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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/30/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE102020205702.8, filed on 05/06/2020.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 9-11, and 21 filed on 03/05/2026 are presently examined. Claims 4-7, and 12-20 are previously cancelled. Claim 8 is newly cancelled. Claims 1, 9, and 10 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s arguments filed 03/05/2026 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive. The independent claims have been amended to include a narrower limitation recited in cancelled claim 8.
Applicant argues the prior art does not disclose changing the damper force of at least one damper if required according to a characteristic curve accounting for each of three variables including the control deviation, a driving speed of the vehicle, and a lateral acceleration of the vehicle that is ascertained based on a model. A characteristic curve is broadly recited, and is understood to be the mathematical relationship between one or more input variables and an output. Post does indeed disclose considering all three variables for the control of the damper forces ([0020] “shifting the front to back damping distribution using the ADS in order to correct the yaw deviation.” Yaw deviation is control deviation. [0046] “lateral vehicle acceleration sensor 44 … vehicle speed sensor 50” these are two sensors for the input of lateral acceleration and speed variables. [0054] “Active dampers can run with low damping when the road is smooth and level and the vehicle is being driven at a constant speed.” Constant speed is a speed and is considered in the control of the damping forces. [0018] “using the VSA system to infer the coefficient of friction of the road upon which the vehicle is traveling by checking … lateral acceleration of the vehicle, and upon inferring the coefficient of friction of the road, changing the damping state” And lastly, lateral acceleration is checked at least to infer CoF of the road to be used in controlling the damping state.). Therefore, all three input variables are detected and used in the control system in the relationship between them and the subsequent control of the output damping state.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Post et al. (US20120265402A1) in view of Yang et al. (US 9950706 B1), hereafter referred to as Post and Yang, respectively.
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 10, Post discloses a method for controlling the driving dynamics of a vehicle using dampers, wherein the vehicle comprises at least two axles, which each have at least two wheels, each wheel with one damper ([FIG. 5B] vehicle, two axles, two wheels per axle. [0045] “The vehicle also includes a controllable suspension, typically including at least four (rear left 36, rear right 38, front left 40, front right 42) zones that are individually controllable (spring rate, damper rate).”), the method comprising:
obtaining a target driving dynamics variable ([0012] “target yaw rate”);
conducting driving dynamics control in a control loop ([0115] “At each of the 4 wheels, the ADS knows the damping force (as an internal variable in its control loop)”) comprising at least:
determining a control deviation using the target driving dynamics variable and an actual driving dynamics variable, wherein the target driving dynamics variable and the actual driving dynamics variable describe an understeer or an oversteer of the vehicle ([0012] “actual vehicle yaw rate deviates from a target yaw rate” [0075] “ECU 58 constantly monitors the AYC operation states such as AYC activation flags, vehicle stability factor and oversteer (OS)/understeer (US) indicators, which can be estimated based on the vehicle yaw rate error” [0020] “Active Yaw Control electronic control unit (VSA-AYC ECU), providing an Active Damping System (ADS) for adjusting the suspension stiffness on the vehicle, at least independently between the front and the rear of the vehicle, and shifting the front to back damping distribution using the ADS in order to correct the yaw deviation.”);
changing the damper force of at least one damper if required according to a characteristic curve accounting for each of three variables including the control deviation, a driving speed of the vehicle, and a lateral acceleration of the vehicle that is ascertained based on a model ([0020] “shifting the front to back damping distribution using the ADS in order to correct the yaw deviation.” [0046] “lateral vehicle acceleration sensor 44 … vehicle speed sensor 50” [0054] “Active dampers can run with low damping when the road is smooth and level and the vehicle is being driven at a constant speed.” [0018] “using the VSA system to infer the coefficient of friction of the road upon which the vehicle is traveling by checking … lateral acceleration of the vehicle, and upon inferring the coefficient of friction of the road, changing the damping state”);
and updating and feeding back the actual driving dynamics variable after changing the damper force changes to again determine the control deviation ([0003] “During vehicle operations, AYC constantly monitors the vehicle actual yaw rate and calculates the difference between the actual yaw rate and the target yaw rate (i.e. yaw rate error).” [0113] “the ADS ECU 54 constantly monitors the AYC ECU 60 operation states such as … oversteer (OS)/understeer (US) indicators, which can be estimated based on the vehicle yaw rate error … ADS ECU 54 determines that the AYC has judged that the vehicle requires corrective yaw moment to compensate either oversteer or understeer, and adjusts the front/rear damping force distribution to generate the corrective yaw moment demanded” [0115] “At each of the 4 wheels, the ADS knows the damping force (as an internal variable in its control loop)”); wherein
operation in the control loop is repeated until driving dynamics control is deactivated ([0076] “The AYC ECU 60 then determines if yaw control is required to maintain a real yaw response to within a specified error to the desired yaw rate.” [0115] “At each of the 4 wheels, the ADS knows the damping force (as an internal variable in its control loop)” If the real yaw rate is within error of desired yaw rate, yaw control is not required.),
in the case of oversteer, individually decreasing the damper force for each front wheel and individually increasing the damper forces for each rear wheel ([0115] “the front dampers would likely be softened and the rear dampers stiffened to mitigate oversteer.” ([0045] “The vehicle also includes a controllable suspension, typically including at least four (rear left 36, rear right 38, front left 40, front right 42) zones that are individually controllable (spring rate, damper rate).”).
Post discloses each individual damper for each wheel includes a damper control to adjust an electrical operating variable of the damper ([0045] “The vehicle also includes a controllable suspension, typically including at least four (rear left 36, rear right 38, front left 40, front right 42) zones that are individually controllable (spring rate, damper rate).” [0115] “At each of the 4 wheels, the ADS knows the damping force (as an internal variable in its control loop)” Post discloses the concept of internal control loops for each damper, but does not explicitly state that the inner control loops are faster than the larger, outer control loop.).
Post fails to explicitly disclose each individual control loop operates at a speed greater than a control speed of the control loop for conducting driving dynamics control.
However, Yang teaches each individual control loop operates at a speed greater than a control speed of the control loop for conducting driving dynamics control ([column 4, line 48] “a spring-mass-damper assembly 40” [column 3, lines 43-48] “control system 50 uses a nested loop control architecture as shown in FIG. 4 and described below, in which a relatively fast inner control loop 103 lowers the resonant frequency of the driveline oscillation to a frequency level suitable for active damping by a relatively slow outer control loop 101.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Post with Yang’s teaching of nested control loops where the inner control loop is faster than the outer control loop. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to use a faster inner loop in order to control an inner loop variable based on the sampling rate of the outer control loop to more effectively control the result generated by the outer loop (Yang [column 4, lines 41-45] “The lower final frequency f.sub.F is below the frequency f.sub.O that can be controlled with the sampling rate of the outer control loop 101, and therefore may be effectively damped using the slower outer control loop 101.”).
Post fails to explicitly disclose in the case of understeer, individually increasing the damper force for each front wheel and individually decreasing the damper forces for each rear wheel ([0113] “the AYC has judged that the vehicle requires corrective yaw moment to compensate either oversteer or understeer, and adjusts the front/rear damping force distribution to generate the corrective yaw moment”). However, given that Post specifically uses front and rear damping force distribution to correct both oversteer and understeer, and describes that to mitigate oversteer would require softening of the front dampers and stiffening of the rear dampers, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try reversing the damping adjustment for the opposite case, the understeer case. There are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success to mitigate understeer by adjusting the dampers in an opposite way from the oversteer case – by stiffening the front dampers and softening the rear dampers.
Regarding claim 2, Post discloses the method of claim 1, comprising measuring the actual driving dynamics variable with a sensor ([0046] “yaw rate sensor 48”) and/or ascertaining the actual driving dynamics based on a model.
Regarding claims 3 and 11 Post discloses the method of claim 1, wherein, to change the damper force, a target variable relating to the damper force is output to a damper control device ([0115] “AYC ECU 60 calculates the required corrective yaw moment and sends it to the ADS ECU 54 via the CAN 64. The ADS ECU 54 adjusts distribution, in step 750, between the ADS system components in the front and rear of the vehicle's suspension. The shift of suspension stiffness, from front to rear or vice versa creates a counter-acting yaw moment.” Where the target variable is the required corrective yaw moment caused by the shift in the stiffness of each axle’s dampers.).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Post et al. in view of Yang, further in view of Bodie et al. (US 20020128760 A1), hereafter referred to as Bodie.
Regarding claim 21, Post fails to explicitly disclose The method of claim 1, wherein: the target driving dynamics variable is a target body slip angle; and the actual driving dynamics variable is an actual body slip angle ascertained based on a model ([0077] “vehicle motion sensors including longitudinal and lateral acceleration, wheel speed sensors, steering sensors. This information is used to determine wheel speed changes and vehicle motions including body lateral slippage.” [0111] “if slip is determined to be excessive in the right rear wheel 26 of the vehicle, the stiffness of the suspension 38 in an area adjacent to the right rear wheel 26 is increased.”).
However, Bodie teaches the target driving dynamics variable is a target body slip angle; and the actual driving dynamics variable is an actual body slip angle ascertained based on a model ([0038] “The estimator of vehicle sideslip angle 65 utilizes a simplified, nonlinear model of the vehicle, in the yaw plane, that is an observer, to estimate the vehicle sideslip angle.” [0042] “distribute the damping forces between the front and rear axles to bring the vehicle yaw rate, slip angle, and/or slip rate as close as possible to the desired yaw rate, slip angle, and/or slip rate. The desired yaw rate, slip angle, and slip rate values are calculated from a vehicle reference model which generates a desired yaw rate, slip angle, and slip rate.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Post with Bodie’s teaching of determining the vehicle’s current slip angle based on a model and a target body slip angle. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to use current and target body slip angles in order to generate a corrective yaw command based on whether the vehicle is under- or over-steering. (Bodie [0033] “to generate the corrective yaw command and to determine the over or under steer condition of the vehicle.” Bodie uses dampers to correct under- and over-steering.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK R HEIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0120. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
/M.R.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668 /Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights