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 . This action is made final.
Claims 1-7, 9-17, 19, and 20 are pending in the case. Claims 1 and 11 are independent claims. Claims 8 and 18 have been canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 11-15, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ericksen et al. (US 2018/0339566 A1), in view of Aikin (US 2018/0079272 A1), in view of Paiva et al. (US 2020/0055363 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ericksen teaches a computing system (system 300 of FIG. 3 and [0128-0132]) comprising:
a memory (memory including at least one of computer usable volatile memory 308 and non-volatile memory 310 of FIG. 3 and [0128-0132]);
a display (display device 318 of FIG. 3 and [0130-0131]; An example of a display device is interactive touch screen of FIG. 17B, [0424], and [0426]); and
at least one processor (at least one processor 306A-C of FIG. 3 and [0128-0132]), said at least one processor configured to:
initiate an active valve tune application (“application 324” of FIG. 3 and [0132]; FIG. 17B, [0424], and [0426]: active valve tune application is initiated; FIG. 4A, [0064], [0071], [0086], [0103], [0133], and [0139]: the electronic valve 460 corresponds to the active valve. As stated in [0139], “the activation signal sender 450 sends an activation signal to the power source 458 to deliver a current to the electronic valve 460, and more particularly, a valve (e.g., of the variable pressure valve 464)”. Note that [0139] includes a “variable pressure valve 464” but is a typographical error and should be labelled “variable pressure valve 462” as seen in FIG. 4B);
receive a suspension tune for a vehicle, said suspension tune comprising a number of performance range adjustable settings (FIGS. 4A and 6, end of [0064], [0141-0147], [0152], [0193], and [0280-0282]: a suspension tune, including damper control settings, are received for a vehicle. The suspension tune comprises a number of performance range adjustable settings, including compression and rebound settings);
present said suspension tune within said active valve tune application on said display (FIG. 17B, [0424], and [0426]: suspension tune is presented within said active valve tune application on the display);
receive input to modify, at said active valve tune application, one or more of said number of performance range adjustable settings (FIGS. 4A and 6 and [0141-0147] and FIG. 17B, [0424], and [0426]: for example, the user selects “firm” 1728 modifying one or more of said number of performance range adjustable settings, including compression and rebounds settings); and
generate a modified suspension tune based on said modification input (FIGS. 4A and 6 and [0141-0147] and FIG. 17B, [0424], and [0426]: for example, the user selects “firm” 1728 which generates a modified suspension tune based on said modification tune. As seen in the figure, selection of a mode globally changes compression and rebounds settings).
Although Ericksen teaches accounting for driving history to adjust settings ([0321]), Ericksen does not explicitly teach said suspension tune created using power spectral density information previously obtained and stored in a database, said power spectral density information obtained from a database containing power spectral density information obtained from a vehicle’s prior traversal of a ride, said power spectral density information added to said memory, wherein said suspension tune encompasses the entirety of said ride.
Aikin teaches said suspension tune created using density information obtained from a database containing (FIG. 1 and [0030-0036], FIG. 4 and [0046-0053]: a ride may be a portion of a vehicle’s trip characterized by a certain road profile with a certain terrain or road condition previously determined and stored to the road profile. Road profiles/power spectral density information are stored in a database/profile database 454. Road profiles are used by the control system 112 to adjust control elements, such as suspension actuators 130A-B. The road profiles are from various rides on different terrains, such as a terrain with a certain road hazard, like a pothole, or road configuration, like a turn, present in traversed road segments. Such road profiles are added to memory, as supported in [0039], [0047], and [0058]; See FIG. 2 and [0037-0039] and FIG. 3 and [0040-0043] for specific examples of creating suspension tunes based on road profiles).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the suspension tune of Ericksen by incorporating the teachings of Aikin and have said suspension tune created using some information previously obtained and stored in a database, said some information obtained from a database containing some information from various rides on different terrains, said some information added to said memory, wherein said suspension tune encompasses the entirety of said ride. Doing so would adjust the suspension tune to better handle specific terrains according to some information. In addition to helping maintain the care and longevity of the vehicle, creating the suspension tune using said information would also improve the safety of driver, passengers, and overall vehicle operation by preventing less optimal suspension tune when traversing a particular ride.
Although Aikin teaches the information being related to detection of road conditions such as bumps or occlusions ([0030], [0032], [0056]), Ericksen in view of Aikin does not explicitly teach the information being power spectral density information.
Paiva teaches said suspension tune created using power spectral density information ([0019]: “For example, the data analyzer 204 can determine the roughness of the terrain on which the vehicle 102 is driving. The power spectral density calculation used by the data analyzer 204 can thus be used to finetune adjustments to the front and/or rear suspensions of the vehicle 102”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the information of Ericksen in view of Aikin by incorporating the teachings of Paiva and have the information be power spectral density information. Doing so would offer consistent, quantifiable data to be used as information for more precise suspension tuning that can better handle specific terrains. Because the power spectral density calculation is quantifiable, road conditions can be measured in a more standardized process for more predictable and reliable suspension tuning.
Regarding claim 2, Ericksen in view of Aikin in view of Paiva teaches the computing system of Claim 1. Ericksen further teaches wherein said at least one processor is further configured to: receive said suspension tune for said vehicle from a tune database (FIG. 4A, [0141-0147], and [0152]: suspension tune received from a tune database 416; For supplementary details regarding suspension tune, see FIGS. 4A and 6, end of [0064], [0141-0147], [0152], [0193], and [0280-0282]).
Regarding claim 3, Ericksen in view of Aikin in view of Paiva teaches the computing system of Claim 1. Ericksen further teaches the computing system further comprising: a communication system to communicatively couple said computing system with a suspension controller for said vehicle (FIG. 4A [0071], [0137], [0139], and [0356]: a communication system/control system 404 communicatively couples said computing system, with a suspension controller/power source 458).
Regarding claim 4, Ericksen in view of Aikin in view of Paiva teaches the computing system of Claim 3. Ericksen further teaches wherein said at least one processor is further configured to:
receive said suspension tune for said vehicle from said suspension controller (FIG. 4A, [0071], [0137], and [0139]: suspension tune, via a control signal, is received from power source 458; For supplementary details regarding suspension tune, see FIGS. 4A and 6, end of [0064], [0141-0147], [0152], [0193], and [0280-0282]).
Regarding claim 5, Ericksen in view of Aikin in view of Paiva teaches the computing system of Claim 3. Ericksen further teaches wherein said at least one processor is further configured to:
transmit said modified suspension tune from said computing system to said suspension controller (FIG. 12A and [0356], FIG. 4A [0071], [0139]: modified suspension tune is transmitted from said computing system, specifically activation signal sender 450 of said computing system, to said suspension controller/power source 458).
Regarding claim 7, Ericksen in view of Aikin in view of Paiva teaches the computing system of Claim 1. Ericksen further teaches wherein said at least one processor is further configured to:
determine that a suspension component manufacturer has initiated said active valve tune application (“application 324” of FIG. 3 and [0132]; FIG. 17B, [0424], and [0426]: active valve tune application is initiated; FIG. 4A, [0064], [0071], [0086], [0103], [0133], and [0139]: the electronic valve 460 corresponds to the active valve. As stated in [0139], “the activation signal sender 450 sends an activation signal to the power source 458 to deliver a current to the electronic valve 460, and more particularly, a valve (e.g., of the variable pressure valve 464)”. Note that [0139] includes a “variable pressure valve 464” but is a typographical error and should be labelled “variable pressure valve 462” as seen in FIG. 4B; [0143]: “The firmness of the rebound and/or compression is adjustable through system settings. In one embodiment, the adjustable system settings are factory set and are finite in number.” This indicates that the suspension component manufacturer set the adjustable system settings for firmness of the rebound and compression via initiation of the application; [0282]: “It should be appreciated that the control system 404 is preprogrammed to select a particular control mode implementation option. These implementation decisions may be factory settings or individually customized by the rider/user”);
present said suspension tune with any of said number of performance range adjustable settings on said display (FIG. 17B, [0424], and [0426]: suspension tune is presented within said active valve tune application on the display);
receive said input to modify any of said number of performance range adjustable settings (FIGS. 4A and 6 and [0141-0147] and FIG. 17B, [0424], and [0426]: for example, the user selects “firm” 1728 modifying one or more of said number of performance range adjustable settings, including compression and rebounds settings); and
generate said modified suspension tune based on said modification input (FIGS. 4A and 6 and [0141-0147] and FIG. 17B, [0424], and [0426]: for example, the user selects “firm” 1728 which generates a modified suspension tune based on said modification tune. As seen in the figure, selection of a mode globally changes compression and rebounds settings).
Regarding claim 9 Ericksen in view of Aikin in view of Paiva teaches the computing system of Claim 1. Ericksen further teaches wherein said at least one processor is further configured to:
determine that an operator of said vehicle has initiated said active valve tune application (“application 324” of FIG. 3 and [0132]; FIG. 17B, [0424], and [0426]: active valve tune application is initiated by an operator of said vehicle; FIG. 4A, [0064], [0071], [0086], [0103], [0133], and [0139]: the electronic valve 460 corresponds to the active valve. As stated in [0139], “the activation signal sender 450 sends an activation signal to the power source 458 to deliver a current to the electronic valve 460, and more particularly, a valve (e.g., of the variable pressure valve 464)”. Note that [0139] includes a “variable pressure valve 464” but is a typographical error and should be labelled “variable pressure valve 462” as seen in FIG. 4B; [0282]: “It should be appreciated that the control system 404 is preprogrammed to select a particular control mode implementation option. These implementation decisions may be factory settings or individually customized by the rider/user. Additionally, it should also be appreciated that in one embodiment, the rider may override the control system 404's selection.”; [0321]);
present said suspension tune with a limited amount of said number of performance range adjustable settings on said display (FIG. 17B, [0424], and [0426]: suspension tune is presented within said active valve tune application on the display);
receive input to modify only one or more of said limited amount of said number of performance range adjustable settings (FIGS. 4A and 6 and [0141-0147] and FIG. 17B, [0424], and [0426]: for example, the user selects “firm” 1728 modifying one or more of said number of performance range adjustable settings, including compression and rebounds settings); and
generate said modified suspension tune based on said modification input (FIGS. 4A and 6 and [0141-0147] and FIG. 17B, [0424], and [0426]: for example, the user selects “firm” 1728 which generates a modified suspension tune based on said modification tune. As seen in the figure, selection of a mode globally changes compression and rebounds settings).
Claims 11-15, 17, and 19 recite a method with corresponding limitations to the system of claims 1-5, 7, and 9, respectively, and are therefore rejected on the same premises.
Claims 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ericksen et al. (US 2018/0339566 A1), in view of Aikin (US 2018/0079272 A1), in view of Paiva et al. (US 2020/0055363 A1), and in view of Raad et al. (US 5632503 A).
Regarding claim 6, Ericksen in view of Aikin in view of Paiva teaches the computing system of Claim 1. Ericksen in view of Aikin in view of Paiva does not explicitly teach wherein said at least one processor is further configured to: prevent an acceptance of said received input when said received input is an invalid value.
Raad teaches prevent an acceptance of said received input when said received input is an invalid value (Col. 4, lines 15-67: received input is prevented from acceptance when received input is an invalid value. For example, FIRM damping mode is invalid and thus prevented from driver selection during LOW steering efforts mode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the processor of Ericksen in view of Aikin in view of Paiva by incorporating the teachings of Raad and have the processor prevent an acceptance of said received input when said received input is an invalid value. Doing so would prevent damage to the vehicle as an invalid value indicates non-optimal and unacceptable operating conditions. Accordingly, such prevention would lengthen the longevity of the vehicle.
Claim 16 recites a method with corresponding limitations to the computing system of claim 6 and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claims 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ericksen et al. (US 2018/0339566 A1), in view of Aikin (US 2018/0079272 A1), in view of Paiva et al. (US 2020/0055363 A1), in view of Dixon et al. (US 6260859 B1).
Regarding claim 10, Ericksen in view of Aikin in view of Paiva teaches the computing system of Claim 1. Ericksen further teaches wherein said at least one processor is further configured to:
store said suspension tune in a suspension tune database (FIG. 4A, [0141-0147], and [0152]: suspension tune stored in a tune database 416; For supplementary details regarding suspension tune, see FIGS. 4A and 6, end of [0064], [0141-0147], [0152], [0193], and [0280-0282]).
Ericksen in view of Aikin in view of Paiva does not explicitly teach store a history of every said received input to modify said one or more of said number of performance range adjustable settings for said suspension tune; and store said modified suspension tune in said suspension tune database, said modified suspension tune associated with said suspension tune.
Dixon teaches store a history of every said received input to modify said one or more of said number of performance range adjustable settings for said suspension tune (FIG. 4 and Col. 3, line 36 to Col. 4, line 18: history of received input to modify number of performance range adjustable settings for suspension tune is stored in memory via suspension controller 12; For additional details regarding the different suspension modes, see at least Col. 4, line 18 to Col. 5, line 67); and
store said modified suspension tune in said suspension tune database, said modified suspension tune associated with said suspension tune (FIG. 4 and Col. 4, lines 7-18: the modified suspension tune is stored in the database/suspension controller memory).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the processor of Ericksen in view of Aikin in view of Paiva by incorporating the teachings of Dixon and have the processor store a history of every said received input to modify said one or more of said number of performance range adjustable settings for said suspension tune; and store said modified suspension tune in said suspension tune database, said modified suspension tune associated with said suspension tune. Doing so would improve efficiency as the user does not have to manually adjust or select options to arrive at the last modified suspension tune in a future use. Instead, the history of the received input is stored and the most recent selection, and likely most applicable setting, is automatically continued upon power-up.
Claim 20 recites a method with corresponding limitations to the computing system of claim 10 and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In Remarks, Applicant argues:
Regarding independent claim 1, Aikin teaches utilizing information about a particular road segment, not “said power spectral density information obtained from a vehicles prior traversal of a ride” and “wherein said suspension tune encompasses the entirety of said ride” (p. 11 of Remarks).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding point (a), the claimed “ride” is not adequately defined in such a way that precludes the teachings of Aikin, as Applicant argues. Aikin teaches collecting information from a previous ride, which is stored in memory, to yield suspension tunes that match road profiles ([0030-0036], FIG. 4 and [0046-0053]; See FIG. 2 and [0037-0039] and FIG. 3 and [0040-0043] for specific examples of creating suspension tunes based on road profiles). A “ride” may be a portion of a vehicle trip for a certain road profile. Nothing in the claim nor is there an explicit definition from the Specification that precludes such a “ride”. Based on Applicant’s argument, the Examiner suggests that Applicant may amend to clearly define “suspension tune” in addition to “ride”, as well as reformat the “receive a suspension tune” limitation to ensure clarity of those definitions. Applicant is directed to review the updated mapping for the rejection.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are deemed unpersuasive. Independent claim 1, and similarly independent claim 11, are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ericksen et al. (US 2018/0339566 A1), in view of Aikin (US 2018/0079272 A1), in view of Paiva et al. (US 2020/0055363 A1). The dependent claims accordingly remain rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4980. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7AM to 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, KIEU D VU can be reached at (571)272-4057. 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.
/KENNY NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
