DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-10 are pending.
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
4. The drawings filed on January 18, 2024 are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. No 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is warranted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. Claims 1-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
From claim 1, lines 9-11, the phrase “an execution of the ride comfort control . . . front and rear wheels of the vehicle” is not clear as to the meets and bounds, along the other claim language recited from this claim.
From claim 10, line 6, the phrase “prohibiting an execution . . . the uneven structure is detected” is not clear as to its meets and bounds with regards to the term “suppressed” as recited in the phrase, along the other claim language recited from this claim.
Applicant’s reference to paragraph [0030] is noted. However, this paragraph, along with other descriptive portions of the specification, do not clarify the claim language noted above, along with other claim language recited from this claim.
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
8. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
From claim 1, lines 9-11, the phrase “an execution of the ride comfort control . . . front and rear wheels of the vehicle” is not clear as to the meets and bounds with regards to the term “suppressed” as recited in the phrase..
From claim 10, line 6, the phrase “prohibiting an execution . . . the uneven structure is detected” is not clear as to its meets and bounds with regards to the term “suppressed” as recited in the phrase.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
10. Claims 1-10, as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itazuri, US 12,103,525, in view of Takagi et al., US 2009/0228174.
Itazuri discloses from Figures 1-9 and related text, a vehicle, e.g. 50, behavior control device, e.g. 100, comprising a road surface condition detection unit, e.g. 12, a control unit, e.g. 10, wherein when an uneven structure, e.g. a roadside strip or lateral force of a road, having a driving force for a wheel, e.g. 24, for lane change, wherein the lane departure in not used when a driver moves the vehicle to a side road.
Itazuri does not disclose adjusting the braking/driving for of each front/rear wheels of the vehicle, along with the terms ride comfort control unit, nor reducing vibration of the vehicle, along with a rumble strip.
Takagi discloses adjusting the braking/driving for of each front/rear wheels of the vehicle in relationship to a road surface, e.g. [0121].
To have adjusted the braking/driving for of each front/rear wheels of the vehicle in relationship to a road surface for Itazuri would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Takagi.
It is noted the vibration of a vehicle is inherently reduced when it is moved away from an uneven structure, e.g. roadside strip or rumble strip, and one’s ride comfort is impacted. Rumble strips are common knowledge in the road lane art. Official Notice of each of these facts taken
Also, it is customary to have both front/back brakes have disparate forces applied thereto depending on the environment, e.g. speed, objects encountered, that a vehicle is being driven through. Official Notice of such is taken.
As such the control unit, e.g. 10, and road surface condition unit, e.g 12, are deemed to encompass the functions of the terms. It is noted these terms add no specific limitations as to their scope and content, as each is extremely broad in scope and content. Having a comfortable ride by avoiding obstacles while driving in a vehicle is age old within the automobile art. Official Notice of such is taken.
To have viewed such for Itazuri would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Takagi. The motivation for such would be collision avoidance in order to prevent damage if a driver is not attentive to the responsibilities of driving a vehicle and were to diverge from proper lane control in order to have a comfortable ride.
Regarding the claims reciting uneven structure, rumble strips, left-right direction, front-rear direction, sound or vibration, these features are all common knowledge within the detection of uneven road surfaces in relationship to lane control. Official Notice of such is taken.
To have provided Itazuri to incorporate these features would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art. The motivation for such would be avoid collision and/or injury to property/individuals after detection thereof.
11. Pertinent references are noted on the attached PTO-892.
Conclusion
12. 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.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW JOSEPH RUDY whose telephone number is
571-272-6789. The examiner can generally be reached on Monday thru Friday from about 10am-6pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful the examiner’s supervisor, Fadey Jabr, can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDREW JOSEPH RUDY/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3668
571-272-6789