit from materially bonded shell elements (Figure 1: the vehicle subframe, including front cross member 13, is formed as a unit by materially bonding shell elements via welding, further, Paragraph [0070]: "Because the front body mounts 14 and the rear cross-member 16 are formed in open cross section shapes of which the vehicle lower sides are open, assembly (joining) thereof to the front cross-member 13, the side rails 20 and the like is simple"). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the subframe of Mohrlock, Rapp, and Conrad with the construction of Kurokawa, in order that "an assembly procedure of the suspension member 12 may be simplified" (Paragraph [0070]).
Cited Prior Art not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes Kramer (US 20160194029 A1), which discloses a subframe with a cantilever portion that connects to a control arm.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J O'NEILL whose telephone number is (571)272-4752. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 7AM-4PM.
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 JAMES O'NEILL/Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights