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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to Amendments and Remarks filed on 08/18/2025 for application number 16/485,927 filed on 08/14/2019, in which claims 1-27 were previously presented for examination.
Claims 28-30 have been added as new claims, claims 8-13 and 20-21 have been previously cancelled, and claims 1, 2, 4, , 22 & 27 are currently amended. Accordingly, claims 1-7, 14-19 and 22-30 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority of provisional patent application No. 62482151 filed on 04/05/2017.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS(s)) submitted on 01/02/2020, 06/08/2021 & 05/19/2025 have been received and considered.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs (or columns and lines) in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP §2111.01.
Response to Arguments
Arguments filed on 08/18/2025 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Regarding the Claim Objections: The claim(s) objection is/are withdrawn, as the amended claims filed on 08/18/2025 have properly addressed the claim(s) informality objection(s) recited in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 02/18/2025.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC §112(b): The rejections of claims for lack of antecedent basis and/or for being indefinite are withdrawn, as the amended claims filed on 08/18/2025 recite proper antecedent basis.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC §102(a)(1): Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of the claim 14 as being clearly anticipated by the prior art Anderson (US-2015/0224845-A1) have been fully considered. However, those arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that:
“Independent claim 14 …
There is simply no teaching in Anderson of a first actuator which generates an undesirable effect, the prediction of that effect, and another actuator that is operated to mitigate that undesirable effect.
Accordingly, the Applicant submits that Anderson does not anticipate independent claim 14 and withdrawal of the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is respectfully requested.”
(see Remarks pages 7-8; emphasis added)
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant's invention, it is noted that the feature(s) upon which applicant relies (i.e., the prediction of that effect) is/are not recited in the rejected base claim 14. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, Examiner points to Anderson for disclosing all claim 14 limitations, i.e., ¶¶265 & 331-360 (as have been previously outlined in the prior art rejection in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 02/18/2025). Specifically, Examiner points to Anderson’s active hydraulic pump ripple cancellation [i.e., another actuator that is operated to mitigate that undesirable effect] that greatly reduce undesirable vibrations and noise in the active suspension system [i.e., first actuator which generates an undesirable effect]. In Additionally, in ¶¶60 & 113, Anderson’s embodiments further disclose the actuators are placed in locations to reduce vibration to the truck load.
Applicant asserts that:
“Independent claim 22 …
There is no argument as to what actuator in Anderson the Office Action is alleged to be analogous to the "second actuator" of independent claim 22 or how any of the mentioned actuators would "apply a second force to the vehicle body to mitigate the predicted aspect of the fluctuation of the first force," as recited in independent claim 22. The Applicant submits that the Office Action is deficient at least for failing to establish that Anderson discloses each and every limitation of independent claim 22.”
(see Remarks page 9; emphasis added)
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner points to Anderson’s active hydraulic pump ripple cancellation [i.e., second actuator that is operated to mitigate that undesirable effect] that greatly reduce undesirable vibrations and noise in the active suspension system [i.e., apply a second force to the vehicle body to mitigate the predicted aspect of the fluctuation of the first force,]. In Additionally, in ¶¶60 & 113, Anderson’s embodiments further disclose the actuators are placed in locations to reduce vibration to the truck load.
For at least the foregoing reasons, and the rejections outlined below, the prior art rejections are maintained.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC §103: Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of the claim 1 as being unpatentable over by the prior art Anderson (US-2015/0224845-A1) in view Muragishi (US-2012/0193847-A1) have been fully considered. However, those arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that:
“Claim 1 …
There is no argument as to what actuator in Anderson the Office Action is alleged to be analogous to the "reaction actuator" of independent claim 22 or how any of the mentioned actuators would mitigate the undesirable effect of the first force, which is applied by the first actuator, on the structure. For at least this reason, and for reasons that should be apparent in view of the arguments presented above regarding Anderson applied by itself, Anderson does not inherently or expressly disclose the claimed interaction of two separate actuators that are operated in the manner recited in claim 1.
…
Muragishi does not cure the deficiencies of Anderson with respect to the second actuator.”
(see Remarks pages 9-11; emphasis added)
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the examiner does not necessarily agree with the applicant arguments, and in the interest of concluding the prosecution, a new reference mappings are introduced to teach some of the amended limitations as outlined in the prior art rejections below.
For at least the foregoing reasons in claim 22 rejection above, and the rejections outlined below, the prior art rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC §102 and §103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 USC §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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 USC §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.
Claims 14, 16, 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 USC §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anderson et al. (US-2015/0224845-A1, hereafter “Anderson”)
[AltContent: arrow]With respect to claim 14, Anderson discloses a method for operating an active suspension system supporting a vehicle body (Anderson, in at least abstract, discloses a method comprises disposing an active suspension system in a vehicle between a wheel mount and a vehicle body), the method comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
306
689
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Anderson Fig. 1-4 (emphasis added)
applying, with a hydraulic actuator of the active suspension system (Anderson, in at least Fig. 1-4 [reproduced here for convenience] & ¶6, discloses an active suspension system includes a hydraulic actuator), a first force to a structure (Fig. 1-4, via piston rod 1-104), wherein application of the first force to the structure generates an undesirable vibration in the structure (Anderson, in at least ¶¶60, 113, 264 & 265 , discloses an active hydraulic pump ripple cancellation is associated with electric motor/generator rotor position sensing in an active suspension … to actively attenuate hydraulic pressure ripple and greatly reduce undesirable vibrations in the active suspension system); and
applying, with a second actuator, a second force to the structure, wherein application of the second force to the structure mitigates an aspect of the undesirable vibration (Anderson, in at least ¶¶331 & 360, discloses to mitigate impact of at least one of wheel events, i.e. a reactive force is created by other actuators, i.e. first side and second side, in response to the recognition of an event, e.g. roll event, in a wheel having an actuator corresponding to the first actuator. See, e.g., “according to another aspect an active roll mitigation system for a vehicle having a first side and a second side, comprising at least one linear actuator operatively disposed between at least one first side of the vehicle wheel and the chassis of the vehicle … such that it operates in parallel to the linear actuator at least one air compressor configured such that static air pressure may be uniquely selected for each of at least one first side air spring and at least one second side air spring at least one sensor to detect vehicle roll; and a controller adapted to control air pressure of the air spring and force from the linear actuator such that during detected vehicle roll, the controller increases air pressure in at least one air spring on the first side and creates an extension force on at least one actuator on the first side, and decreases air pressure in at least one air spring on the second side and creates a compression force on at least one actuator on the second side);
wherein the structure is one of: the vehicle body and a top mount physically attached to the vehicle body (Anderson, in at least Fig. 1-21: discloses the vehicle chassis 1-1412 and ¶¶352 & 974).
With respect to claim 16, Anderson teaches the method of claim 14, accordingly, the rejection of claim 14 above is incorporated. Anderson further discloses characterizing the aspect of the undesirable vibration by accessing a ripple map associated with the hydraulic actuator (Anderson, in at least ¶¶247-250, discloses ripple torque and rotor position).
With respect to claim 22, Anderson discloses a method for operating an active suspension system supporting a vehicle body (Anderson, in at least abstract & ¶¶245-294, discloses a method comprises disposing an active suspension system in a vehicle between a wheel mount and a vehicle body, comprises Active Adaptive Hydraulic Ripple Cancellation), the method comprising:
commanding a hydraulic actuator of the active suspension system to apply a first force to a vehicle body, wherein the hydraulic actuator includes a hydraulic pump that produces hydraulic ripple (Anderson, in at least abstract & ¶¶245-294, discloses proper analysis it can be discovered that these fluctuations occur in a predictable manner, wherein an adaptive feed-forward hydraulic pump ripple cancellation may be associated with a predictive analytic algorithm that factors in inertia in an active suspension control to arrive at a desired suspension force);
predicting an aspect of a fluctuation of the first force caused by the hydraulic ripple (Anderson, in at least abstract, Fig(s). 1-4 [reproduced here for convenience], 8-4 & 8-5, ¶¶8, 35-36, 50-52, 88-89, 245-294, 469 & 936, discloses Predictive Inertia Algorithms, wherein an on-demand energy hydraulic actuator, where an electric motor is moved in lockstep with the active suspension movement (linear travel of the actuator) in at least one mode, is combined with an algorithm that predicts inertia of the electric motor and controls the motor torque to at least partially reduce the effect of inertia. Such a system employing predictive analytic algorithms that factor inertia in the active suspension control controls motor torque at a command torque lower than the desired torque during acceleration events, and at a higher torque that the desired torque during deceleration events. Anderson further discloses proper analysis it can be discovered that these fluctuations occur in a predictable manner, wherein an adaptive feed-forward hydraulic pump ripple cancellation may be associated with a predictive analytic algorithm that factors in inertia in an active suspension control to arrive at a desired suspension force); and
commanding a second actuator to apply a second force to the vehicle body to mitigate (Anderson, in at least Fig(s). 1-4, 8-4 & 8-5, ¶¶8, 35-36, 50-52, 88-89, 245-294, 469 & 936, discloses Predictive Inertia Algorithms, wherein an on-demand energy hydraulic actuator, where an electric motor is moved in lockstep with the active suspension movement (linear travel of the actuator) in at least one mode, is combined with an algorithm that predicts inertia of the electric motor and controls the motor torque to at least partially reduce the effect of inertia. Such a system employing predictive analytic algorithms that factor inertia in the active suspension control controls motor torque at a command torque lower than the desired torque during acceleration events, and at a higher torque that the desired torque during deceleration events. Anderson further discloses integrating the active suspension with other sensors and systems on the vehicle, such that the ride dynamics is improved by utilizing predictive and reactive sensor data from a number of sources, wherein the active suspension may not only receive data from other sensors, but may also command other vehicle subsystems, wherein aspect being the magnitude of force in response to a wheel event detected by various sensors. ¶360, i.e. a reactive force is created by other actuators, i.e. first side and second side, in response to the recognition of an event, e.g. roll event, in a wheel having an actuator corresponding to the first actuator. See, e.g., “according to another aspect an active roll mitigation system for a vehicle having a first side and a second side, comprising at least one linear actuator operatively disposed between at least one first side of the vehicle wheel and the chassis of the vehicle a … such that it operates in parallel to the linear actuator at least one air compressor configured such that static air pressure may be uniquely selected for each of at least one first side air spring and at least one second side air spring at least one sensor to detect vehicle roll; and a controller adapted to control air pressure of the air spring and force from the linear actuator such that during detected vehicle roll, the controller increases air pressure in at least one air spring on the first side and creates an extension force on at least one actuator on the first side, and decreases air pressure in at least one air spring on the second side and creates a compression force on at least one actuator on the second side).
With respect to claim 24, Anderson teaches the method of claim 22, accordingly, the rejection of claim 22 above is incorporated. Anderson further discloses comprising determining the predicted aspect of the fluctuation by accessing a ripple map associated with the hydraulic actuator (e.g. ¶¶247-250, ripple torque and rotor position & ¶953, the profile of the flow pulsation (or ripple) is known with respect to the rotary position of the hydraulic motor-pump).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC §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 USC §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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-7, 15, 17-19, 23 & 25-30 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US-2015/0224845-A1) in view of Muragishi et al. (US-2012/0193847-A1, hereafter “Muragishi”)
[AltContent: arrow]With respect to claim 1, Anderson discloses a method of mitigating an undesirable effect of a first force applied to a structure by a first actuator (Anderson, in at least abstract & Fig. 1-4 [reproduced here for convenience] and ¶¶6, 60, 113, 264 & 265, discloses an active suspension system in a vehicle between a wheel mount and a vehicle body [i.e., structure] comprising an actuator body [i.e., first actuator], e.g. the sprung mass, wherein active suspension system includes a hydraulic actuator, and an active hydraulic pump ripple cancellation is associated with electric motor/generator rotor position sensing in an active suspension … to actively attenuate hydraulic pressure ripple and greatly reduce undesirable vibrations in the active suspension [AltContent: arrow]system), the method comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
306
689
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Anderson Fig. 1-4 (emphasis added)
prior to application of the first force to the structure, predicting the undesirable effect of the first force with a first controller associated with the first actuator (Anderson, in at least Fig. 1-4 and ¶¶8, 35-36, 52, 469 & 936, discloses Predictive Inertia Algorithms, wherein an on-demand energy hydraulic actuator, where an electric motor is moved in lockstep with the active suspension movement (linear travel of the actuator) in at least one mode, is combined with an algorithm that predicts inertia of the electric motor and controls the motor torque to at least partially reduce the effect of inertia. Anderson further discloses integrating the active suspension with other sensors and systems on the vehicle, such that the ride dynamics is improved by utilizing predictive and reactive sensor data from a number of sources, wherein aspect being the magnitude of force in response to a wheel event detected by various sensors);
commanding the first actuator, with the first controller, to apply the first force on the structure (Anderson, in at least Fig. 1-4 and ¶¶45 & 98, discloses an on-demand energy hydraulic actuator, where motor torque is controlled to directly control actuator response …, wherein a controller responsible for commanding the active suspension responds to energy needs of other devices on the vehicle such as active roll stabilization. Anderson, in at least ¶¶60, 113, 264 & 265 , further discloses an active hydraulic pump ripple cancellation is associated with electric motor/generator rotor position sensing in an active suspension … to actively attenuate hydraulic pressure ripple and greatly reduce undesirable vibrations in the active suspension system);
applying the first force to the structure to at least mitigate an effect of an external force applied on the structure (Anderson, in at least Fig. 1-4 and ¶¶8, 35-36, 52, 469 & 936, discloses integrating the active suspension with other sensors and systems on the vehicle, such that the ride dynamics is improved by utilizing predictive and reactive sensor data from a number of sources, wherein aspect being the magnitude of force in response to a wheel event detected by various sensors. Anderson, in at least ¶¶60, 113, 264 & 265 , further discloses an active hydraulic pump ripple cancellation [i.e., mitigate an effect of an external force applied on the structure] is associated with electric motor/generator rotor position sensing in an active suspension … to actively attenuate hydraulic pressure ripple and greatly reduce undesirable vibrations in the active suspension system [i.e., mitigate an effect of an external force applied on the structure]);
communicating information about the undesirable effect from the first controller to a second controller associated with a reaction actuator (Anderson, in at least Fig. 1-10 desired output at 1-508 & ¶¶35-36, wherein Anderson’s algorithm predicts inertia of the electric motor and controls the motor torque to at least partially reduce the effect of inertia controls the motor torque to at least partially reduce the effect of inertia. Anderson, in at least ¶¶331 & 360, further discloses to mitigate impact of at least one of wheel events, i.e. a reactive force is created by other actuators, i.e. first side and second side, in response to the recognition of an event, e.g. roll event, in a wheel having an actuator corresponding to the first actuator. See, e.g., “according to another aspect an active roll mitigation system for a vehicle having a first side and a second side, comprising at least one linear actuator operatively disposed between at least one first side of the vehicle wheel and the chassis of the vehicle … such that it operates in parallel to the linear actuator at least one air compressor configured such that static air pressure may be uniquely selected for each of at least one first side air spring and at least one second side air spring at least one sensor to detect vehicle roll; and a controller adapted to control air pressure of the air spring and force from the linear actuator such that during detected vehicle roll, the controller increases air pressure in at least one air spring on the first side and creates an extension force on at least one actuator on the first side, and decreases air pressure in at least one air spring on the second side and creates a compression force on at least one actuator on the second side);
determining a second force based at least in part on the information (Anderson, in at least Fig(s) 1-4, ¶¶8, 35-36, 52, 352, 469 & 936, discloses an algorithm that predicts inertia of the electric motor and controls the motor torque to at least partially reduce the effect of inertia. Anderson further discloses utilizing predictive and reactive sensor data from a number of sources, wherein aspect being the magnitude of force in response to a wheel event detected by various sensors, wherein pump moves the hydraulic fluid within the actuator to act upon the piston such that it counteracts the road input);
with the second controller, commanding the reaction actuator to apply the second force on the structure to at least partially mitigate the undesirable effect , (Anderson, in at least Fig(s) 1-4, ¶¶8, 35-36, 52, 352-360, 469 & 936, discloses an algorithm that predicts inertia of the electric motor and controls the motor torque to at least partially reduce the effect of inertia, i.e., the second force corresponding to the force generated by other actuator(s) in response to sensed and/or predicted information on other wheels-that is different actuators, wherein a reactive force is created by other actuators in response to the recognition of an event, e.g. roll event, in a wheel having an actuator corresponding to the first actuator. See, e.g., “when a vehicle roll event is detected, at least one of air pressure and air volume in the air springs of the two outside wheels to the turn is controlled to be larger than the two inside wheels, and the actuator creates a downward force on the outside wheels, and an upward force on the inside wheels” i.e. partially mitigating the effect of the first force on the first component. Anderson, in at least ¶1635, further discloses the inventive methods described here have a lot of synergy with active ripple cancellation techniques in systems that combine hydraulic motor/generators and electric motors. In order to electronically reduce the effects of the inherent torque ripple in the hydraulic motor/generator, it is imperative to have a good position signal that allows for correct timing of the ripple cancellation intervention);
applying the second force to the structure, and at least partially mitigating the undesirable effect of the first force on the structure (Anderson, in at least Fig(s) 1-4, ¶¶8, 35-36, 52, 352-360, 469 & 936, discloses an algorithm that predicts inertia of the electric motor and controls the motor torque to at least partially reduce the effect of inertia, i.e., the second force corresponding to the force generated by other actuator(s) in response to sensed and/or predicted information on other wheels-that is different actuators, wherein a reactive force is created by other actuators in response to the recognition of an event, e.g. roll event, in a wheel having an actuator corresponding to the first actuator. See, e.g., “when a vehicle roll event is detected, at least one of air pressure and air volume in the air springs of the two outside wheels to the turn is controlled to be larger than the two inside wheels, and the actuator creates a downward force on the outside wheels, and an upward force on the inside wheels” i.e. partially mitigating the effect of the first force on the first component).
PNG
media_image2.png
517
744
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Muragishi’s Fig. 19 (emphasis added)
Anderson is silent on wherein the reaction actuator is interposed between the structure and a reaction mass. However, Muragishi, in the same field of invention, clearly teaches these limitations (Muragishi, in at least Fig. 19 [reproduced here for convenience], ¶¶8 & 76, discloses vibrations of the automobile body can be predicted, and a force applied to the automobile body from the engine can be canceled by the actuator, wherein, e.g., “auxiliary mass 32 as a reaction force” and reaction actuator 34 interposed between reaction mass 32 and automobile body frame 41).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Muragishi into the invention of Anderson with a reasonable expectation of success to more effectively dampen or suppress vibrations caused by potential resonance effect (e.g. see ¶118 of Muragishi, “it is possible to suppress resonance phenomenon to thereby to have the vibration amplitude of the auxiliary mass within an appropriate range, and to realize ideal vibration suppression. As a result, the vibration suppression performance can be improved”).
With respect to claim 2, Anderson as modified by Muragishi teaches the method of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Anderson further discloses wherein the structure is a vehicle body (Fig. 1-21: the vehicle chassis 1-1412, ¶¶352 & 974).
With respect to claim 3, Anderson as modified by Muragishi teaches the method of claim 2, accordingly, the rejection of claim 2 above is incorporated. Anderson further discloses wherein the undesirable effect is caused by a parasitic component of the first force (Anderson, in at least Fig. 1-10 desired output at 1-508 & ¶¶35-36, wherein Anderson’s algorithm predicts inertia of the electric motor and controls the motor torque to at least partially reduce the effect of inertia controls the motor torque to at least partially reduce the effect of inertia, Anderson, in at least Fig(s) 1-4, ¶¶8, 35-36, 52, 352-360, 469 & 936, discloses an algorithm that predicts inertia of the electric motor and controls the motor torque to at least partially reduce the effect of inertia, i.e., the second force corresponding to the force generated by other actuator(s) in response to sensed and/or predicted information on other wheels-that is different actuators, wherein a reactive force is created by other actuators in response to the recognition of an event, e.g. roll event, in a wheel having an actuator corresponding to the first actuator. See, e.g., “when a vehicle roll event is detected, at least one of air pressure and air volume in the air springs of the two outside wheels to the turn is controlled to be larger than the two inside wheels, and the actuator creates a downward force on the outside wheels, and an upward force on the inside wheels” i.e. partially mitigating the effect of the first force on the first component).
With respect to claim 4, Anderson as modified by Muragishi teaches the method of claim 3, accordingly, the rejection of claim 3 above is incorporated. Anderson further discloses wherein the first actuator is a hydraulic suspension system actuator of a vehicle (Fig. 1-4) that comprises:
a cylinder (Fig. 1-4, 1-102) that includes a compression chamber (1-108) and an extension or a rebound chamber (1-110);
a piston (1-106) that is physically attached to a piston rod (1-104), wherein a first side of the piston is exposed to fluid in the compression chamber and a second side of the piston is exposed to fluid in the rebound chamber (Fig. 1-4);
a hydraulic pump (1-114), wherein the hydraulic pump is in fluid communication with the rebound chamber and the compression chamber (¶902, “hydraulic motor-pump 1-114 is in fluid communication with the compression volume 1-108 and the extension volume 1-110 of the hydraulic actuator as indicated by the arrows in the figure”); and
wherein the parasitic component is a force ripple resulting from a flow ripple generated by the hydraulic pump (¶1 damping control method for an automobile for performing automobile vibration suppression control, e.g. ¶¶247-250, ripple torque and rotor position. Anderson, in at least ¶1635, further discloses the inventive methods described here have a lot of synergy with active ripple cancellation techniques in systems that combine hydraulic motor/generators and electric motors. In order to electronically reduce the effects of the inherent torque ripple in the hydraulic motor/generator, it is imperative to have a good position signal that allows for correct timing of the ripple cancellation intervention).
With respect to claim 5, Anderson as modified by Muragishi teaches the method of claim 4, accordingly, the rejection of claim 4 above is incorporated. Anderson further discloses comprising:
accessing a ripple map of the hydraulic pump;
receiving a position parameter corresponding to an angular position of a rotating element of the hydraulic pump;
determining the force ripple based at least in part on the ripple map and the position parameter (Anderson, in at least ¶¶247-250, discloses ripple torque and rotor position & in ¶953, discloses the profile of the flow pulsation (or ripple) is known with respect to the rotary position of the hydraulic motor-pump. Anderson, in at least ¶1635, further discloses the inventive methods described here have a lot of synergy with active ripple cancellation techniques in systems that combine hydraulic motor/generators and electric motors. In order to electronically reduce the effects of the inherent torque ripple in the hydraulic motor/generator, it is imperative to have a good position signal that allows for correct timing of the ripple cancellation intervention).
With respect to claim 6, Anderson as modified by Muragishi teaches the method of claim 5, accordingly, the rejection of claim 5 above is incorporated. Anderson discloses wherein the first actuator and the reaction actuator are linear actuators (Anderson, in at least ¶¶331, 350 & 360, discloses comprising at least one linear actuator operatively disposed between at least one first side of the vehicle wheel and the chassis of the vehicle. Anderson further discloses embodiments include electrohydraulic or linear electromagnetic actuators).
With respect to claim 7, Anderson as modified by Muragishi teaches the method of claim 6, accordingly, the rejection of claim 6 above is incorporated. Anderson does not disclose wherein the reaction actuator is selected from the group consisting of a piezoelectric actuator, capacitive actuator, and an electromagnetic actuator (Anderson, in at least ¶¶350, discloses embodiments include electrohydraulic or linear electromagnetic actuators, wherein Anderson further in ¶¶1859, discloses piezo actuation are recognized and the invention should not be limited in this regard).
With respect to claims 8-13, Cancelled.
With respect to claim 15, Anderson teaches the method of claim 14, accordingly, the rejection of claim 14 above is incorporated. Anderson is silent on wherein the second actuator is interposed between the structure and a reaction mass. However, Muragishi, in the same field of invention, clearly teaches these limitations (Muragishi, in at least Fig. 19, ¶¶8 & 76, discloses vibrations of the automobile body can be predicted, and a force applied to the automobile body from the engine can be canceled by the actuator, wherein, e.g., “auxiliary mass 32 as a reaction force” and reaction actuator 34 interposed between reaction mass 32 and automobile body frame 41).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Muragishi into the invention of Anderson with a reasonable expectation of success to more effectively dampen or suppress vibrations caused by potential resonance effect (e.g. see ¶118 of Muragishi, “it is possible to suppress resonance phenomenon to thereby to have the vibration amplitude of the auxiliary mass within an appropriate range, and to realize ideal vibration suppression. As a result, the vibration suppression performance can be improved”).
With respect to claim 17, Anderson as modified by Muragishi teaches the method of claim 15, accordingly, the rejection of claim 15 above is incorporated. Anderson further discloses characterizing the aspect of the undesirable vibration by accessing a ripple map associated with the hydraulic actuator (e.g. ¶¶247-250, ripple torque and rotor position).
With respect to claim 18, Anderson as modified by Muragishi teaches the method of claim 17, accordingly, the rejection of claim 17 above is incorporated. Anderson further discloses wherein the second actuator is selected from a group consisting of a piezoelectric actuator, a solenoid actuator, and a capacitive actuator (¶1859).
With respect to claim 19, Anderson as modified by Muragishi teaches the method of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Anderson further discloses wherein the reaction actuator is selected from a group consisting of a piezoelectric actuator, a solenoid actuator, and a capacitive actuator (¶1859) .
With respect to claims 20-21, Cancelled.
With respect to claim 23, Anderson teaches the method of claim 22, accordingly, the rejection of claim 22 above is incorporated. Anderson is silent on wherein the second actuator is interposed between the structure and a reaction mass. However, Muragishi, in the same field of invention, clearly teaches these limitations (Muragishi, in at least Fig. 19, ¶¶8 & 76, discloses vibrations of the automobile body can be predicted, and a force applied to the automobile body from the engine can be canceled by the actuator, wherein, e.g., “auxiliary mass 32 as a reaction force” and reaction actuator 34 interposed between reaction mass 32 and automobile body frame 41).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Muragishi into the invention of Anderson with a reasonable expectation of success to more effectively dampen or suppress vibrations caused by potential resonance effect (e.g. see paragraph 118 of Muragishi, “it is possible to suppress resonance phenomenon to thereby to have the vibration amplitude of the auxiliary mass within an appropriate range, and to realize ideal vibration suppression. As a result, the vibration suppression performance can be improved”).
With respect to claim 25, Anderson as modified by Muragishi teaches the method of claim 23, accordingly, the rejection of claim 23 above is incorporated. Anderson further discloses comprising the predicted aspect of the first force by accessing a ripple map associated with the hydraulic actuator, wherein the aspect of the first force is force ripple (e.g. ¶¶247-250, ripple torque and rotor position).
With respect to claim 26, Anderson as modified by Muragishi teaches the method of claim 25, accordingly, the rejection of claim 25 above is incorporated. Anderson further discloses wherein the second actuator is selected from a group consisting of a piezoelectric actuator, a solenoid actuator, and a capacitive actuator (¶1859).
With respect to claim 27, Anderson as modified by Muragishi teaches the method of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Anderson further discloses wherein the first actuator is selected from the group consisting of a linear electric motor and a ball-screw linear actuator (Anderson, in at least Fig. 12-3 and ¶¶375, 388, 1355, 1361, 1384 & 1439, discloses many types of actuators, including ball screw actuators, rack-and-pinion actuators, hydraulic actuators. Anderson further discloses rotary actuator could be an electric brushless direct current (BLDC) motor, coupled to a linear motion device through a transmission mechanism, such as a rack-and-pinion or a ball screw. Anderson also discloses the actuator in this figure, i.e. Fig. 12-3, could be any back-drivable suspension actuator with rotating inertia, such as an electro-hydraulic actuator as described in this patent, a ball screw actuator, a rack-and-pinion actuator, or others. Anderson also discloses the actuators could be valveless, hydraulic, a linear motor, a ball screw, valved hydraulic, or of another actuator design).
With respect to claim 28, Anderson as modified by Muragishi teaches the method of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Anderson further discloses wherein the forces originating from sources external to a system configured to operate the first actuator originate from at least one of travelling over a pothole, travelling over a bump, and traveling over road surface imperfections (Anderson, in at least ¶¶36, 89 & 480-483 & 1007-1009, discloses for a hydraulic active suspension that has a hydraulic pump operatively connected to an electric motor, wherein the pump is substantially positive displacement, a fast pothole hit to the wheel will create a surge in hydraulic fluid pressure and accelerate the pump and motor. Anderson further discloses another pre-condition might be derived from purely statistical analysis of existing roads. It is most likely to see large potholes on roads that are driven in a certain speed range, and with a certain steering input. For example, the driver may reduce speed and swerve repeatedly if the road exhibits large holes. In this case, the performance of the active suspension system is more important and should be prioritized … the algorithm may detect large road bumps, potholes, and other road unevenness and predict the impact on occupant comfort; it may also detect impending driver inputs or even impacts, as many systems already do, and allow the suspension algorithm to switch to a high active mode for safety or for comfort reasons. Anderson also discloses for a hydraulic active suspension including a hydraulic motor-pump operatively coupled to an electric motor, a fast pothole hit to a wheel will create a surge in hydraulic fluid pressure and accelerate the hydraulic motor-pump and electric motor, wherein changes to the commanded motor torque 1-402 occur at a similar frequency over the presented time period to body acceleration 1-400, which is caused by wheel events such as bumps, hills, and potholes, and driver inputs such as turns, braking, etc. Anderson further discloses an active suspension actuator may lower a wheel into a pothole to minimize movement of the remainder of the vehicle when the wheel hits the pothole).
With respect to claim 29, Anderson as modified by Muragishi teaches the method of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Anderson further discloses wherein the forces originating from sources external to a system configured to operate the first actuator originate from at least one of navigating a turn, braking, and accelerating (Anderson, in at least Fig(s). 1-4, 8-4 & 8-5 and ¶¶8, 35-36, 50-52, 88-89, 245-294, 469, 936, 1009 & 1066, discloses Predictive Inertia Algorithms, wherein an on-demand energy hydraulic actuator, where an electric motor is moved in lockstep with the active suspension movement (linear travel of the actuator) in at least one mode, is combined with an algorithm that predicts inertia of the electric motor and controls the motor torque to at least partially reduce the effect of inertia. Such a system employing predictive analytic algorithms that factor inertia in the active suspension control controls motor torque at a command torque lower than the desired torque during acceleration events [i.e., accelerating], and at a higher torque that the desired torque during deceleration events [i.e., braking]. Anderson further discloses for a hydraulic active suspension including a hydraulic motor-pump operatively coupled to an electric motor, a fast pothole hit to a wheel will create a surge in hydraulic fluid pressure and accelerate the hydraulic motor-pump and electric motor, wherein changes to the commanded motor torque 1-402 occur at a similar frequency over the presented time period to body acceleration 1-400, which is caused by wheel events such as bumps, hills, and potholes, and driver inputs such as turns, braking, etc.).
With respect to claim 30, Anderson as modified by Muragishi teaches the method of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Anderson further discloses wherein a system configured to operate the first actuator is a hydraulic active suspension system (Anderson, in at least Abstract, Fig. 1-4 and ¶¶6, 60, 113, 264 & 265, discloses an active suspension system in a vehicle between a wheel mount and a vehicle body comprising an actuator body [i.e., first actuator], e.g. the sprung mass, wherein active suspension system includes a hydraulic actuator, and an active hydraulic pump ripple cancellation is associated with electric motor/generator rotor position sensing in an active suspension … to actively attenuate hydraulic pressure ripple and greatly reduce undesirable vibrations in the active suspension system).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See attached and previously mailed PTO-892 forms.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 Tarek Elarabi whose telephone number is (313)446-4911. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday; 6:00 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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, Peter Nolan can be reached on (571)270-7016. 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.
/Tarek Elarabi, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661