DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The amendment filed 10/10/2025 has been received and considered. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 refers to clause count numbers enclosed within parentheses. However in the claims, reference characters enclosed within parentheses should correspond to elements recited in the detailed description and the drawings and not clause count numbers. The MPEP reads (underline emphasis added): ‘608.01(m) Form of Claims [R-10.2019]… Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description and the drawings may be used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims. The reference characters, however, should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. Generally, the presence or absence of such reference characters does not affect the scope of a claim’.
Claim Rejections -35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without any additional elements that provide a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Independent claim 1, Step 1: method (process = 2019 PEG Step 1 = yes).
Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong One: Claim recites:
for computation of force and moment in a time domain… comprising…
generating, by the processor, a material property matrix from the material properties and second modal properties from the obtained first modal properties…
obtaining, by the processor, first quantities based on the second modal properties and the material property matrix; calculating, by the processor, a first intermediate matrix from the second modal properties and the set of motion responses; recursively computing, by the processor, for each time step during measurement of the set of motion responses, a second intermediate matrix based on the first quantities, the second modal properties, the first intermediate matrix, and a previously computed second intermediate matrix from at least one previous time step; calculating, by the processor, the force and the moment for each time step during the measurement of the set of motion responses based on the second intermediate matrix and the second modal properties
The limitations are substantially drawn to mathematical concepts but for the recitation of generic computer components: mathematical relationships, formulas or equations, and calculations. Information and data also fall within the realm of abstract ideas because information and/or data are intangible. See Electric Power Group1 (Electric Power hereinafter): “Information… is an intangible”.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts, then it falls within the "(a) Mathematical concepts" grouping of abstract ideas. Independent claim is substantially drawn to mathematical concepts (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes, (a) Mathematical concepts).
Independent claim 1, Step 2A Prong two: As to the additional element processor, it is recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications.
As to the limitations “obtaining, by a processor, material properties and first modal properties of the non-proportionally damped structure” and “measuring, by the processor… a set of motion responses of the non-proportionally damped structure”, these limitations describe the concept of “mere data gathering”, which corresponds to the concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts. Data gathering, including when limited to particular content does not change its character as information, is also within the realm of abstract ideas. Data gathering has not been held by the courts to be enough to qualify as “significantly more”. See Electric Power. See also MPEP § 2106.05(g). The combination of these additional elements is no more than insignificant extra solution activity (gathering data) that provides data for the exception, with mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (“processor”).
As to the limitations “for a non-proportionally damped structure using a system that comprises one or more sensors”, "wherein the non-proportionally damped structure comprises a vehicle suspension", and “measuring… via one or more sensors”, they represent no more than just “apply it” limitations, because the limitations invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
As to the limitations “performing, in near real-time, suspension control on the non-proportionally damped structure by automatically adjusting damping coefficients when the force and the moment exceed a threshold, wherein the suspension control is performed based on reduced measurement and processing intervals that reduce response times", they represent no more than just “apply it” limitations, because these claim limitations recite only the idea of a solution or outcome.
The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception/Abstract idea into a practical application?= NO).
Independent claim 1, Step 2B: As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the claim recites the additional element processor at a high level of generality and as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of a computer to implement the abstract idea of a mathematical algorithm has not been held by the courts to be enough to qualify as “significantly more”. See MPEP 2106.05. The implementation on a computing system is described in the specification (underline emphasis added):
"[0056] FIG. 8 illustrates an example computing environment with an example computer device suitable for use in some example implementations… [0058] Examples of computer device 805 may include, but are not limited to, highly mobile devices (e.g., smartphones, devices in vehicles and other machines, devices carried by humans and animals, and the like), mobile devices (e.g., tablets, notebooks, laptops, personal computers, portable televisions, radios, and the like), and devices not designed for mobility (e.g., desktop computers, other computers, information kiosks, televisions with one or more processors embedded therein and/or coupled thereto, radios, and the like)… [0069] Example implementations… may include one or more general-purpose computers selectively activated or reconfigured by one or more computer programs”.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, claim 1 recites data gathering, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality; and therefore, remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the limitations identified as just “apply it” merely invoke computers or other machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. As to the "sensors”, they are recited generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than they are "sensors").
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the limitations identified as just “apply it” appear to be just “apply it” limitations, because these claim limitations recite only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claims fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). As to "performing, in near real-time, suspension control on the non-proportionally damped structure by automatically adjusting damping coefficients when the force and the moment exceed a threshold, wherein the suspension control is performed based on reduced measurement and processing intervals that reduce response times”, suspension control on the non-proportionally damped structure is recited generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than it is "suspension control on the non-proportionally damped structure"). The specification reads (underline emphasis added):
"[0054] Automotive suspension control may also benefit from the method described above. For example, automotive suspension control is usually based on the suspension motion (acceleration), because acceleration is easy to measure by a sensor. This method enables to compute the force (and moment) at each suspension. The computed force (and moment) is an alternative quantity to control the suspension".
Thus, taken alone the individual additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. There is no indication that their combination improves the functioning of a computer itself or improves any other technology (underline emphasis added). Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
Claims 9 and 17 recite substantially the same elements as claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons above. Further, the additional elements of these claims a computer-readable medium, a memory, and at least one processor are rejected below:
Independent claims 9 and 17, Step 2A Prong two and 2B: As to the further additional elements a computer-readable medium, a memory, and at least one processor, they are interpreted as drawn to a generic computer. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
Dependent claims, Step 2A, Prong One: Dependent claims limitations further the mathematical concepts of their independent claims. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong One above). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts, then it falls within the "(a) Mathematical concepts" grouping of abstract ideas. Dependent claims are substantially drawn to mathematical concepts (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes, (a) Mathematical concepts).
Dependent claims, Step 2A Prong Two: dependent claims recite the additional elements “2/10/18… the measured set of motion responses is at least one of a set of displacements, a set of velocities, or a set of accelerations” and “4/12/19… the obtained material properties and first modal properties of the non-proportionally damped structure comprise material properties and first modal properties associated with each node in the non-proportionally damped structure”, these limitations describe the concept of “mere data gathering”, which corresponds to the concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong Two above).
Dependent claims also recite the additional elements "3/11/19… wherein the non-proportionally damped structure is a discretized structure comprising a plurality of nodes and each node in the plurality of nodes is associated with a sensor that measures a motion response of the node in the set of motion responses”, they represent no more than just “apply it” limitations, because the limitations invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application of the exception (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/Abstract idea into a practical application? = NO).
Dependent claims, Step 2B: As discussed with respect to Step 2A, dependent claims recite data gathering, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality; and therefore, remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the limitations identified as just “apply it” merely invoke computers or other machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. As to the limitation sensors, (see Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
The claims do not provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Therefore, the dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowed over prior art of record. They will be allowed once all outstanding rejections/objections are traversed. A reason for the indication of allowable subject matter was provided in the Office Action dated 04/08/2025.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the Claim Objections, the amendment corrected some deficiencies, and those objections are withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections under 101, Applicant's arguments have been considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, (see page 10, next to last paragraph to page 13, next to last paragraph):
‘… claims solve a technical problem in automotive suspension control. Traditional suspension control systems rely on acceleration-based measurements because they are easier to obtain through sensors. As Applicant's specification explains, "it is technically difficult to directly measure force (or moment), e.g., because a force sensor has to be installed in series to the structure." Spec., ¶ [0003]. Moreover, existing indirect methods "may only be capable of calculating interfacial force and/or moment in the frequency domain or may only calculate interfacial force and/or moment for a proportionally damped structure." Id.
The claims provide a technological solution by enabling computation of force and moment values for non-proportionally damped vehicle suspension structures in the time domain without direct measurement, which addresses limitations of existing approaches and enables superior control characteristics for suspension systems.
Furthermore, the claims are patent-eligible under Diamond v. Diehr… Similar to the claims in Diehr, which were found to be patent-eligible despite involving a mathematical equation, the present claims integrate any abstract idea into a practical application that results in an improvement to the functioning of a specific technology or technical field. In Diehr, the Supreme Court emphasized that claims as a whole must be considered, not individual elements in isolation. Here, the claims as a whole are directed to a specific technological improvement in vehicle suspension control systems. Like the rubber curing process in Diehr that produced a useful, concrete, and tangible result, the present claims produce concrete improvements in suspension performance through force-based control rather than traditional acceleration-based control.
The Examiner's application of the "apply it'' consideration fails to follow the USPTO's own guidance in MPEP 2106.0S(f). The USPTO guidance specifically cautions examiners not to "oversimplify claim limitations and expand the application of the 'apply it' consideration'' and provides a three-factor analysis. Applying this analysis:
First, the claims do not recite "only the idea of a solution or outcome" but instead recite "a particular solution to a problem." They provide specific details of how the solution is accomplished through an innovative method to compute interfacial vibratory forces and moments applied to a structure in the time domain by using other quantities, such as acceleration, material properties and modal properties. The claims specify the precise mathematical operations, recursive algorithms, and matrix calculations required.
Second, the claims do not "invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process" but instead ''improve computer capabilities'' and "improve an existing technology." The system provides feedback data closer to real-time by reducing both measurement interval and processing time, and allows for analysis of forces and moments during highly transient states associated with a structure, and can be used with non-proportional viscous damping and locally damped structures. Id ¶ [0051], [0052]. This represents a technological improvement over existing acceleration-based control systems.
Third, the claims provide "particularity'' rather than "generality" in the application of the mathematical concepts, as they are specifically limited to non-proportionally damped vehicle suspension structures with automatic threshold-based damping coefficient adjustment, creating a closed-loop control system with concrete physical effects.
The Examiner's rejection improperly expands the "apply it" consideration beyond its intended scope and fails to recognize the specific technological improvements provided by the claimed invention. The Examiner incorrectly characterizes the claimed limitations as mere "apply it" instructions, when, in fact, the claims impose meaningful technological constraints that integrate the mathematical concepts into a specific practical application with concrete technological benefits. The claimed system addresses a well-recognized technical problem in automotive suspension control by providing a novel solution that enables force-based control rather than traditional acceleration-based control, thereby improving the functioning of vehicle suspension technology through specific computational methods tailored to non-proportionally damped structures.
First, the ''non-proportionally damped structure" limitation represents a specific technical constraint, not a generic field of use. As the specification explains, existing methods "may only calculate interfacial force and/or moment for a proportionally damped structure." Spec., ¶ [0003]. The claimed method specifically addresses the technical challenge of non-proportional damping, which existing methods cannot handle.
Second, the ''vehicle suspension" limitation confines the mathematical concepts to a specific technological environment with particular physical constraints. Vehicle suspensions have unique characteristics including multiple mounting points, transient loading conditions, and real time control requirements that distinguish this application from generic mathematical processing.
Third, the "automatically adjusting damping coefficients when the force and the moment exceed a threshold" limitation specifies a concrete feedback mechanism that physically modifies the suspension system This goes beyond data processing by requiring actual control of physical damping components, creating a closed-loop control system that affects the real ,world.
The claimed system provides specific technological benefits that improve the functioning of automotive suspension technology. They enable force-based control rather than traditional acceleration-based control, providing "an alternative quantity to control the suspension" that "may be beneficial." Spec., ¶ [0054]. The system provides "feedback data closer to real-time by reducing both measurement interval and processing time," enabling "force and moment calculations for each measurement taken during the time interval." Id ¶ [0051]. This enables ''analysis of forces and moments during highly transient states associated with the suspension structure" and can be used with "non-proportional viscous damping and locally damped structures." Id. ¶ [0052]. As a result, the system can "quantify highly transient force and moment through each mount without requiring direct measurement, determine which mount transmits the most sound and energy, and implement effective countermeasures based on the computed data." id , ¶ [0053].
Contrary to the Examiner's characterization, the claims do, thus, not merely implement abstract mathematical concepts on a generic computer. The claimed processor performs specialized functions specifically tailored to vehicle suspension control: recursive computation algorithms designed for non-proportionally damped structures; real-time matrix calculations that enable time-domain force computation; integration with physical sensors and control systems; and automatic threshold-based control of physical damping components. These functions are not generic computer operations but specialized technological processes that improve suspension control technology.
The claims integrate the mathematical concepts into a practical application that improves automotive suspension technology by using acceleration, material properties, and modal properties to compute interfacial vibratory forces and moments applied to a vehicle suspension structure in the time domain. See, e.g., Spec.,¶ [0018]. The claimed system creates a complete technological solution with specific components, feedback mechanisms, and real-world effects on vehicle suspension performance. This goes well beyond merely applying abstract mathematical concepts to a technical field…’
The MPEP reads (underline emphasis added):
‘2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]… (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it"…’.
'2106.04(d)(1) Evaluating Improvements in the Functioning of a Computer, or an Improvement to Any Other Technology or Technical Field in Step 2A Prong Two [R-10.2019]... the "improvements" analysis in Step 2A determines whether the claim pertains to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology without reference to what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. That is, the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology although it may not be an improvement over well-understood, routine, conventional activity… the word "improvements" in the context of this consideration is limited to improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology/technical field, whether in Step 2A Prong Two or in Step 2B...'.
Examiner's response: Applicant's argument is not persuasive, because as to the limitations "performing, in near real-time, suspension control on the non-proportionally damped structure by automatically adjusting damping coefficients when the force and the moment exceed a threshold, wherein the suspension control is performed based on reduced measurement and processing intervals that reduce response times”, suspension control on the non-proportionally damped structure is recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than it is "suspension control on the non-proportionally damped structure") that they represent no more than just “apply it” limitations. These claim limitations recite only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., these claim limitations fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. There is no elaboration of any special meanings for these amended limitations in the claims and Application description. See specification paragraphs [0018], [0054]; MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), supra and Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
Furthermore, Applicant argues 'claims do not recite "only the idea of a solution or outcome" but instead recite "a particular solution to a problem."', but claim 1 rejection reads (see Independent claim 1, Step 2B above): 'As to the limitations “performing… they represent no more than just “apply it” limitations, because these claim limitations recite only the idea of a solution or outcome'.
The claims may provide improved math ('computation of force and moment values… precise mathematical operations, recursive algorithms, and matrix calculations') but do not provide limitations such that an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself or to any other technology is realized. Improved math is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself or to any other technology. An improved abstract idea is an abstract idea. An improved abstract idea is a species of the genus abstract idea. (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) supra).
As to Applicant’s arguments about Diehr, the claims in Diehr recited a particular physical transformation of a particular article, i.e., “raw, uncured synthetic rubber, into a different state or thing” (see Diehr page 184, 3rd paragraph). By contrast, the claimed invention is directed to mathematical concepts without significantly more. The claimed invention is clearly distinguished from that of Diehr.
Therefore, the claims do not recite additional elements which integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
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 JUAN CARLOS OCHOA whose telephone number is (571)272-2625. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays 9:30AM -7:00 PM.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached on (571) 272-3652. 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.
/JUAN C OCHOA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2187
1 Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 119 USPQ2d 1739 Fed. Cir. 2016