DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
This rejection is withdrawn due to the amendments made to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
This rejection is withdrawn due to the amendments made to the claims.
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, 4-16, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (U.S. Pat. No. 10,377,371) in view of Toyohira (U.S. Pat. No. 11,613,152).
Regarding claim 1 and 16, Anderson discloses a mount control system for vehicles, comprising:
a camera (col. 29, lines 49-55 discloses the use of cameras) mounted on the front part of a vehicle;
a plurality of wheel acceleration sensors (806 disclosed in col. 6, line 51) mounted on front wheels of the vehicle;
a suspension controller (col. 6, lines 44-47) configured to determine a road surface state of the road based on photographing information in which the camera photographs the road surface conditions on the road ahead (col. 19, lines 37-49 discloses using the camera information to control suspension) and vertical acceleration value acting on the front wheels detected by the wheel acceleration sensors (col. 6, lines 47-60 discloses the various sensors used to control suspension due to road conditions); and
a mount controller configured to control an actuator of semi-active mounts to be driven or not driven based on road surface state determination information transmitted from the suspension controller and the values detected by the plurality of wheel acceleration sensors (322 is dependent on information from the camera),
the semi-active mounts are driven by the mount controller, based on road surface state determination information (322 is a result of the road conditions determined at 315) and the values detected by the plurality of wheel acceleration sensors (col. 38, lines 8-14),
Note: the subsequent calculations are signals inside of a processor that do not change the way that the apparatus is operating. These signals are meaningless extrasolution activity.
wherein the suspension controller determines the road surface state of the road as one of a general road surface state, a rough road surface state and a bumpy road surface state, and the suspension controller determines the road surface state of the road as the general road surface state when a road surface roughness value of the road is less than a reference value, and determines the road surface state of the road as the rough road surface state when the road surface roughness value of the road is equal to or greater than another reference value (col. 22, lines 27-40 discloses identifying speed bumps from rumble strips which are different thresholds of identification).
wherein the suspension controller determines the road surface state of the road as the bumpy road surface state when there is a bump within a set distance ahead of the vehicle or when the vehicle is passing over a bump (has to be in view of the camera).
Anderson does not disclose the road surface roughness value is an index value calculated by integrating the values detected by the wheel acceleration sensors.
Toyohira, which deals in vehicle suspension, teaches the road surface roughness value is an index value calculated by integrating the values detected by the wheel acceleration sensors (col. 7, lines 45-50 discloses integrating acceleration values of the wheels).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Anderson with the integration of Toyohira because this is a way of correcting and filtering the data (col. 7, lines 40-50).
Regarding claim 4 which depends from claim 1, Anderson discloses wherein, in a case in which the road surface state of the road transmitted from the suspension controller is determined to be the general road surface state, the mount controller controls the semi-active mounts to enter the off state from the on state (at 322 this would be entering into an optimal ride height for unchanging conditions), when the value detected by the wheel acceleration sensor mounted on one of the front wheels is equal to or greater than a yet another reference value (col. 35, line 60 – col. 36, line 15 discloses that a state where no risk is perceived by the sensors would not be cause for an adjustment).
Regarding claim 5 which depends from claim 4, Anderson discloses wherein, after controlling the semi-active mounts to enter the off state from the on state, the mount controller controls the semi-active mounts to return to the on state from the off state, when the value detected by the wheel acceleration sensor becomes less than the reference value for a first reference time (col. 38, lines 5-14 would cause a sudden acceleration that would then lower acceleration and be cause for adjusting the height to avoid tipping).
Regarding claim 6 which depends from claim 5, Anderson discloses wherein, after controlling the semi-active mounts to return to the on state from the off state, the mount controller controls the semi-active mounts to reenter the off state from the on state, when the value detected by the wheel acceleration sensor again becomes equal to or greater than the reference value within a second reference time longer than the first reference time (once the adjustment is made the system would go back to “no adjustment” which is “off”).
Regarding claim 7 which depends from claim 6, Anderson discloses wherein, after controlling the actuators of the semi-active mounts to reenter the off state from the on state, the mount controller controls the semi-active mounts to return again to the on state from the off state, when the value detected by the wheel acceleration sensor becomes less than the reference value for a third reference value longer than the first reference time but shorter than the second reference time (Once a determination of no tipping is made the vehicle would make an adjustment of lowering the other wheels to the ground).
Regarding claim 8 which depends from claim 1, Anderson discloses wherein, in a case in which the road surface state of the road transmitted from the suspension controller is determined to be the rough road surface state, the mount controller controls the semi-active mounts to enter the off state from the on state, when the value detected by the wheel acceleration sensor mounted on one of the front wheels is equal to or greater than a value obtained by multiplying a yet another reference value by a rough road surface weight (at 322 when there is cause for a change in height).
Regarding claim 9 which depends from claim 8, Anderson discloses wherein, after controlling the semi-active mounts to enter the off state from the on state, the mount controller controls the semi-active mounts to return to the on state from the off state, when the value detected by the wheel acceleration sensor becomes less than the value obtained by multiplying the reference value by the rough road surface weight for a first reference time (col. 38, lines 5-14 would cause a sudden acceleration that would then lower acceleration and be cause for adjusting the height to avoid tipping).
Regarding claim 10 which depends from claim 9, Anderson discloses wherein, after controlling the semi-active mounts to return to the on state from the off state, the mount controller controls the semi-active mounts to reenter the off state from the on state, when the value detected by the wheel acceleration sensor again becomes equal to or greater than the value obtained by multiplying the reference value by the rough road surface weight within a second reference time longer than the first reference time (once the adjustment is made the system would go back to “no adjustment” which is “off”).
Regarding claim 11 which depends from claim 10, Anderson discloses wherein, after controlling the actuators of the semi-active mounts to reenter the off state from the on state, the mount controller controls the semi-active mounts to return again to the on state from the off state, when the value detected by the wheel acceleration sensor becomes less than the value obtained by multiplying the reference value by the rough road surface weight for a third reference value longer than the first reference time but shorter than the second reference time (Once a determination of no tipping is made the vehicle would make an adjustment of lowering the other wheels to the ground).
Regarding claim 12 which depends from claim 1, Anderson discloses wherein, in a case in which the road surface state of the road transmitted from the suspension controller is determined to be the bumpy road surface state, the mount controller controls the semi-active mounts to enter the off state from the on state, when the value detected by the wheel acceleration sensor mounted on one of the front wheels is equal to or greater than a value obtained by multiplying a yet another reference value by a bump weight (at 322 when there is cause for a change in height).
Regarding claim 13 which depends from claim 12, Anderson discloses wherein, after controlling the semi-active mounts to enter the off state from the on state, the mount controller controls the semi-active mounts to return to the on state from the off state, when the value detected by the wheel acceleration sensor becomes less than the value obtained by multiplying the reference value by the bump weight for a first reference time (col. 38, lines 5-14 would cause a sudden acceleration that would then lower acceleration and be cause for adjusting the height to avoid tipping).
Regarding claim 14 which depends from claim 13, Anderson discloses wherein, after controlling the semi-active mounts to return to the on state from the off state, the mount controller controls the semi-active mounts to reenter the off state from the on state, when the value detected by the wheel acceleration sensor again becomes equal to or greater than the value obtained by multiplying the reference value by the bump weight within a second reference time longer than the first reference time (once the adjustment is made the system would go back to “no adjustment” which is “off”).
Regarding claim 15 which depends from claim 14, Anderson discloses wherein, after controlling the actuators of the semi-active mounts to reenter the off state from the on state, the mount controller controls the semi-active mounts to return again to the on state from the off state, when the value detected by the wheel acceleration sensor becomes less than the value obtained by multiplying the reference value by the bump weight for a third reference value longer than the first reference time but shorter than the second reference time (Once a determination of no tipping is made the vehicle would make an adjustment of lowering the other wheels to the ground).
Regarding claim 18 which depends from claim 16, Anderson discloses wherein when the road surface state of the road transmitted from the suspension controller is determined to be the general road surface state, the semi-active mounts are controlled to enter the off state from the on state by the mount controller, when the value detected by the wheel acceleration sensor mounted on one of the front wheels is equal to or greater than a yet another reference value (the limitations of this claim have been addressed above in claim 4).
Regarding claim 19 which depends from claim 16, Anderson discloses wherein when the road surface state of the road transmitted from the suspension controller is determined to be the general road surface state, the semi-active mounts are controlled to enter the off state from the on state by the mount controller, when the value detected by the wheel acceleration sensor mounted on one of the front wheels is equal to or greater than a value obtained by multiplying a yet another reference value by a rough road surface weight (the limitations of this claim have been addressed above in claim 8).
Regarding claim 20 which depends from claim 16, Anderson discloses wherein when the road surface state of the road transmitted from the suspension controller is determined to be the general road surface state, the semi-active mounts are controlled to enter the off state from the on state by the mount controller, when the value detected by the wheel acceleration sensor mounted on one of the front wheels is equal to or greater than a value obtained by multiplying a yet another reference value by a bump weight (the limitations of this claim have been addressed above in claim 12).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/04/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 10 that the cited reference does not classify the road surface state values in the same way as required by the claims. These limitations are drawn to the signals inside of a processor that are labeling the data and then not using the labels for anything outside of the controller. These limitations are how the data is being stored inside of the processor and so are deemed to be meaningless extrasolution activity. When the road surface data is determined to be bumpy does it drive the semi-active mounts? When the surface data is rough does it drive it differently than when the data is bumpy? When the data is small enough to suggest a smooth road are the mounts not driven at all? Where the amendments to the claims state that this data does drive the mounts it does not state how classifying the data with these labels will drive the mounts. The Anderson reference states that this data also drives their mounts but does not have the same classifications but is doing equivalent things with the data.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GONZALO LAGUARDA whose telephone number is (571)272-5920. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-Th Alt. F.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at (571) 270-5065. 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.
GONZALO LAGUARDA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747 email: gonzalo.laguarda@uspto.gov
/GONZALO LAGUARDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747