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
Claims 2, 3, and 5 have been canceled. Claims 1, 4, and 6-11 are pending in the application and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 5 of the Remarks/Argument that the subject matter in claim 5 which has been incorporated in to independent claim 1 has been positively recited. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim limitation states, “the height change of the spring-damper unit being ascertained from a reference height value and an acceleration-dependent height value when: a vehicle speed…” (emphasis added).
MPEP 2111.04(II) states, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens.” Therefore the steps are not required. Examiner suggests amending the limitations to recite the height change being ascertained, “in response to,” each of the conditions being true.
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, 4, 10, and 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 value [d] for a height of a motor vehicle comprising: measuring a height value using a height sensor [8] of a spring-damper unit [5] of the 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]
The limitation, “the height change of the spring-damper unit being ascertained from a reference height value and an acceleration-dependent height value when: a vehicle speed of the motor vehicle is above a predetermined speed threshold value; the longitudinal and lateral acceleration of the motor vehicle are below a respective predetermined acceleration threshold value; a steering angle of the motor vehicle is below a predetermined steering angle threshold value; a gradient of the height value measured using the height sensor is below a predetermined gradient threshold value or the height value measured using the height sensor is within a height value threshold value range; and no ride height control process for the motor vehicle within a predetermined period of time beforehand,” is a contingent limitation because ascertaining the reference height is contingent on when the subsequent conditions exist.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the method 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 4:
Sprengel and Buma, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
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 does disclose 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 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sprengel and Buma as applied to claim 1 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 1.
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 does 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. [¶¶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 method 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]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the method 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 8:
Sprengel and Buma, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
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 method 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]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the method 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yang et al. (US 2022/0057796 A1) discloses a device for controlling autonomous driving which detects environmental information and controls the vehicle accordingly.
Holbrook (US 2007/0282498 A1) discloses a method of determining conditions for leveling the height of a vehicle based on acceleration and other variables.
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
Prosecution Insights