DETAILED ACTION
This FINAL action is responsive to the amendment filed 3/30/2026.
In the amendment Claims 1-5, 7-18 and 20-22 remain pending. Claims 1, 10 and 12 are the independent claims. Claim 6 and 19 remain canceled.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
4. Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-18 and 20-22 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guest (U.S. Pub 2017/0203626, published Jul. 20, 2017) in view of Kawasaki (U.S. 5,135,065, filed Feb. 7, 1991, previously cited in the 1449 dated 1/23/2023) further in view of Mohamed (U.S. Pub 2016/0159188, filed Dec. 8, 2014).
Regarding Independent claims 1 and 10, Guest discloses A control system for controlling an active suspension of a vehicle, the control system comprising one or more controllers, the control system configured to:
determine whether the vehicle is transitioning from a moving state to a stationary state (see abstract & paragraphs 26 & 35-41, discloses determining transition from moving to stationary state based on detection of end of journey events (EOJ), for example a user providing indication of exiting the vehicle via door switch has mentioned in paragraph 19); and
increase a force of the active suspension in dependence on determining that the vehicle is transitioning to a stationary state, wherein the increasing a force comprises increasing spring force demand and/or damping force demand at one or more axles of the vehicle by controlling a variable force parameter controlling an extent to which the active suspension prevents body movement of the vehicle to provide a more stable platform of the vehicle when the vehicle is stationary, wherein the spring force demand and/or damping force demand are a function of inertial signals indicative of roll and/or pitch of a cabin of the vehicle, and wherein the determining whether the vehicle is transitioning from the moving state to the stationary state is or includes a determination of whether there is ingress/egress of one or more passengers of the vehicle and/or cargo of the vehicle (see abstract, discloses adjusting the vehicles suspension system in response to detection of a EOJ event to change its ride height. The EOJ event comprises an indication of transition from a moving to stationary state to indicate a vehicle ingress/egress of a passenger has discussed in paragraph 9). Guest teaches detection of ingress/egress via EOJ events within the vehicle and using it to adjust a suspension ride height is known. Guest however fails to explicitly recite increasing spring force demand and/or damping force demand by controlling a variable force parameter to prevent vehicle movement when its stationary. Kawasaki discloses detecting a stopping condition to determine transition between states and adjusting a spring coefficient selector valve to have higher spring or damping force control so has to suppress the swinging of the vehicle when weight changes due to passengers getting on or off (see abstract & col. 1, lines 10-67 & col. 2, lines 1-20 & col. 4, lines 19-59). Kawasaki fails to teach a relationship between the stiffening/damping has a function of inertial signals indicative of roll/pitch of the cabin. Mohamed discloses in paragraph 33 that the damping force obtained is calculated using body characteristics of acceleration, heave, pitch and roll, obtained from the inertial measurement unit (IMU) and converted to current for active control. Mohamed explicitly discloses in paragraph 20 the damper 130 is mounted on the left side of front axle 140, damper 132 is mounted on the right side of the front axle and damper 134 is mounted on the left side of the rear axle 142 with damper 136 at the right side of the rear axle 142. Thereby Mohamed ties individual dampers having damping-force control with suspension management directly to specific axles of the vehicle. Thus, Mohamed teaches a functional relationship between damping force and inertial measurements indicative of roll/pitch of the vehicle body. Guest, Kawasaki and Mohamed are from the same field of endeavor regarding vehicle suspension control. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have applied variable force parameters to control the spring/damping force demand based on inertial signals during an EOJ event. One motivation has provided by Kawasaki is to prevent vehicle swinging/shifting during passenger entry or exit has disclosed in col. 4, lines 20-30.
Regarding Dependent claim 2, with dependency of claim 1, Guest discloses wherein the one or more controllers collectively comprise: at least one electronic processor having an electrical input for receiving the information; and at least one electronic memory device electrically coupled to the at least one electronic processor and having instructions stored therein; and wherein the at least one electronic processor is configured to access the at least one memory device and execute the instructions thereon so as to cause the control system to control the active suspension in dependence on the receiving information (see paragraphs 13-14).
Regarding Dependent claim 3, with dependency of claim 1, Guest discloses receive information indicative of the vehicle starting to move; and reduce the force of the active suspension in a return direction, in dependence on the indication of the vehicle starting to move (see paragraph 87, discloses detecting ignition on/off and further supporting adjusting the ride height based on an entrance to the vehicle has described in the abstract).
Regarding Dependent claim 4, with dependency of claim 1, Guest discloses determine a duration for which the vehicle is stationary; and increase the force of the active suspension in dependence on the receiving information indicative of the vehicle becoming stationary when the determination is that the duration is above a threshold, and not increase the force of the active suspension in dependence on the receiving information indicative of the vehicle becoming stationary when the determination is that the duration is below a threshold (see paragraphs 16-17 & 40-42). Guest fails to explicitly recite increasing spring force demand and/or damping force demand by controlling a variable force parameter to prevent vehicle movement when its stationary. Kawasaki discloses detecting a stopping condition to determine transition between states and adjusting a spring coefficient selector valve to have higher spring or damping force control so has to suppress the swinging of the vehicle when weight changes due to passengers getting on or off (see abstract & col. 1, lines 10-67 & col. 2, lines 1-20 & col. 4, lines 19-59). Kawasaki fails to teach a relationship between the stiffening/damping has a function of inertial signals indicative of roll/pitch of the cabin. Mohamed discloses in paragraph 33 that the damping force obtained is calculated using body characteristics of acceleration, heave, pitch and roll, obtained from the inertial measurement unit (IMU) and converted to current for active control. Thus, Mohamed teaches a functional relationship between damping force and inertial measurements indicative of roll/pitch of the vehicle body. Guest, Kawasaki and Mohamed are from the same field of endeavor regarding vehicle suspension control. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have applied variable force parameters to control the spring/damping force demand based on inertial signals during an EOJ event. One motivation has provided by Kawasaki is to prevent vehicle swinging/shifting during passenger entry or exit has disclosed in col. 4, lines 20-30.
Regarding Dependent claim 5, with dependency of claim 1, Guest teaches detection of ingress/egress via EOJ events within the vehicle and using it to adjust a suspension ride height is known (see abstract). Guest fails to explicitly recite increasing spring force demand and/or damping force demand by controlling a variable force parameter to prevent vehicle movement when its stationary. Kawasaki discloses detecting a stopping condition to determine transition between states and adjusting a spring coefficient selector valve to have higher spring or damping force control so has to suppress the swinging of the vehicle when weight changes due to passengers getting on or off (see abstract & col. 1, lines 10-67 & col. 2, lines 1-20 & col. 4, lines 19-59). Kawasaki fails to teach a relationship between the stiffening/damping has a function of inertial signals indicative of roll/pitch of the cabin. Mohamed discloses in paragraph 33 that the damping force obtained is calculated using body characteristics of acceleration, heave, pitch and roll, obtained from the inertial measurement unit (IMU) and converted to current for active control. Thus, Mohamed teaches a functional relationship between damping force and inertial measurements indicative of roll/pitch of the vehicle body. Guest, Kawasaki and Mohamed are from the same field of endeavor regarding vehicle suspension control. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have applied variable force parameters to control the spring/damping force demand based on inertial signals during an EOJ event. One motivation has provided by Kawasaki is to prevent vehicle swinging/shifting during passenger entry or exit has disclosed in col. 4, lines 20-30.
Regarding Dependent claim 7, with dependency of claim 1, Guest discloses determine that the vehicle has become stationary (see abstract & paragraphs 26 & 35-41); Guest fails to explicitly recite increasing spring force demand and/or damping force demand by controlling a variable force parameter to prevent vehicle movement when its stationary. Kawasaki discloses commence the increasing the force of the active suspension in dependence on the receiving information indicative of the vehicle becoming stationary in response to the determining that the vehicle has become stationary (see abstract & col. 1, lines 10-67 & col. 2, lines 1-20 & col. 4, lines 19-59). Kawasaki fails to teach a relationship between the stiffening/damping has a function of inertial signals indicative of roll/pitch of the cabin. Mohamed discloses in paragraph 33 that the damping force obtained is calculated using body characteristics of acceleration, heave, pitch and roll, obtained from the inertial measurement unit (IMU) and converted to current for active control. Thus, Mohamed teaches a functional relationship between damping force and inertial measurements indicative of roll/pitch of the vehicle body. Guest, Kawasaki and Mohamed are from the same field of endeavor regarding vehicle suspension control. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have applied variable force parameters to control the spring/damping force demand based on inertial signals during an EOJ event. One motivation has provided by Kawasaki is to prevent vehicle swinging/shifting during passenger entry or exit has disclosed in col. 4, lines 20-30.
Regarding Dependent claim 8, Guest discloses a vehicle comprising the control system of claim 1 (see abstract).
Regarding Dependent claim 11, Guest discloses A non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium storing instructions thereon that, when executed by one or more electronic processors, causes the one or more electronic processors to carry out the method of claim 10 (see paragraph 76, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Independent claim 12, Guest discloses A method of controlling an active suspension of a vehicle, the method comprising:
receiving an indication that indicates a vehicle transition of the vehicle from a moving state to a stationary state (see abstract & paragraphs 26 & 35-41, discloses determining transition from moving to stationary state based on detection of end of journey events (EOJ), for example a user providing indication of exiting the vehicle via door switch has mentioned in paragraph 19); and
controlling the active suspension of the vehicle to stiffen the active suspension of the vehicle and/or to increase damping force demand at one or more axles of the vehicle in response to the indication of the vehicle transition from the moving state to the stationary state (see paragraph 86, discloses adjusting the suspension system to modify its height by either raising or lowering it),
wherein the stiffening the active suspension and/or the increasing damping force demand controls an extent to which the active suspension prevents body movement of the vehicle to provide a more stable platform of the vehicle when the vehicle is stationary, wherein the stiffening the active suspension and/or the increasing damping force demand are a function of inertial signals indicative of roll and/or pitch of a cabin of the vehicle, and wherein the indication that indicates the vehicle transition of the vehicle from the moving state to the stationary state is or includes an indication of ingress/egress of one or more passengers of the vehicle and/or cargo of the vehicle (see abstract, discloses adjusting the vehicles suspension system in response to detection of a EOJ event to change its ride height. The EOJ event comprises an indication of transition from a moving to stationary state to indicate a vehicle ingress/egress of a passenger has discussed in paragraph 9). Guest teaches detection of ingress/egress via EOJ events within the vehicle and using it to adjust a suspension ride height is known. Guest however fails to explicitly recite increasing spring force demand and/or damping force demand by controlling a variable force parameter to prevent vehicle movement when its stationary. Kawasaki discloses detecting a stopping condition to determine transition between states and adjusting a spring coefficient selector valve to have higher spring or damping force control so has to suppress the swinging of the vehicle when weight changes due to passengers getting on or off (see abstract & col. 1, lines 10-67 & col. 2, lines 1-20 & col. 4, lines 19-59). Kawasaki fails to teach a relationship between the stiffening/damping has a function of inertial signals indicative of roll/pitch of the cabin. Mohamed discloses in paragraph 33 that the damping force obtained is calculated using body characteristics of acceleration, heave, pitch and roll, obtained from the inertial measurement unit (IMU) and converted to current for active control. Mohamed explicitly discloses in paragraph 20 the damper 130 is mounted on the left side of front axle 140, damper 132 is mounted on the right side of the front axle and damper 134 is mounted on the left side of the rear axle 142 with damper 136 at the right side of the rear axle 142. Thereby Mohamed ties individual dampers having damping-force control with suspension management directly to specific axles of the vehicle. Thus, Mohamed teaches a functional relationship between damping force and inertial measurements indicative of roll/pitch of the vehicle body. Guest, Kawasaki and Mohamed are from the same field of endeavor regarding vehicle suspension control. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have applied variable force parameters to control the spring/damping force demand based on inertial signals during an EOJ event. One motivation has provided by Kawasaki is to prevent vehicle swinging/shifting during passenger entry or exit has disclosed in col. 4, lines 20-30.
Regarding Dependent claim 13, with dependency of claim 12, Guest teaches detection of ingress/egress via EOJ events within the vehicle and using it to adjust a suspension ride height is known (see abstract). Guest fails to explicitly recite increasing spring force demand and/or damping force demand by controlling a variable force parameter to prevent vehicle movement when its stationary. Kawasaki discloses wherein controlling the active suspension of the vehicle to stiffen the active suspension of the vehicle comprises increasing spring force demand (see abstract & col. 1, lines 10-67 & col. 2, lines 1-20 & col. 4, lines 19-59). Kawasaki fails to teach a relationship between the stiffening/damping has a function of inertial signals indicative of roll/pitch of the cabin. Mohamed discloses in paragraph 33 that the damping force obtained is calculated using body characteristics of acceleration, heave, pitch and roll, obtained from the inertial measurement unit (IMU) and converted to current for active control. Thus, Mohamed teaches a functional relationship between damping force and inertial measurements indicative of roll/pitch of the vehicle body. Guest, Kawasaki and Mohamed are from the same field of endeavor regarding vehicle suspension control. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have applied variable force parameters to control the spring/damping force demand based on inertial signals during an EOJ event. One motivation has provided by Kawasaki is to prevent vehicle swinging/shifting during passenger entry or exit has disclosed in col. 4, lines 20-30.
Regarding Dependent claim 14, with dependency of claim 12, Guest teaches detection of ingress/egress via EOJ events within the vehicle and using it to adjust a suspension ride height is known (see abstract). Guest fails to explicitly recite increasing spring force demand and/or damping force demand by controlling a variable force parameter to prevent vehicle movement when its stationary. Kawasaki discloses wherein controlling the active suspension of the vehicle to stiffen the active suspension of the vehicle comprises increasing damping force demand (see abstract & col. 1, lines 10-67 & col. 2, lines 1-20 & col. 4, lines 19-59). Kawasaki fails to teach a relationship between the stiffening/damping has a function of inertial signals indicative of roll/pitch of the cabin. Mohamed discloses in paragraph 33 that the damping force obtained is calculated using body characteristics of acceleration, heave, pitch and roll, obtained from the inertial measurement unit (IMU) and converted to current for active control. Thus, Mohamed teaches a functional relationship between damping force and inertial measurements indicative of roll/pitch of the vehicle body. Guest, Kawasaki and Mohamed are from the same field of endeavor regarding vehicle suspension control. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have applied variable force parameters to control the spring/damping force demand based on inertial signals during an EOJ event. One motivation has provided by Kawasaki is to prevent vehicle swinging/shifting during passenger entry or exit has disclosed in col. 4, lines 20-30.
Regarding Dependent claim 15, with dependency of claim 12, Guest discloses determining whether the vehicle has been or is to be stationary for more than a predetermined threshold amount of time and controlling the active suspension of the vehicle to stiffen the active suspension of the vehicle based on determining whether the vehicle has been or is to be stationary for more than the predetermined threshold amount of time (see paragraphs 16-17 & 40-42). Guest teaches detection of ingress/egress via EOJ events within the vehicle and using it to adjust a suspension ride height is known. Guest fails to explicitly recite increasing spring force demand and/or damping force demand by controlling a variable force parameter to prevent vehicle movement when its stationary. Kawasaki discloses detecting a stopping condition to determine transition between states and adjusting a spring coefficient selector valve to have higher spring or damping force control so has to suppress the swinging of the vehicle when weight changes due to passengers getting on or off (see abstract & col. 1, lines 10-67 & col. 2, lines 1-20 & col. 4, lines 19-59). Kawasaki fails to teach a relationship between the stiffening/damping has a function of inertial signals indicative of roll/pitch of the cabin. Mohamed discloses in paragraph 33 that the damping force obtained is calculated using body characteristics of acceleration, heave, pitch and roll, obtained from the inertial measurement unit (IMU) and converted to current for active control. Thus, Mohamed teaches a functional relationship between damping force and inertial measurements indicative of roll/pitch of the vehicle body. Guest, Kawasaki and Mohamed are from the same field of endeavor regarding vehicle suspension control. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have applied variable force parameters to control the spring/damping force demand based on inertial signals during an EOJ event. One motivation has provided by Kawasaki is to prevent vehicle swinging/shifting during passenger entry or exit has disclosed in col. 4, lines 20-30.
Regarding Dependent claims 16, with dependency of claim 15, Guest discloses wherein, when it is determined that the vehicle has been or is to be stationary for more than the predetermined threshold amount of time, controlling the active suspension of the vehicle to stiffen the active suspension of the vehicle (see paragraphs 16-17 & 40-42). Guest teaches detection of ingress/egress via EOJ events within the vehicle and using it to adjust a suspension ride height is known. Guest fails to explicitly recite increasing spring force demand and/or damping force demand by controlling a variable force parameter to prevent vehicle movement when its stationary. Kawasaki discloses detecting a stopping condition to determine transition between states and adjusting a spring coefficient selector valve to have higher spring or damping force control so has to suppress the swinging of the vehicle when weight changes due to passengers getting on or off (see abstract & col. 1, lines 10-67 & col. 2, lines 1-20 & col. 4, lines 19-59). Kawasaki fails to teach a relationship between the stiffening/damping has a function of inertial signals indicative of roll/pitch of the cabin. Mohamed discloses in paragraph 33 that the damping force obtained is calculated using body characteristics of acceleration, heave, pitch and roll, obtained from the inertial measurement unit (IMU) and converted to current for active control. Thus, Mohamed teaches a functional relationship between damping force and inertial measurements indicative of roll/pitch of the vehicle body. Guest, Kawasaki and Mohamed are from the same field of endeavor regarding vehicle suspension control. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have applied variable force parameters to control the spring/damping force demand based on inertial signals during an EOJ event. One motivation has provided by Kawasaki is to prevent vehicle swinging/shifting during passenger entry or exit has disclosed in col. 4, lines 20-30.
Regarding Dependent claim 17, with dependency of claim 15, Guest discloses wherein, when it is determined that the vehicle has not been or is not to be stationary for more than the predetermined threshold amount of time, controlling the active suspension of the vehicle to reduce stiffening of the active suspension of the vehicle (see paragraphs 16-17 & 40-42). Guest teaches detection of ingress/egress via EOJ events within the vehicle and using it to adjust a suspension ride height is known. Guest fails to explicitly recite increasing spring force demand and/or damping force demand by controlling a variable force parameter to prevent vehicle movement when its stationary. Kawasaki discloses detecting a stopping condition to determine transition between states and adjusting a spring coefficient selector valve to have higher spring or damping force control so has to suppress the swinging of the vehicle when weight changes due to passengers getting on or off (see abstract & col. 1, lines 10-67 & col. 2, lines 1-20 & col. 4, lines 19-59). Kawasaki fails to teach a relationship between the stiffening/damping has a function of inertial signals indicative of roll/pitch of the cabin. Mohamed discloses in paragraph 33 that the damping force obtained is calculated using body characteristics of acceleration, heave, pitch and roll, obtained from the inertial measurement unit (IMU) and converted to current for active control. Thus, Mohamed teaches a functional relationship between damping force and inertial measurements indicative of roll/pitch of the vehicle body. Guest, Kawasaki and Mohamed are from the same field of endeavor regarding vehicle suspension control. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have applied variable force parameters to control the spring/damping force demand based on inertial signals during an EOJ event. One motivation has provided by Kawasaki is to prevent vehicle swinging/shifting during passenger entry or exit has disclosed in col. 4, lines 20-30.
Regarding Dependent claim 18, with dependency of claim 12, Guest discloses wherein controlling the active suspension of the vehicle to stiffen the active suspension of the vehicle is performed in response to determining that the vehicle has been or is to be in the stationary state for more than a predetermined amount of time (see paragraphs 16-17 & 40-42). Guest teaches detection of ingress/egress via EOJ events within the vehicle and using it to adjust a suspension ride height is known. Guest fails to explicitly recite increasing spring force demand and/or damping force demand by controlling a variable force parameter to prevent vehicle movement when its stationary. Kawasaki discloses detecting a stopping condition to determine transition between states and adjusting a spring coefficient selector valve to have higher spring or damping force control so has to suppress the swinging of the vehicle when weight changes due to passengers getting on or off (see abstract & col. 1, lines 10-67 & col. 2, lines 1-20 & col. 4, lines 19-59). Kawasaki fails to teach a relationship between the stiffening/damping has a function of inertial signals indicative of roll/pitch of the cabin. Mohamed discloses in paragraph 33 that the damping force obtained is calculated using body characteristics of acceleration, heave, pitch and roll, obtained from the inertial measurement unit (IMU) and converted to current for active control. Thus, Mohamed teaches a functional relationship between damping force and inertial measurements indicative of roll/pitch of the vehicle body. Guest, Kawasaki and Mohamed are from the same field of endeavor regarding vehicle suspension control. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have applied variable force parameters to control the spring/damping force demand based on inertial signals during an EOJ event. One motivation has provided by Kawasaki is to prevent vehicle swinging/shifting during passenger entry or exit has disclosed in col. 4, lines 20-30.
Regarding Dependent claim 20, with dependency of claim 12, Guest discloses wherein controlling of the active suspension of the vehicle to stiffen the active suspension of the vehicle is performed after the vehicle has transitioned to the stationary state (see paragraphs 50 & 109). Guest fails to explicitly recite increasing spring force demand and/or damping force demand by controlling a variable force parameter to prevent vehicle movement when its stationary. Kawasaki discloses detecting a stopping condition to determine transition between states and adjusting a spring coefficient selector valve to have higher spring or damping force control so has to suppress the swinging of the vehicle when weight changes due to passengers getting on or off (see abstract & col. 1, lines 10-67 & col. 2, lines 1-20 & col. 4, lines 19-59). Kawasaki fails to teach a relationship between the stiffening/damping has a function of inertial signals indicative of roll/pitch of the cabin. Mohamed discloses in paragraph 33 that the damping force obtained is calculated using body characteristics of acceleration, heave, pitch and roll, obtained from the inertial measurement unit (IMU) and converted to current for active control. Thus, Mohamed teaches a functional relationship between damping force and inertial measurements indicative of roll/pitch of the vehicle body. Guest, Kawasaki and Mohamed are from the same field of endeavor regarding vehicle suspension control. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have applied variable force parameters to control the spring/damping force demand based on inertial signals during an EOJ event. One motivation has provided by Kawasaki is to prevent vehicle swinging/shifting during passenger entry or exit has disclosed in col. 4, lines 20-30.
Regarding Dependent claim 21, with dependency of claim 1, Guest discloses wherein the increase of the force of the active suspension of the vehicle is effected after the vehicle has transitioned to the stationary state (see paragraphs 50 & 109). Guest however fails to explicitly recite increasing spring force demand and/or damping force demand by controlling a variable force parameter to prevent vehicle movement when its stationary. Kawasaki discloses detecting a stopping condition to determine transition between states and adjusting a spring coefficient selector valve to have higher spring or damping force control so has to suppress the swinging of the vehicle when weight changes due to passengers getting on or off (see abstract & col. 1, lines 10-67 & col. 2, lines 1-20 & col. 4, lines 19-59). Kawasaki fails to teach a relationship between the stiffening/damping has a function of inertial signals indicative of roll/pitch of the cabin. Mohamed discloses in paragraph 33 that the damping force obtained is calculated using body characteristics of acceleration, heave, pitch and roll, obtained from the inertial measurement unit (IMU) and converted to current for active control. Thus, Mohamed teaches a functional relationship between damping force and inertial measurements indicative of roll/pitch of the vehicle body. Guest, Kawasaki and Mohamed are from the same field of endeavor regarding vehicle suspension control. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have applied variable force parameters to control the spring/damping force demand based on inertial signals during an EOJ event. One motivation has provided by Kawasaki is to prevent vehicle swinging/shifting during passenger entry or exit has disclosed in col. 4, lines 20-30.
Regarding Dependent claim 22, with dependency of claim 1, Guest however fails to explicitly recite increasing spring force demand and/or damping force demand by controlling a variable force parameter to prevent vehicle movement when its stationary. Kawasaki discloses detecting a stopping condition to determine transition between states and adjusting a spring coefficient selector valve to have higher spring or damping force control so has to suppress the swinging of the vehicle when weight changes due to passengers getting on or off (see abstract & col. 1, lines 10-67 & col. 2, lines 1-20 & col. 4, lines 19-59). Kawasaki fails to teach a relationship between the stiffening/damping has a function of inertial signals indicative of roll/pitch of the cabin. Mohamed discloses an inertial measurement unit (IMU) configured to provide the inertial signals indicative of roll and/or pitch of the cabin of the vehicle (see paragraph 33). Guest, Kawasaki and Mohamed are from the same field of endeavor regarding vehicle suspension control. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have applied variable force parameters to control the spring/damping force demand based on inertial signals during an EOJ event. One motivation has provided by Kawasaki is to prevent vehicle swinging/shifting during passenger entry or exit has disclosed in col. 4, lines 20-30.
5. Claim 9 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guest (U.S. Pub 2017/0203626, published Jul. 20, 2017) in view of Kawasaki (U.S. 5,135,065, filed Feb. 7, 1991, previously cited in the 1449 dated 1/23/2023) further in view of Mohamed (U.S. Pub 2016/0159188, filed Dec. 8, 2014) further in view of Applicant admitted prior art herein AAPA.
Regarding Dependent claim 9, with dependency of claim 8, Guest discloses wherein the increase of the force of the active suspension of the vehicle is effected after the vehicle has transitioned to the stationary state (see paragraphs 50 & 109). Guest however fails to explicitly recite increasing spring force demand and/or damping force demand by controlling a variable force parameter to prevent vehicle movement when its stationary. Kawasaki discloses detecting a stopping condition to determine transition between states and adjusting a spring coefficient selector valve to have higher spring or damping force control so has to suppress the swinging of the vehicle when weight changes due to passengers getting on or off (see abstract & col. 1, lines 10-67 & col. 2, lines 1-20 & col. 4, lines 19-59). Kawasaki fails to teach a relationship between the stiffening/damping has a function of inertial signals indicative of roll/pitch of the cabin. Mohamed discloses an inertial measurement unit (IMU) configured to provide the inertial signals indicative of roll and/or pitch of the cabin of the vehicle (see paragraph 33). Mohamed fails to mention application of the suspension system to an autonomous vehicle. AAPA discloses wherein the vehicle is configured for autonomous driving (see background, discloses application of active suspension systems in automated vehicles). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have supported the suspension system for different types of vehicles such as autonomous vehicles. One motivation has outlined by Guest in paragraph 45 is to improve comfort and safety of passengers during ingress/egress from an autonomous vehicle.
It is noted that any citation [[s]] to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. [[See, MPEP 2123]]
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s arguments filed 3/30/2026 has been considered but are not persuasive:
Applicant Argues: Mohamed does not teach or suggest modulating damping force or spring force at one or more axles. (see pg. 7)
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have no reasonable expectation of success to look to Mohamed to remedy this shortcoming because Mohamed’s algorithm relating the spring damping force and the vehicle body characteristics also depends on the thermal properties of the suspension springs and dampers.
Neither Guest nor Mohamed contemplates such features. (see pg. 8)
…Kawasaki merely controls the mount of hydraulic fluid in the suspension dampers by selectively opening the selector valve. (see pg. 9)
The Examiner Respectfully Disagrees: Mohamed explicitly discloses in paragraph 20 the damper 130 is mounted on the left side of front axle 140, damper 132 is mounted on the right side of the front axle and damper 134 is mounted on the left side of the rear axle 142 with damper 136 at the right side of the rear axle 142. Thereby Mohamed ties individual dampers having damping-force control with suspension management directly to specific axles of the vehicle. Mohamed teaches axle-associated damping control which increases damping force at the axles by controlling a variable damping parameter during vehicle transition to a stationary condition to suppress vehicle body motion.
It is not necessary that the references actually suggest, expressly or in so many words the changes or improvements that applicant has made. The test for combining references is what the references as a whole would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Sheckler, 168 USPQ 716 (CCPA 1971); In re McLaughlin 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971); In re Young 159 USPQ 725 (CCPA 1968).
In response to applicant's argument, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MANGLESH M PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5937. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 10:30 am to 7:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin D. Bishop, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-3713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Manglesh M Patel/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
6/5/2026
Prosecution Insights