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 .
Response to Amendment
The RCE filed on 11/20/25 has been entered. No claim amendments have been made
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.
Claim(s) 9-13, 30-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Walthert et al (US PG Pub No. 2016/0339990).
Regarding claim 9 and 35, Walthert teaches A vehicle comprising:
one or more systems; (60 figure 1 and 46 figure 1 paragraph 102-104)
a localization system configured to determine a location of the vehicle; and (paragraph 25 and 145)
one or more processors configured to:
identify a road feature disposed along a path of travel of the vehicle; (paragraph 26)
determine a velocity of the vehicle; (paragraph 28 and 58; take into account travel speed the damper settings can be adjusted precisely; paragraph 115 travel speed)
determine a probability of encountering the road feature based at least in part on the velocity of the vehicle; and (paragraph 26; derive the probability value for riding over ID hazard and if the probability is exceeded to adjust shock absorber… “to get ready” for hazard)
control the one or more systems based at least in part on the determined probability of encountering the road feature (paragraph 26 adjust shock to get ready for hazard).
Regarding claim 10, Walthert teaches determining the probability of encountering the road feature as a function of based on the velocity of the vehicle includes obtaining a model of the probability of encountering the road feature as a function of the velocity (paragraph 57 a correction factor may for example be provided for computing the distance between front wheel and hazard. Paragraph 58 travel speed taken into account. Paragraph 59 model also look ahead hazard of root to store suspension travel is a model of probability of encountering road feature paragraph 61, 10 and 20).
Regarding claim 11, Walthert teaches wherein determining the probability of encountering the road feature includes determining the probability of encountering the road feature based on the velocity of the vehicle and the model (paragraph 56 controlling is done for example in a sense of characteristic map).
Regarding claim 12, Walthert teaches wherein the model is a lookup table or fitted function (paragraph 56 and 57 filtered function is a correction factor or paragraph 56 characteristic map is a model).
Regarding claim 13, Walthert teaches wherein the one or more systems include a semi-active suspension system or an active suspension system (paragraph 26 adjust shock absorber figure 1 100 and 46).
Regarding claim 30, Waltert teaches wherein determining a probability of encountering the road feature based on the velocity of the vehicle comprises aggregating instances of hits and misses of the road feature (paragraph 59 look ahead ID allows to store suspension travel in front of hazard so that available travel is safely sufficient; probability is high and imminent paragraph 26).
Regarding claim 31, Waltert teaches wherein the instances of hits and misses of the road feature include crowd-sourced data (paragraph 145 enables analysis and comparison with other team members or friends against earlier rides).
Regarding claim 32, Waltert teaches wherein the instances of hits and misses of the road feature include previous traversals of the road feature by the vehicle (paragraph 143-145).
Regarding claim 33, Waltert teaches wherein determining a probability of encountering the road feature based on the velocity of the vehicle comprises determining that the vehicle has exceeded a threshold velocity corresponding with a low probably of encountering the road feature (paragraph 26 threshold velocity is high and probability is exceeded so therefore not low… “get ready” for hazard).
Regarding claim 34, Waltert teaches wherein determining a probability of encountering the road feature based on the velocity of the vehicle comprises determining a velocity range corresponding to the velocity of the vehicle (paragraph 50; near zone is dependent on speed in under 1 second… and that speed range varies based on terrain).
Regarding claims 36-44, see rejection to claims 10-13, 30-34 as the limitations are substantially similar.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicants argument on page 6 paragraph 4: applicant states that Walthert speed dependent determination just figures out the path of the vehicle and probability of staying on the path by determining a “near zone”
Examiner does not rely on the use of a “near zone” in the rejection of the claims. Examiner rely on paragraph 26; derive the probability value for riding over ID hazard and if the probability is exceeded to adjust shock absorber… “get ready” for hazard.
Regarding applicants arguments on page 6 paragraph 4 applicant further states that Walthert does not determine based on at least in part on the velocity, a probability of encountering the road feature once the near zone has been determined.
Examiner states again that the near zone is not relied on in rejection. Applicants claims are still broad enough for the rejection to apply. Applicant should consider amending claims.
Regarding applicants arguments on page 6 paragraph 4 applicant further states that Walthert assumes all features in the near zone will be encountered.
Examiner states that on paragraph 26; derive the probability value for riding over ID hazard and if the probability is exceeded to adjust shock absorber… “get ready” for hazard.
Regarding applicants arguments on page 6 paragraph 4 applicant further states that Walthert does not teach "determining a probability of encountering the road feature based at least in part on the velocity of the vehicle...”
Examiner disagrees that states that the rejection above teaches the limitations. Furthermore, paragraph 121 states a near zone 812 a-c which is based on velocity of vehicle (paragraph 134) and object on ground 811 is only captured by 812c zone. This shows that there is a “identifying a road features… and probability of encountering a road features based in part on the velocity of the vehicle”
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 GEORGE C. JIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9898. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571) 272-1196. 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.
/GEORGE C JIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747