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 .
Claim Status
Claim 2 has been canceled. Claims 1 and 3-11 are pending in the application and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sprengel (DE102014112444A1) hereinafter Sprengel and Buma et al. (US 5,159,554) hereinafter Buma.
Claim 1:
Sprengel discloses a method [Fig. 4] for correcting a height value [d] comprising: measuring a height value using a height sensor [8] of a spring-damper unit [5] of a motor vehicle; correcting the measured height value by a correction value [K]; adjusting the correction value while the motor vehicle is moving [¶¶22, 38, the accelerations cited would occur during movement of the vehicle]; and using the correction value to provide ride height compensation of the spring-damper unit [¶¶20-21, 26].
Sprengel doesn’t explicitly disclose (a correction value is determined) on the basis of a height change of the spring-damper unit that is caused by a longitudinal or lateral acceleration of the motor vehicle.
However, Buma does disclose (a correction value is determined) on the basis of a height change of the spring-damper unit that is caused by a longitudinal or lateral acceleration of the motor vehicle [col. 2, lines 26-43].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the ride correcting height of Sprengel with the spring damper height determination of Buma to maintain the vehicle height constant to improve ride comfort and maneuverability despite changes in vehicular forces.
Claim 3:
Sprengel and Buma, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Sprengel doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the height change of the spring-damper unit is ascertained from a reference height value and an acceleration-dependent height value.
However Buma does disclose wherein the height change of the spring-damper unit is ascertained from a reference height value and an acceleration-dependent height value. [col. 2, lines 26-43]
Claim 4:
Sprengel and Buma, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 3.
Sprengel doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the acceleration-dependent height value is read off on the basis of a predetermined acceleration interpolation point value.
However, Buma discloses wherein the acceleration-dependent height value is read off on the basis of a predetermined acceleration interpolation point value. [col. 5, line 66 to col. 6, line 24; Figs. 11-13; interpolating points on a graph is a known technique to a person having ordinary skill in the art]
Claim 5:
Sprengel and Buma, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 3.
Claim 5 is a contingent limitation and is thus rejected for the same reason as claim 3 from which it depends.
Claim 10:
Sprengel and Buma, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Sprengel also discloses wherein the adjusted correction value is stored in an adaptive acceleration value/correction value characteristic curve [¶¶29-30].
Claim 11:
Sprengel and Buma, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Sprengel also discloses wherein the method is carried out using an electronic open-loop and closed-loop control device of the motor vehicle [Figs. 3-4; ¶¶26, 29]
Claim(s) 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sprengel and Buma as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Kral et al. (US 2019/0193507 A1) hereinafter Kral.
Claim 6:
Sprengel and Buma, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 3.
Sprengel doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the ascertained height change of the spring-damper unit is supplied iteratively to an averaging section, resulting in an average height change value that is used to adjust the correction value.
However, Kral discloses wherein the ascertained height change of the spring-damper unit is supplied iteratively to an averaging section, resulting in an average height change value that is used to adjust the correction value. [¶¶16-23]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the ride correcting height of Sprengel and Buma with the ride height adjustment inhibiting method of Kral to prevent too many adjustments caused by varying conditions in a short period of time thus causing discomfort.
Claim 7:
Sprengel, Buma, and Kral as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 6.
Sprengel doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the average height change value represents the adjusted correction value.
However, Kral does disclose wherein the average height change value represents the adjusted correction value. [¶¶16-23]
Claim 8:
Sprengel and Buma, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 3.
Sprengel doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the ascertained height change of the spring-damper unit is supplied iteratively to a weighted averaging section, in which the ascertained height change is multiplied by a weighting factor, resulting in a weighted-average height change value that is used to adjust the correction value.
However, Kral does disclose wherein the ascertained height change of the spring-damper unit is supplied iteratively to a weighted averaging section, in which the ascertained height change is multiplied by a weighting factor, resulting in a weighted-average height change value that is used to adjust the correction value. [¶¶16-23]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the ride correcting height of Sprengel and Buma with the ride height adjustment inhibiting method of Kral to prevent too many adjustments caused by varying conditions in a short period of time thus causing discomfort.
Claim 9:
Sprengel, Buma, and Kral as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 8.
Sprengel doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the weighted-average height change value represents the adjusted correction value.
However, Kral does disclose wherein the weighted-average height change value represents the adjusted correction value. [¶¶16-23]
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 KURT P LIETHEN whose telephone number is (313)446-6596. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 8 AM - 4 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, 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.
KURT P. LIETHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/KURT PHILIP LIETHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747