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 .
Claims 1-3, 5-12, 20-24 and 31-51 have been examined.
Claims 40-51 have been added.
P = paragraph e.g. P[0001] = paragraph[0001]
Examiner’s Note:
The previous grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) necessitated by the limitation “non-backdriveable actuator” are withdrawn in view of the 08/12/2025 arguments and upon further consideration of the specification, where the argument “Applicant notes that a non-backdriveable actuator is a type of actuator that is well known in the art, and specific examples of which are provided in the specification, see for example, U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/953,191. (¶[0026]). As such, the Applicant is entitled to claim a "non-backdriveable actuator" because a person of skill would readily understand the scope of the invention and the language used is merely a type of actuator” which is an admission by the Applicant that the claimed “non-backdriveable actuator” is well-known in the art. Furthermore, the Examiner notes that P[0033] of the specification of the present application recites “locking a non-back-drivable actuator may correspond to electrical power not being provided to an associated actuator”, therefore, the claimed “non-backdriveable actuator” encompasses merely an actuator that is not being provided electrical power as confirmed by the Applicant’s specification.
While the previous specific ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) discussed above regarding the “non-backdriveable actuator” are withdraw, new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are necessitated by the 08/12/2025 claim amendments. See below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/12/2025 regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 08/12/2025 regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 of Claim 1 in view of Howard, the Applicant argues
“Shorting the leads of an actuator of Howard does not inherently or expressly disclose locking operation of at least one of the one or more actuators in response to a detected failure state given the plain and ordinary meaning of "locking operation" and "preventing movement". Instead, operating as a mechanical damper permits the actuator to move and thus cannot "lock" the one or more actuators or prevent the movement of the seat given the plain and ordinary meaning of these terms”.
However, the Applicant fails to provide any evidence that shows how the so-called “plain and ordinary meaning” of the claim limitations “locking operation of at least one of the one or more actuators; and preventing movement of the seat due to operation of the active seat suspension being locked” excludes the teachings of Howard of commanding a motor to enter its passive, clamped mode.
The Applicant also fails to provide any source or evidence defining what the Applicant considers the “plain and ordinary meaning” of the claim limitations “locking operation” and “preventing movement”. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation “locking operation” is an intended result, and Claim 1 does not recite any limitations that describe how this result is achieved. For example, there are no claim limitations reciting any algorithm or structure that is used to perform a “locking operation” of the “one or more actuators”. Therefore, the “locking operation” encompasses the teachings of Howard of commanding a motor to enter its passive, clamped mode.
Furthermore, the limitation “and preventing movement of the seat due to operation of the active seat suspension being locked” is entirely an intended use of intended result of the “locking operation” and does not further limit the claim. Therefore, under broadest reasonable interpretation, because the teachings of Howard of commanding a motor to enter its passive, clamped mode results in an associated seat no longer being controlled by the motor in the same manner that the seat was controlled when the motor is not in the passive, clamped mode, and the seat movement normally caused by the motor when not in the passive, clamped mode is prevented, resulting in “preventing movement of the seat due to operation of the active seat suspension being locked”. The claim encompasses simply preventing movement of the seat that would otherwise occur if the “operation” of the “active seat suspension” was not “locked”, where causing the motor of Howard to enter its passive, clamped mode will result in “locking” the “operation” of the motor with respect to operations when the motor is not in its passive, clamped mode. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 7, the Applicant argues “For reasons that should be apparent in view of the arguments articulated above in regards to claim 1, the combination of limitations recited in claim 7 are novel over Howard”. These arguments are not persuasive for the reasons given above with respect to the arguments directed to the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 31, the Applicant argues
“As noted above, in response to (the anticipated termination) of a rollover event, Howard teaches commanding the actuator to enter is passive, clamped mode, where it functions as a mechanical damper. As such, because the actuator operates as a mechanical damper (i.e., no commanded forces and/or movements), Howard cannot disclose outputting commanded forces and/or movements to its actuators within a limited force and/or movement range that is less than a normal force and/or movement range, and therefore Howard foes not anticipate the claimed invention”.
However, Howard teaches “…the motor is commanded to enter its passive, clamped mode, step 172” (Howard; see P[0048]), therefore, a command is in fact outputted by Howard, and the Applicant completely ignores this aspect of Howard and instead provides a conclusory statement that does not fully address the rejection as written. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive. Furthermore, the command of Howard will result in the motor being limited to operation in the passive, clamped mode, where the passive, clamped mode limits the “force range” that the motor would otherwise provide when not in the passive, clamped mode. Therefore, Howard teaches Claim 31, and the arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 32, the Applicant argues “For at least the reasons articulated in claim 31, claim 32 is novel over Howard”. These arguments are not persuasive for the reasons given above with respect to the arguments directed to the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 of Claim 31 in view of Parison, Jr. et al. (which will now be referred to as simply “Parison” for the remainder of this “Response to Arguments”), the Applicant argues
“This damping function slows movement to allow the plant "to settle gracefully to the lower bump stop." (See Parison Jr. at Col 14 lines 20-21). In view of the above, when the actuator of Parison Jr. is in the failure state, the actuator is still permitted to move when subject to the expected forces resulting from the weight of the plant. This is because the actuator of Parison is being operated as a damper in this shorted state and no command is being applied to control the force or displacement of the actuator in such a state. The Applicant respectfully submits that an actuator being operated as a passive damper cannot inherently or expressly disclose outputting commanded forces and/or movements to at least one actuator of the active seat suspension within a limited force and/or movement range that is less than a normal force and/or movement range of the at least one actuator. Claim 31 patentably distinguishes Parison for at least this reason”.
Regarding the argument “the actuator is still permitted to move when subject to the expected forces resulting from the weight of the plant”, the claim does not require some actuator that is impossible to move under any force, as this in fact would be impossible, as any actuator would move under a particular applied force that overcomes any resistance provided by the actuator. Therefore, for a force cannot overcome the resistance of the damper of Parison, the damper or actuator of Parison then is not “permitted to move” with respect to such a force.
Furthermore, Parison teaches a system to activate a damper, where movement of the actuator is limited when the damper is activated, which teaches “outputting commanded forces and/or movements to at least one actuator of the active seat suspension within a limited force and/or movement range that is less than a normal force and/or movement range of the at least one actuator”, and the Applicant provides no evidence showing that the claim excludes these teachings of Parison. Regarding the argument “no command is being applied to control the force or displacement of the actuator in such a state”, the claimed “outputting commanded forces and/or movements to at least one actuator of the active seat suspension within a limited force and/or movement range that is less than a normal force and/or movement range of the at least one actuator” encompasses outputting a command that results reduction or removal of the current that is “normally” used to control the actuator of Parison, such as the output current described in col.15, particularly lines 31-35 of Parison, where this current is reduced or removed when the actuator is controlled to act as a damper, and the actuator of Parison functioning as a damper will result in “less than a normal force and/or movement range of the at least one actuator” as opposed to when the actuator is not acting as a damper.
Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 32, the Applicant argues “For reasons that should be apparent in view of the arguments articulated above in regards to claim 31, the combination of limitations recited in claim 32 are novel over Parison Jr”. These arguments are not persuasive for the reasons given above with respect to the arguments directed to the rejection of Claim 31.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 of Claim 20 in view of Parison and Cortona et al. (which will now be referred to as simply “Cortona” for the remainder of this “Response to Arguments”), the Applicant argues
“As noted in the arguments for claim 31, Parison Jr. fails to implicitly or explicitly teach limiting the operation of the at least one actuator by limiting the commanded forces and/or movement ranges to be less than a normal force and/or movement range of the at least one actuator”.
This argument is not persuasive for the reasons given above with respect to the arguments directed to the rejection of Claim 31.
The Applicant further argues
“In addition to the above, one of skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify the active seat suspension system of Parison to operate using the methods of Cortona disclosed relative to the operation of an elevator as different operational needs, loads, and construction are present in each. Specifically, Parison discloses transitioning into a passive damped mode during a failure state.
Thus, it would not have been obvious to change this operation in a failure state because such a change to the commanded operation may not provide sufficient control of the active seat suspension to provide appropriate occupant comfort. Accordingly, absent improper hindsight a person of skill would not have been motivated to modify Parison in view of Cortona to operate in the claimed fashion. Claim 20 distinguishes the cited references for at least this reason”.
However, Cortona et al. teaches “Although the present invention has been specifically illustrated and described for use on d.c. linear actuators in an active ride control system to dampen vibrations of an elevator car 1, it will be appreciated that the thermal protection described herein can be applied to any electromagnetic actuator” (Cortona et al.; see P[0034]), therefore, as can be seen by simply reading P[0034] of Cortona et al., Cortona et al. is not limited to a technological environment of an elevator, and no hindsight is necessary to modify Parison with the teachings of Cortona et al., as the teachings of Cortona et al. may apply to “any electromagnetic actuator”, including the electromagnetic actuator of Parison.
Furthermore, Cortona et al. is not required to teach any limitations directed to controlling a seat, as Parison is relied upon to teach the claimed “active seat suspension in a vehicle”. Additionally, the motivation to modify Parison with the teachings of Cortona et al. is provided in the rejection, which is “so that “the actuator is protected from thermal deterioration and destruction” (Cortona et al.; see P[0006])”, and the Applicant provides no persuasive argument or evidence showing why a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would not find this a valid motivation to modify Parison with the teachings of Cortona et al.
Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
All other arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
All claims are rejected. See the new grounds of rejection.
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 42, 46 and 50 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.
As per Claim 42, the claim recites “wherein limiting operation of the at least one actuator further comprises applying a preset reduction to determine the output commanded force and/or movement range”.
The limitation “applying a preset reduction to determine the output commanded force and/or movement range” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear to what the “preset reduction” is applied. Additionally, it is unclear how application of a “preset reduction” somehow results in the limitation “to determine the output commanded force and/or movement range”, as there is no clear link in the claim between a reduction and a determination of an “output commanded force and/or movement range”, where a determination is a decision, not a reduction in some value.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
The limitation “to determine the output commanded force and/or movement range” is interpreted as an intended use, as supported by the use of “to” in this limitation.
As per Claim 46, the claim recites “wherein limiting operation of the at least one actuator further comprises applying a preset reduction to determine the output commanded force and/or movement range during the detected failure state”.
The limitation “applying a preset reduction to determine the output commanded force and/or movement range during the detected failure state” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear to what the “preset reduction” is applied. Additionally, it is unclear how application of a “preset reduction” somehow results in the limitation “to determine the output commanded force and/or movement range”, as there is no clear link in the claim between a reduction and a determination of an “output commanded force and/or movement range”, where a determination is a decision, not a reduction in some value.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
The limitation “to determine the output commanded force and/or movement range during the detected failure state” is interpreted as an intended use, as supported by the use of “to” in this limitation.
As per Claim 50, the claim recites “wherein the controller is configured to limit operation of the at least one actuator by applying a preset reduction to determine the output commanded force and/or movement range during the detected failure state”.
The limitation “applying a preset reduction to determine the output commanded force and/or movement range during the detected failure state” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear to what the “preset reduction” is applied. Additionally, it is unclear how application of a “preset reduction” somehow results in the limitation “to determine the output commanded force and/or movement range”, as there is no clear link in the claim between a reduction and a determination of an “output commanded force and/or movement range”, where a determination is a decision, not a reduction in some value.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
The limitation “to determine the output commanded force and/or movement range during the detected failure state” is interpreted as an intended use, as supported by the use of “to” in this limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-12, 31-35, 44, 46, 47, 48, 50 and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Howard (2016/0059755).
Examiner’s Note:
The Claim 1 limitation “and preventing movement of the seat due to operation of the active seat suspension being locked” is entirely an intended result of the claimed “locking operation of at least one of the one or more actuators”, therefore, the limitation “and preventing movement of the seat due to operation of the active seat suspension being locked” is directed to an intended use or intended result that does not further limit the claim.
Regarding Claim 1, Howard teaches the claimed method of operating an active seat suspension to control movement of a seat in a vehicle (“…active suspension system for a motor vehicle passenger seat…”, see Abstract), the method comprising:
detecting a failure state of the active seat suspension (“…detection of a rollover event, step 162”, see P[0048], where the Examiner emphasizes for the record that as seen in Claim 5 of the present application, a “failure state of the active seat suspension” includes events that are not actually directly associated with a failure of the “active seat suspension”, and include a “vehicle rollover” as seen in Claim 5);
limiting operation of one or more actuators of the active seat suspension in response to the detected failure state (“…the motor is commanded to enter its passive, clamped mode, step 172”, see P[0048]) wherein limiting operation of the one or more actuators includes: [[; and]]
locking operation of at least one of the one or more actuators (“…the motor is commanded to enter its passive, clamped mode, step 172”, see P[0048]); and
preventing movement of the seat due to operation of the active seat suspension being locked (“…the motor is commanded to enter its passive, clamped mode, step 172”, see P[0048]).
Regarding Claim 2, Howard teaches the claimed method of claim 1, wherein the active seat suspension includes at least a first actuator and a second actuator (see P[0011]), and wherein limiting operation of the one or more actuators includes limiting operation of the first actuator (see P[0048]).
Regarding Claim 3, Howard teaches the claimed method of claim 2, further comprising operating the second actuator to control motion of a seat connected to the active seat suspension in at least one direction (“…the first actuator is constructed and arranged to place force on the seat in a first degree of freedom of the seat and the second actuator is constructed and arranged to place force on the seat in a second degree of freedom of the seat that is different from the first degree of freedom…”, see P[0010]).
Regarding Claim 5, Howard teaches the claimed method of claim 1, wherein the failure state is at least one of an actuator failure, a sensor failure, vehicle rollover, and an obstruction of the active seat suspension (“…detection of a rollover event, step 162”, see P[0048]).
Regarding Claim 6, Howard teaches the claimed method of claim 1, wherein detecting the failure state is based at least partly on at least one or more of an actuator temperature, an actuator current, a seat acceleration, a vehicle acceleration, and an actuator position (see P[0029] and P[0051]).
Regarding Claim 7, Howard teaches the claimed active seat suspension of a vehicle (“…active suspension system for a motor vehicle passenger seat…”, see Abstract) comprising:
at least one actuator constructed to be operatively coupled to a seat to control movement of the seat in at least one direction relative to an underlying portion of the vehicle (“Active suspension system 10, FIG. 1, uses actuator 14 to place forces on motor vehicle seat 12. Actuator 14 is coupled (either directly or indirectly) to both seat 12 and another portion of the motor vehicle, which in this non-limiting example is the cabin floor 20. Actuator 14 in this example applies forces linearly along first degree of freedom “A,” which here is vertically up and down. This can move (translate) the seat up and down. Actuator 14 may be an electromagnetic actuator, for example a linear motor or a rotary actuator with a rotary to linear motion transmission, as is known in the art. Actuator 14 can alternatively be hydraulically or pneumatically actuated”, see P[0025] and “…the motor is commanded to enter its passive, clamped mode, step 172”, see P[0048]); and
a controller operatively coupled to the at least one actuator (“Control system 18…”, see P[0026] and FIG. 1 and “…the motor is commanded to enter its passive, clamped mode, step 172”, see P[0048]), wherein the controller is constructed and arranged to detect a failure state of the active seat suspension (“…detection of a rollover event, step 162”, see P[0048], where the Examiner emphasizes for the record that as seen in Claim 5 of the present application, a “failure state of the active seat suspension” includes events that are not actually directly associated with a failure of the “active seat suspension”, and include a “vehicle rollover” as seen in Claim 5), and wherein the controller is constructed and arranged to limit operation of the at least one actuator in response to the detected failure state (“…the motor is commanded to enter its passive, clamped mode, step 172”, see P[0048]);
wherein the controller is configured to lock operation of the at least one actuator to limit operation of the at least one actuator, and wherein the at least one actuator is configured to prevent movement of the seat when operation of the at least one actuator is locked (“…the motor is commanded to enter its passive, clamped mode, step 172”, see P[0048]).
Regarding Claim 8, Howard teaches the claimed active seat suspension of claim 7, wherein the active seat suspension includes at least a first actuator and a second actuator (see P[0011]), and wherein in at least one operating mode the controller limits operation of the first actuator (see P[0048]).
Regarding Claim 9, Howard teaches the claimed active seat suspension of claim 8, wherein in the at least one operating mode the controller operates the second actuator to control motion of the seat in at least one direction (“…the first actuator is constructed and arranged to place force on the seat in a first degree of freedom of the seat and the second actuator is constructed and arranged to place force on the seat in a second degree of freedom of the seat that is different from the first degree of freedom…”, see P[0010]).
Regarding Claim 10, Howard teaches the claimed active seat suspension of claim 7, wherein each actuator of the at least one actuator includes a lock configured to lock operation of the at least one actuator the lock is included on (“…linear motor 56…”, see P[0042]), and wherein the controller is operatively coupled to the lock of each actuator of the at least one actuator to selectively move the lock between a locked and unlocked configuration (“…the motor is commanded to enter its passive, clamped mode, step 172”, see P[0048]).
Regarding Claim 11, Howard teaches the claimed active seat suspension of claim 7, wherein the failure state is at least one of an actuator failure, a sensor failure, vehicle rollover, and an obstruction of the active seat suspension (“…detection of a rollover event, step 162”, see P[0048]).
Regarding Claim 12, Howard teaches the claimed active seat suspension of claim 7, further comprising one or more sensors operatively coupled to the controller, wherein the one or more sensors are configured to detect one or more of an actuator temperature, an actuator current, a seat acceleration, a vehicle acceleration, and an actuator position, and wherein the controller detects the failure state based at least partly on information received from the one or more sensors (see P[0029] and P[0051]).
Regarding Claim 31, Howard teaches the claimed method of operating an active seat suspension in a vehicle (“…active suspension system for a motor vehicle passenger seat…”, see Abstract), the method comprising:
detecting a failure state of the active seat suspension (“…detection of a rollover event, step 162”, see P[0048], where the Examiner emphasizes for the record that as seen in Claim 5 of the present application, a “failure state of the active seat suspension” includes events that are not actually directly associated with a failure of the “active seat suspension”, and include a “vehicle rollover” as seen in Claim 5); and
limiting operation of one or more actuators of the active seat suspension in response to the detected failure state (“…the motor is commanded to enter its passive, clamped mode, step 172”, see P[0048]);
wherein limiting operation of the one or more actuators comprises outputting commanded forces and/or movements to at least one actuator of the active seat suspension within a limited force and/or movement range that is less than a normal force and/or movement range of the at least one actuator (“…the motor is commanded to enter its passive, clamped mode, step 172”, see P[0048]).
Regarding Claim 32, Howard teaches the claimed active seat suspension of a vehicle (“…active suspension system for a motor vehicle passenger seat…”, see Abstract) comprising:
at least one actuator constructed to be operatively coupled to a seat to control movement of the seat in at least one direction relative to an underlying portion of the vehicle (“Active suspension system 10, FIG. 1, uses actuator 14 to place forces on motor vehicle seat 12. Actuator 14 is coupled (either directly or indirectly) to both seat 12 and another portion of the motor vehicle, which in this non-limiting example is the cabin floor 20. Actuator 14 in this example applies forces linearly along first degree of freedom “A,” which here is vertically up and down. This can move (translate) the seat up and down. Actuator 14 may be an electromagnetic actuator, for example a linear motor or a rotary actuator with a rotary to linear motion transmission, as is known in the art. Actuator 14 can alternatively be hydraulically or pneumatically actuated”, see P[0025] and “…the motor is commanded to enter its passive, clamped mode, step 172”, see P[0048]); and
a controller operatively coupled to the at least one actuator and configured to output commanded forces and/or movements to the at least one actuator (“Control system 18…”, see P[0026] and FIG. 1 and “…the motor is commanded to enter its passive, clamped mode, step 172”, see P[0048]), wherein the controller is constructed and arranged to detect a failure state of the active seat suspension (“…detection of a rollover event, step 162”, see P[0048], where the Examiner emphasizes for the record that as seen in Claim 5 of the present application, a “failure state of the active seat suspension” includes events that are not actually directly associated with a failure of the “active seat suspension”, and include a “vehicle rollover” as seen in Claim 5), and wherein the controller is constructed and arranged to limit operation of the at least one actuator by reducing the commanded forces and/or movements to be within a limited force and/or movement range that is less than a normal force and/or movement range of the at least one actuator in response to the detected failure state (“…the motor is commanded to enter its passive, clamped mode, step 172”, see P[0048]).;
wherein limiting operation of the at least one actuator comprises limiting a force applied by the at least one actuator and/or limiting a motion range of the at least one actuator (“…the motor is commanded to enter its passive, clamped mode, step 172”, see P[0048]).
Regarding Claim 33, Howard teaches the claimed method of claim 31, wherein the movement (“…the motor is commanded to enter its passive, clamped mode, step 172”, see P[0048]).
Regarding Claim 34, Howard teaches the claimed active seat suspension of claim 32, wherein the movement motion range of the at least one actuator is a controlled motion range (“…the motor is commanded to enter its passive, clamped mode, step 172”, see P[0048]).
Regarding Claim 35, Howard teaches the claimed method of claim 1, wherein locking operation of the at least one of the one or more actuators comprises actuating a lock to prevent movement of the at least one of the one or more actuators (“…the motor is commanded to enter its passive, clamped mode, step 172”, see P[0048]).
Regarding Claim 44, Howard teaches the claimed method of claim 31, wherein limiting operation of the at least one actuator further comprises changing a control parameter used to determine the output commanded force and/or movement range during the detected failure state (“…the motor is commanded to enter its passive, clamped mode, step 172”, see P[0048]).
Regarding Claim 46, Howard teaches the claimed method of claim 31, wherein limiting operation of the at least one actuator further comprises applying a preset reduction to determine the output commanded force and/or movement range during the detected failure state (“…where current to the motor is limited to a smaller value than normal operating mode or to zero, thus de-energizing the motor, and the motor is clamped”, see P[0047] and “…the motor is commanded to enter its passive, clamped mode, step 172”, see P[0048]).
Regarding Claim 47, Howard teaches the claimed method of claim 31, wherein outputting commanded forces and/or movement comprises outputting a commanded current (“…where current to the motor is limited to a smaller value than normal operating mode or to zero, thus de-energizing the motor, and the motor is clamped”, see P[0047] and “…the motor is commanded to enter its passive, clamped mode, step 172”, see P[0048]).
Regarding Claim 48, Howard teaches the claimed active seat suspension of claim 32, wherein the controller is configured to limit operation of the at least one actuator by changing a control parameter used to determine the output commanded force and/or movement range during the detected failure state (“…the motor is commanded to enter its passive, clamped mode, step 172”, see P[0048]).
Regarding Claim 50, Howard teaches the claimed active seat suspension of claim 32, wherein the controller is configured to limit operation of the at least one actuator by applying a preset reduction to determine the output commanded force and/or movement range during the detected failure state (“…where current to the motor is limited to a smaller value than normal operating mode or to zero, thus de-energizing the motor, and the motor is clamped”, see P[0047] and “…the motor is commanded to enter its passive, clamped mode, step 172”, see P[0048]).
Regarding Claim 51, Howard teaches the claimed active seat suspension of claim 32, wherein the output commanded force and/or movement range is an output commanded current (“…where current to the motor is limited to a smaller value than normal operating mode or to zero, thus de-energizing the motor, and the motor is clamped”, see P[0047] and “…the motor is commanded to enter its passive, clamped mode, step 172”, see P[0048]).
Claims 31-34, 48, 50 and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Parison, Jr. et al. (8,781,681).
Regarding Claim 31, Parison, Jr. et al. teaches the claimed method of operating an active seat suspension in a vehicle (“…actively-suspended plant 10…” and “…used in any moving vehicle…”, see col.3, particularly lines 27-67), the method comprising:
detecting a failure state of the active seat suspension (“As shown in FIG. 9, the failure detector 112 is provided with information indicative of the state of the real plant 16. This information can include, for example, the position and acceleration signals. On the basis of this information, the failure detector 112 determines whether it is necessary to dampen the motion of the plant 16. A suitable damper for use in connection with an actuator 12”, see col.14, particularly lines 27-35); and
limiting operation of one or more actuators of the active seat suspension in response to the detected failure state (“The real plant control signal is ultimately used to modulate an output current of an amplifier 106, as shown in FIG. 18. This output current is ultimately provided to an electromagnetic actuator 28. Fluctuations in the control signal result in fluctuations in this output current”, see col.15, particularly lines 31-35 and “In normal operation, the current through the coil generates a magnetic field that controls the position of the armature. Upon detection of failure, the leads of the coil are shorted, or clamped together. Under these circumstances, Lenz's law will operate to induce a current in the coil that generates a magnetic field tending to resist movement of the armature. As a result, the electromagnetic actuator functions as a damper”, see col.14, particularly lines 56-67, and col.15, particularly lines 1-17);
wherein limiting operation of the one or more actuators comprises outputting commanded forces and/or movements to at least one actuator of the active seat suspension within a limited force and/or movement range that is less than a normal force and/or movement range of the at least one actuator (“The real plant control signal is ultimately used to modulate an output current of an amplifier 106, as shown in FIG. 18. This output current is ultimately provided to an electromagnetic actuator 28. Fluctuations in the control signal result in fluctuations in this output current”, see col.15, particularly lines 31-35 and “In normal operation, the current through the coil generates a magnetic field that controls the position of the armature. Upon detection of failure, the leads of the coil are shorted, or clamped together. Under these circumstances, Lenz's law will operate to induce a current in the coil that generates a magnetic field tending to resist movement of the armature. As a result, the electromagnetic actuator functions as a damper”, see col.14, particularly lines 56-67).
Regarding Claim 32, Parison, Jr. et al. teaches the claimed active seat suspension of a vehicle (“…actively-suspended plant 10…” and “…used in any moving vehicle…”, see col.3, particularly lines 27-67) comprising:
at least one actuator constructed to be operatively coupled to a seat to control movement of the seat in at least one direction relative to an underlying portion of the vehicle (“…electromagnetic actuator 28”, see col.14, particularly lines 56-67 and FIG. 1); and
a controller operatively coupled to the at least one actuator and configured to output commanded forces and/or movements to the at least one actuator, wherein the controller is constructed and arranged to detect a failure state of the active seat suspension (“As shown in FIG. 9, the failure detector 112 is provided with information indicative of the state of the real plant 16. This information can include, for example, the position and acceleration signals. On the basis of this information, the failure detector 112 determines whether it is necessary to dampen the motion of the plant 16. A suitable damper for use in connection with an actuator 12”, see col.14, particularly lines 27-35), and wherein the controller is constructed and arranged to limit operation of the at least one actuator by reducing the commanded forces and/or movements to be within a limited force and/or movement range that is less than a normal force and/or movement range of the at least one actuator in response to the detected failure state (“The real plant control signal is ultimately used to modulate an output current of an amplifier 106, as shown in FIG. 18. This output current is ultimately provided to an electromagnetic actuator 28. Fluctuations in the control signal result in fluctuations in this output current”, see col.15, particularly lines 31-35 and “In normal operation, the current through the coil generates a magnetic field that controls the position of the armature. Upon detection of failure, the leads of the coil are shorted, or clamped together. Under these circumstances, Lenz's law will operate to induce a current in the coil that generates a magnetic field tending to resist movement of the armature. As a result, the electromagnetic actuator functions as a damper”, see col.14, particularly lines 56-67, and col.15, particularly lines 1-17)
.
Regarding Claim 33, Parison, Jr. et al. teaches the claimed method of claim 31, wherein the movement (“The real plant control signal is ultimately used to modulate an output current of an amplifier 106, as shown in FIG. 18. This output current is ultimately provided to an electromagnetic actuator 28. Fluctuations in the control signal result in fluctuations in this output current”, see col.15, particularly lines 31-35 and “In normal operation, the current through the coil generates a magnetic field that controls the position of the armature. Upon detection of failure, the leads of the coil are shorted, or clamped together. Under these circumstances, Lenz's law will operate to induce a current in the coil that generates a magnetic field tending to resist movement of the armature. As a result, the electromagnetic actuator functions as a damper”, see col.14, particularly lines 56-67).
Regarding Claim 34, Parison, Jr. et al. teaches the claimed active seat suspension of claim 32, wherein the movement (“The real plant control signal is ultimately used to modulate an output current of an amplifier 106, as shown in FIG. 18. This output current is ultimately provided to an electromagnetic actuator 28. Fluctuations in the control signal result in fluctuations in this output current”, see col.15, particularly lines 31-35 and “In normal operation, the current through the coil generates a magnetic field that controls the position of the armature. Upon detection of failure, the leads of the coil are shorted, or clamped together. Under these circumstances, Lenz's law will operate to induce a current in the coil that generates a magnetic field tending to resist movement of the armature. As a result, the electromagnetic actuator functions as a damper”, see col.14, particularly lines 56-67).
Regarding Claim 48, Parison, Jr. et al. teaches the claimed active seat suspension of claim 32, wherein the controller is configured to limit operation of the at least one actuator by changing a control parameter used to determine the output commanded force and/or movement range during the detected failure state (“The real plant control signal is ultimately used to modulate an output current of an amplifier 106, as shown in FIG. 18. This output current is ultimately provided to an electromagnetic actuator 28. Fluctuations in the control signal result in fluctuations in this output current”, see col.15, particularly lines 31-35 and “In normal operation, the current through the coil generates a magnetic field that controls the position of the armature. Upon detection of failure, the leads of the coil are shorted, or clamped together. Under these circumstances, Lenz's law will operate to induce a current in the coil that generates a magnetic field tending to resist movement of the armature. As a result, the electromagnetic actuator functions as a damper”, see col.14, particularly lines 56-67).
Regarding Claim 50, Parison, Jr. et al. teaches the claimed active seat suspension of claim 32, wherein the controller is configured to limit operation of the at least one actuator by applying a preset reduction to determine the output commanded force and/or movement range during the detected failure state (“…the illustrated power supply 107 limits the power consumption of the actuator should a malfunction or instability occur. In one embodiment, the capacitors are chosen such that the stored energy can be dissipated to disable the amplifier within 55 milliseconds should a malfunction or instability occur”, see col.16, particularly lines 34-48 and “The real plant control signal is ultimately used to modulate an output current of an amplifier 106, as shown in FIG. 18. This output current is ultimately provided to an electromagnetic actuator 28. Fluctuations in the control signal result in fluctuations in this output current”, see col.15, particularly lines 31-35 and “In normal operation, the current through the coil generates a magnetic field that controls the position of the armature. Upon detection of failure, the leads of the coil are shorted, or clamped together. Under these circumstances, Lenz's law will operate to induce a current in the coil that generates a magnetic field tending to resist movement of the armature. As a result, the electromagnetic actuator functions as a damper”, see col.14, particularly lines 56-67).
Regarding Claim 51, Parison, Jr. et al. does not expressly recite the claimed active seat suspension of claim 32, wherein the output commanded force and/or movement range is an output commanded current (“The real plant control signal is ultimately used to modulate an output current of an amplifier 106, as shown in FIG. 18. This output current is ultimately provided to an electromagnetic actuator 28. Fluctuations in the control signal result in fluctuations in this output current”, see col.15, particularly lines 31-35 and “In normal operation, the current through the coil generates a magnetic field that controls the position of the armature. Upon detection of failure, the leads of the coil are shorted, or clamped together. Under these circumstances, Lenz's law will operate to induce a current in the coil that generates a magnetic field tending to resist movement of the armature. As a result, the electromagnetic actuator functions as a damper”, see col.14, particularly lines 56-67).
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 20 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard (2016/0059755) in view of Cortona et al. (EP1547958A1).
Regarding Claim 20, Howard teaches the claimed method of operating an active seat suspension in a vehicle (“…active suspension system for a motor vehicle passenger seat…”, see Abstract), the method comprising:
…; and
limiting operation of the active seat suspension…(“…the motor is commanded to enter its passive, clamped mode, step 172”, see P[0048]);
wherein limiting operation of the at least one actuator comprises outputting commanded forces and/or movements to the at least one actuator within a limited force and/or movement range that is less than a normal force and/or movement range of the at least one actuator (“…the motor is commanded to enter its passive, clamped mode, step 172”, see P[0048]).
Howard does not expressly recite the bolded portions of the claimed
sensing a temperature of at least one actuator of the active seat suspension;
detecting that a rate of change and/or a magnitude of the temperature is greater than a first threshold; and
limiting operation of the active seat suspension to reduce the temperature of the at least one actuator.
However, steps to protect devices from damage caused by temperatures above a threshold is conventional in the art, where Cortona et al. (EP1547958A1) teaches restricting a current supplied to an actuator if the determined temperature of the actuator exceeds a predetermined temperature (Cortona et al.; see Abstract, P[0006] and P[0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Howard with the teachings of Cortona et al., and to perform sensing a temperature of at least one actuator of the active seat suspension, detecting that a rate of change and/or a magnitude of the temperature is greater than a first threshold, and limiting operation of the active seat suspension to reduce the temperature of the at least one actuator, as rendered obvious by Cortona et al., so that “the actuator is protected from thermal deterioration and destruction” (Cortona et al.; see P[0006]).
Regarding Claim 22, Howard does not expressly recite the claimed method of claim 20, wherein the first threshold is a first temperature threshold, and wherein the temperature is greater than the first temperature threshold.
However, Cortona et al. (EP1547958A1) teaches restricting a current supplied to an actuator if the determined temperature of the actuator exceeds a predetermined temperature (Cortona et al.; see Abstract, P[0006] and P[0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Howard with the teachings of Cortona et al., and wherein the first threshold is a first temperature threshold, and wherein the temperature is greater than the first temperature threshold, as rendered obvious by Cortona et al., so that “the actuator is protected from thermal deterioration and destruction” (Cortona et al.; see P[0006]).
Regarding Claim 23, Howard does not expressly recite the claimed method of claim 20, further comprising locking operation of the at least one actuator of the active seat suspension if the temperature is greater than a second threshold temperature that is greater than the first threshold.
However, Cortona et al. (EP1547958A1) teaches restricting a current supplied to an actuator if the determined temperature of the actuator exceeds a predetermined temperature (Cortona et al.; see Abstract, P[0006] and P[0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Howard with the teachings of Cortona et al., and for the method to further be comprised of locking operation of the at least one actuator of the active seat suspension if the temperature is greater than a second threshold temperature that is greater than the first threshold, as rendered obvious by Cortona et al., so that “the actuator is protected from thermal deterioration and destruction” (Cortona et al.; see P[0006]).
Regarding Claim 24, Howard does not expressly recite the claimed method of claim 20, wherein the first threshold is a first threshold temperature, and further comprising continuously changing a gain of a current commanded for the at least one actuator at temperatures greater than the first threshold temperature.
However, Cortona et al. (EP1547958A1) teaches restricting a current supplied to an actuator if the determined temperature of the actuator exceeds a predetermined lower threshold of temperature, and where no current is provided if the temperature exceeds an upper threshold of temperature (Cortona et al.; see Abstract, P[0006] and P[0027]), where a person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious and in fact trivial to control current to use a gain or any variable of any type to change the value of the current.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Howard with the teachings of Cortona et al., and wherein the first threshold is a first threshold temperature, and further comprising continuously changing a gain of a current commanded for the at least one actuator at temperatures greater than the first threshold temperature, as rendered obvious by Cortona et al., so that “the actuator is protected from thermal deterioration and destruction” (Cortona et al.; see P[0006]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard (2016/0059755) in view of Cortona et al. (EP1547958A1) further in view of Benson et al. (2014/0306628).
Regarding Claim 21, Howard does not expressly recite the claimed method of claim 20, wherein the first threshold is a first rate of temperature change threshold, and wherein the rate of change of the temperature is greater than the first rate of temperature change threshold.
However, steps to protect devices from damage caused by temperatures above a threshold is conventional in the art, where Cortona et al. (EP1547958A1) teaches restricting a current supplied to an actuator if the determined temperature of the actuator exceeds a predetermined temperature (Cortona et al.; see Abstract, P[0006] and P[0027]).
Furthermore, it is conventional in the art to use a temperature or a rate of change of temperature when diagnosing an actuator, as seen in Benson et al. (2014/0306628), who teaches using a temperature or rate of change of temperature of a device to determine a strategy to prevent overheating of the device, where a temperature rate of change at a rate greater than desired may be determined (Benson et al; see P[0060]-P[0062], also see P[0004]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Howard with the teachings of Cortona et al. and Benson et al., and wherein the first threshold is a first rate of temperature change threshold, and wherein the rate of change of the temperature is greater than the first rate of temperature change threshold, as rendered obvious by Cortona et al., so that “the actuator is protected from thermal deterioration and destruction” (Cortona et al.; see P[0006]).
Claims 36 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard (2016/0059755) in view of Tomioka (JP2015021536A).
Regarding Claim 36, Howard does not expressly recite the claimed method of claim 35, wherein the lock comprises at least one selected from:
a solenoid including an interlocking pin and groove arrangement, or a friction brake.
However, Tomioka (JP2015021536A) teaches a lock mechanism of an actuator comprising a solenoid including an interlocking pin and groove arrangement (Tomioka; see P[0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Howard with the teachings of Tomioka, and wherein the lock comprises at least one selected from a solenoid including an interlocking pin and groove arrangement, or a friction brake, as rendered obvious by Tomioka, in order to provide “a lock mechanism that restricts the expansion and contraction of a telescopic actuator provided in a suspension” (Tomioka; see P[0001]).
Regarding Claim 39, Howard teaches the claimed active seat suspension of claim 10, wherein the lock comprises at least one selected from: a solenoid including an interlocking pin and groove arrangement, or a friction brake.
However, Tomioka (JP2015021536A) teaches a lock mechanism of an actuator comprising a solenoid including an interlocking pin and groove arrangement (Tomioka; see P[0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Howard with the teachings of Tomioka, and wherein the lock comprises at least one selected from a solenoid including an interlocking pin and groove arrangement, or a friction brake, as rendered obvious by Tomioka, in order to provide “a lock mechanism that restricts the expansion and contraction of a telescopic actuator provided in a suspension” (Tomioka; see P[0001]).
Claims 37 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard (2016/0059755) in view of Napau et al. (2010/0237216).
Regarding Claim 37, Howard teaches the claimed method of claim 1,…, and wherein locking operation of the at least one …actuator …actuator …actuator (“…where current to the motor is limited to a smaller value than normal operating mode or to zero, thus de-energizing the motor, and the motor is clamped”, see P[0047] and “…the motor is commanded to enter its passive, clamped mode, step 172”, see P[0048]) .
Howard does not expressly recite the bold portions of the claimed
wherein the at least one of the one or more actuators is a non-backdriveable actuator, and wherein locking operation of the at least one non-backdriveable actuator comprises not operating the at least one non-backdriveable actuator to prevent movement of the at least one non-backdriveable actuator.
However, Napau et al. (2010/0237216) teaches an anti-backdrive drive system of a power seat (Napau et al.; see P[0009] and P[0090]-P[0100]), which renders obvious the use of an actuator that is “non-backdriveable”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Howard with the teachings of Napau et al., and wherein the at least one of the one or more actuators is a non-backdriveable actuator, and wherein locking operation of the at least one non-backdriveable actuator comprises not operating the at least one non-backdriveable actuator to prevent movement of the at least one non-backdriveable actuator, as rendered obvious by Napau et al., in order to provide “an anti-backdrive mechanism to adjust a position of a seat in an automotive vehicle” (Napau et al.; see P[0011]).
Regarding Claim 38, Howard teaches the claimed active seat suspension of claim 7,…, and wherein locking operation of the …actuator comprises not operating the …actuator to prevent movement of the …actuator (“…where current to the motor is limited to a smaller value than normal operating mode or to zero, thus de-energizing the motor, and the motor is clamped”, see P[0047] and “…the motor is commanded to enter its passive, clamped mode, step 172”, see P[0048]).
Howard does not expressly recite the bold portions of the claimed
wherein the at least one actuator is a non-backdriveable actuator, and wherein locking operation of the non-backdriveable actuator comprises not operating the non-backdriveable actuator to prevent movement of the non-backdriveable actuator.
However, Napau et al. (2010/0237216) teaches an anti-backdrive drive system of a power seat (Napau et al.; see P[0009] and P[0090]-P[0100]), which renders obvious the use of an actuator that is “non-backdriveable”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Howard with the teachings of Napau et al., and wherein the at least one actuator is a non-backdriveable actuator, and wherein locking operation of the non-backdriveable actuator comprises not operating the non-backdriveable actuator to prevent movement of the non-backdriveable actuator, as rendered obvious by Napau et al., in order to provide “an anti-backdrive mechanism to adjust a position of a seat in an automotive vehicle” (Napau et al.; see P[0011]).
Claims 45 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard (2016/0059755) in view of Shinjo et al. (JPH11115602A).
Regarding Claim 45, Howard does not expressly recite the claimed method of claim 31, wherein limiting operation of the at least one actuator further comprises reducing a gain used to determine the output commanded force and/or movement range during the detected failure state.
However, Shinjo et al. (JPH11115602A) teaches controlling a displacement of a seat by adjusting a control gain including controlling actuators by reducing the control gain, where the actuators may be controlled by an electric motor (Shinjo et al.; see P[0009]-P[0010] and P[0018]), which a person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious in view of Shinjo et al. to achieve the “limiting operation” by “reducing a gain”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Howard with the teachings of Shinjo et al., and wherein limiting operation of the at least one actuator further comprises reducing a gain used to determine the output commanded force and/or movement range during the detected failure state, as rendered obvious by Shinjo et al., in order to “improve driving feeling of a driver” (Shinjo et al.; see “Overview”).
Regarding Claim 49, Howard does not expressly recite the claimed active seat suspension of claim 32, wherein the controller is configured to limit operation of the at least one actuator by reducing a gain used to determine the output commanded force and/or movement range during the detected failure state.
However, Shinjo et al. (JPH11115602A) teaches controlling a displacement of a seat by adjusting a control gain including controlling actuators by reducing the control gain, where the actuators may be controlled by an electric motor (Shinjo et al.; see P[0009]-P[0010] and P[0018]), which a person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious in view of Shinjo et al. to achieve the “limiting operation” by “reducing a gain”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Howard with the teachings of Shinjo et al., and wherein the controller is configured to limit operation of the at least one actuator by reducing a gain used to determine the output commanded force and/or movement range during the detected failure state, as rendered obvious by Shinjo et al., in order to “improve driving feeling of a driver” (Shinjo et al.; see “Overview”).
Claims 20, 22-24, 40, 42 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parison, Jr. et al. (8,781,681) in view of Cortona et al. (EP1547958A1).
Regarding Claim 20, Parison, Jr. et al. teaches the claimed method of operating an active seat suspension in a vehicle (“…actively-suspended plant 10…” and “…used in any moving vehicle…”, see col.3, particularly lines 27-67), the method comprising:
…; and
limiting operation of the active seat suspension…(“The real plant control signal is ultimately used to modulate an output current of an amplifier 106, as shown in FIG. 18. This output current is ultimately provided to an electromagnetic actuator 28. Fluctuations in the control signal result in fluctuations in this output current”, see col.15, particularly lines 31-35 and “In normal operation, the current through the coil generates a magnetic field that controls the position of the armature. Upon detection of failure, the leads of the coil are shorted, or clamped together. Under these circumstances, Lenz's law will operate to induce a current in the coil that generates a magnetic field tending to resist movement of the armature. As a result, the electromagnetic actuator functions as a damper”, see col.14, particularly lines 56-67);
wherein limiting operation of the at least one actuator comprises outputting commanded forces and/or movements to the at least one actuator within a limited force and/or movement range that is less than a normal force and/or movement range of the at least one actuator (“The real plant control signal is ultimately used to modulate an output current of an amplifier 106, as shown in FIG. 18. This output current is ultimately provided to an electromagnetic actuator 28. Fluctuations in the control signal result in fluctuations in this output current”, see col.15, particularly lines 31-35 and “In normal operation, the current through the coil generates a magnetic field that controls the position of the armature. Upon detection of failure, the leads of the coil are shorted, or clamped together. Under these circumstances, Lenz's law will operate to induce a current in the coil that generates a magnetic field tending to resist movement of the armature. As a result, the electromagnetic actuator functions as a damper”, see col.14, particularly lines 56-67).
Parison, Jr. et al. does not expressly recite the bolded portions of the claimed
sensing a temperature of at least one actuator of the active seat suspension;
detecting that a rate of change and/or a magnitude of the temperature is greater than a first threshold; and
limiting operation of the active seat suspension to reduce the temperature of the at least one actuator.
Parison, Jr. et al. does teach the “limiting” in response to a detected failure (see col.14, particularly lines 7-26 as cited above), but does not teach the use of temperature as claimed.
However, steps to protect devices from damage caused by temperatures above a threshold is conventional in the art, where Cortona et al. (EP1547958A1) teaches restricting a current supplied to an actuator if the determined temperature of the actuator exceeds a predetermined temperature (Cortona et al.; see Abstract, P[0006] and P[0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Parison, Jr. et al. with the teachings of Cortona et al., and to perform sensing a temperature of at least one actuator of the active seat suspension, detecting that a rate of change and/or a magnitude of the temperature is greater than a first threshold, and limiting operation of the active seat suspension to reduce the temperature of the at least one actuator, as rendered obvious by Cortona et al., so that “the actuator is protected from thermal deterioration and destruction” (Cortona et al.; see P[0006]).
Regarding Claim 22, Parison, Jr. et al. does not expressly recite the claimed method of claim 20, wherein the first threshold is a first temperature threshold, and wherein the temperature is greater than the first temperature threshold.
However, Cortona et al. (EP1547958A1) teaches restricting a current supplied to an actuator if the determined temperature of the actuator exceeds a predetermined temperature (Cortona et al.; see Abstract, P[0006] and P[0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Parison, Jr. et al. with the teachings of Cortona et al., and wherein the first threshold is a first temperature threshold, and wherein the temperature is greater than the first temperature threshold, as rendered obvious by Cortona et al., so that “the actuator is protected from thermal deterioration and destruction” (Cortona et al.; see P[0006]).
Regarding Claim 23, Parison, Jr. et al. does not expressly recite the claimed method of claim 20, further comprising locking operation of the at least one actuator of the active seat suspension if the temperature is greater than a second threshold temperature that is greater than the first threshold.
However, Parison, Jr. et al. does teach the equivalent of “locking operation” of an actuator by restricting movement of an actuator through damping forces (see col.14, particularly lines 7-26 and col.14, particularly lines 56-67 as cited in the parent claim rejection).
Furthermore, Cortona et al. (EP1547958A1) teaches restricting a current supplied to an actuator if the determined temperature of the actuator exceeds a predetermined temperature (Cortona et al.; see Abstract, P[0006] and P[0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Parison, Jr. et al. with the teachings of Cortona et al., and for the method to further be comprised of locking operation of the at least one actuator of the active seat suspension if the temperature is greater than a second threshold temperature that is greater than the first threshold, as rendered obvious by Cortona et al., so that “the actuator is protected from thermal deterioration and destruction” (Cortona et al.; see P[0006]).
Regarding Claim 24, Parison, Jr. et al. does not expressly recite the claimed method of claim 20, wherein the first threshold is a first threshold temperature, and further comprising continuously changing a gain of a current commanded for the at least one actuator at temperatures greater than the first threshold temperature.
However, Cortona et al. (EP1547958A1) teaches restricting a current supplied to an actuator if the determined temperature of the actuator exceeds a predetermined lower threshold of temperature, and where no current is provided if the temperature exceeds an upper threshold of temperature (Cortona et al.; see Abstract, P[0006] and P[0027]), where a person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious and in fact trivial to control current to use a gain or any variable of any type to change the value of the current.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Parison, Jr. et al. with the teachings of Cortona et al., and wherein the first threshold is a first threshold temperature, and further comprising continuously changing a gain of a current commanded for the at least one actuator at temperatures greater than the first threshold temperature, as rendered obvious by Cortona et al., so that “the actuator is protected from thermal deterioration and destruction” (Cortona et al.; see P[0006]).
Regarding Claim 40, Parison, Jr. et al. teaches the claimed method of claim 20, wherein limiting operation of the at least one actuator further comprises changing a control parameter used to determine the output commanded force and/or movement range (“The real plant control signal is ultimately used to modulate an output current of an amplifier 106, as shown in FIG. 18. This output current is ultimately provided to an electromagnetic actuator 28. Fluctuations in the control signal result in fluctuations in this output current”, see col.15, particularly lines 31-35 and “In normal operation, the current through the coil generates a magnetic field that controls the position of the armature. Upon detection of failure, the leads of the coil are shorted, or clamped together. Under these circumstances, Lenz's law will operate to induce a current in the coil that generates a magnetic field tending to resist movement of the armature. As a result, the electromagnetic actuator functions as a damper”, see col.14, particularly lines 56-67).
Regarding Claim 42, Parison, Jr. et al. teaches the claimed method of claim 20, wherein limiting operation of the at least one actuator further comprises applying a preset reduction to determine the output commanded force and/or movement range (“…the illustrated power supply 107 limits the power consumption of the actuator should a malfunction or instability occur. In one embodiment, the capacitors are chosen such that the stored energy can be dissipated to disable the amplifier within 55 milliseconds should a malfunction or instability occur”, see col.16, particularly lines 34-48 and “The real plant control signal is ultimately used to modulate an output current of an amplifier 106, as shown in FIG. 18. This output current is ultimately provided to an electromagnetic actuator 28. Fluctuations in the control signal result in fluctuations in this output current”, see col.15, particularly lines 31-35 and “In normal operation, the current through the coil generates a magnetic field that controls the position of the armature. Upon detection of failure, the leads of the coil are shorted, or clamped together. Under these circumstances, Lenz's law will operate to induce a current in the coil that generates a magnetic field tending to resist movement of the armature. As a result, the electromagnetic actuator functions as a damper”, see col.14, particularly lines 56-67).
Regarding Claim 43, Parison, Jr. et al. teaches the claimed method of claim 20, wherein outputting the commanded forces and/or movement comprises outputting a commanded current (“The real plant control signal is ultimately used to modulate an output current of an amplifier 106, as shown in FIG. 18. This output current is ultimately provided to an electromagnetic actuator 28. Fluctuations in the control signal result in fluctuations in this output current”, see col.15, particularly lines 31-35 and “In normal operation, the current through the coil generates a magnetic field that controls the position of the armature. Upon detection of failure, the leads of the coil are shorted, or clamped together. Under these circumstances, Lenz's law will operate to induce a current in the coil that generates a magnetic field tending to resist movement of the armature. As a result, the electromagnetic actuator functions as a damper”, see col.14, particularly lines 56-67).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parison, Jr. et al. (8,781,681) in view of Cortona et al. (EP1547958A1) further in view of Benson et al. (2014/0306628).
Regarding Claim 21, Parison, Jr. et al. does not expressly recite the claimed method of claim 20, wherein the first threshold is a first rate of temperature change threshold, and wherein the rate of change of the temperature is greater than the first rate of temperature change threshold.
However, steps to protect devices from damage caused by temperatures above a threshold is conventional in the art, where Cortona et al. (EP1547958A1) teaches restricting a current supplied to an actuator if the determined temperature of the actuator exceeds a predetermined temperature (Cortona et al.; see Abstract, P[0006] and P[0027]).
Furthermore, it is conventional in the art to use a temperature or a rate of change of temperature when diagnosing an actuator, as seen in Benson et al. (2014/0306628), who teaches using a temperature or rate of change of temperature of a device to determine a strategy to prevent overheating of the device, where a temperature rate of change at a rate greater than desired may be determined (Benson et al; see P[0060]-P[0062], also see P[0004]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Parison, Jr. et al. with the teachings of Cortona et al. and Benson et al., and wherein the first threshold is a first rate of temperature change threshold, and wherein the rate of change of the temperature is greater than the first rate of temperature change threshold, as rendered obvious by Cortona et al., so that “the actuator is protected from thermal deterioration and destruction” (Cortona et al.; see P[0006]).
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parison, Jr. et al. (8,781,681) in view of Cortona et al. (EP1547958A1) further in view of Shinjo et al. (JPH11115602A).
Regarding Claim 41, Parison, Jr. et al. does not expressly recite the claimed method of claim 20, wherein limiting operation of the at least one actuator further comprises reducing a gain used to determine the output commanded force and/or movement range.
However, Parison, Jr. et al. does teach the use of a gain (“The compensation system 65 does so by adaptively adjusting the gain…”, see col.8, particularly lines 52-65).
Furthermore, Shinjo et al. (JPH11115602A) teaches controlling a displacement of a seat by adjusting a control gain including controlling actuators by reducing the control gain (Shinjo et al.; see P[0009]-P[0010] and P[0018]), which a person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious in view of Shinjo et al. to achieve the “limiting operation” by “reducing a gain”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Parison, Jr. et al. with the teachings of Shinjo et al., and wherein limiting operation of the at least one actuator further comprises reducing a gain used to determine the output commanded force and/or movement range, as rendered obvious by Shinjo et al., in order to “improve driving feeling of a driver” (Shinjo et al.; see “Overview”).
Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parison, Jr. et al. (8,781,681) in view of Shinjo et al. (JPH11115602A).
Regarding Claim 49, Parison, Jr. et al. does not expressly recite the claimed active seat suspension of claim 32, wherein the controller is configured to limit operation of the at least one actuator by reducing a gain used to determine the output commanded force and/or movement range during the detected failure state.
However, Parison, Jr. et al. does teach the use of a gain (“The compensation system 65 does so by adaptively adjusting the gain…”, see col.8, particularly lines 52-65).
Furthermore, Shinjo et al. (JPH11115602A) teaches controlling a displacement of a seat by adjusting a control gain including controlling actuators by reducing the control gain (Shinjo et al.; see P[0009]-P[0010] and P[0018]), which a person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious in view of Shinjo et al. to achieve the “limit operation” step by “reducing a gain”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Parison, Jr. et al. with the teachings of Shinjo et al., and wherein the controller is configured to limit operation of the at least one actuator by reducing a gain used to determine the output commanded force and/or movement range during the detected failure state, as rendered obvious by Shinjo et al., in order to “improve driving feeling of a driver” (Shinjo et al.; see “Overview”).
Conclusion
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 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 ISAAC G SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-9593. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8AM-5PM.
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, ANISS CHAD can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/ISAAC G SMITH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662