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 .
Response to Amendments and Arguments
The amendments and arguments filed 06/23/2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Claims 1, 2, 6, and 21 have been amended; claim 9 has been canceled; claims 12-20 have been withdrawn; no claims have been added. Claims 1-8 and 10-21 are now pending, and claims 1-8, 10, 11, and 21 are under consideration.
The previous objections to the drawings have been withdrawn, in light of the amendments to Fig. 11.
The previous objections to claims 1, 9, and 12 have been withdrawn, in light of the amendments to claim 1, the cancellation of claim 9, and the withdrawn status of claim 12.
The previous rejections of claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn, in light of the amendments to the claims and the cancellation of claim 9.
The previous rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been withdrawn, in light of the cancellation of the claim.
Applicant generically asserts on page 17 of the remarks that the amendments to claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10, 11, and 21 merit withdrawal of the rejections of claims 1-4, 8, 10, 11, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 101. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejections of claims 1-4, 8, 10, 11, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been updated in order to sufficiently address the amendments to the claims and maintained.
Applicant generically asserts on pages 18-19 of the remarks that the current prior art rejection of independent claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0362806 to Hedlund et al. cannot be maintained in view of the amendments to the claim because:
PNG
media_image1.png
174
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully disagrees. For example, at least ¶ 0089 of Hedlund discloses that “IMU 132 is offset from the center of gravity of snowmobile 10 and the readings of the three-axis gyroscope are used by electronic controller 100 to determine the acceleration values of snowmobile 10 at the center of gravity of snowmobile 10,” such that Hedlund fully teaches that “said processor [is] configured to: […] generate adjusted vehicle dynamics data, said adjusted vehicle dynamics data corresponding to information which would be received from said IMU device provided said IMU device was disposed at a second location on said vehicle,” as recited by amended independent claim 2, under a broadest reasonable interpretation. Additionally, such disclosure of Hedlund is understood to be no different from Applicant’s disclosure, as Applicant expressly discloses “[emulating] having the IMU placed, for example, at the vehicle's center of gravity.”
Applicant further generically asserts on page 20 of the remarks that amended independent claims 1 and 21 are also no longer anticipated by Hedlund because:
PNG
media_image2.png
104
624
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the aforementioned limitation of amended claim 2 identified by Applicant’s remarks as the primary concern of Applicant’s remarks with respect to claim 2 is neither part of amended claim 1 nor part of amended claim 21, such that Applicant’s arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Next, as discussed in detail below throughout the prior art rejections of amended claims 1 and 21 of the instant Office Action, Hedlund teaches each and every limitation of claims 1 and 21 so as to anticipate the claims under a broadest reasonable interpretation. Therefore, the rejections have been updated and maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21 recites “generating, at said processor, virtual vehicle dynamics data” in line 13, which appears to be a misstating of --generate virtual vehicle dynamics data--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10, 11, and 21 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.
Claim limitation “inertial measurement unit device” (or “IMU device”), as used throughout non-withdrawn claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10, 11, and 21, has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the limitation uses the term “device” [which has been held to be a non-structural generic placeholder (or substitute) for the term “means”; e.g., see: MPEP 2181_I_A] together with functional language to modify said “device,” and it is unclear whether “inertial measurement unit device” (or “IMU device”) is modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing said functional language. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, Applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding Applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 8-11, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a suspension control method. Claims 2-11 are directed to a suspension control system (e.g., an apparatus). Claim 21 is directed to a vehicle (e.g., an apparatus). Therefore, claims 1-11 and 21 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claims 1 and 11 each include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below).
Claim 1 recites:
A suspension control method utilizing virtual vehicle dynamics data, said suspension control method comprising the steps of:
receiving, at a processor, vehicle dynamics data from an inertial measurement unit (IMU) device, wherein said IMU device is disposed at a first location on a vehicle;
generating, at said processor, said virtual vehicle dynamics data, said virtual vehicle dynamics data corresponding to information which would be received from said IMU device provided said IMU device was disposed at a second location on said vehicle;
generating, at said processor, suspension control data configured for use by a suspension component, said suspension control data generated, by said processor, using said virtual vehicle dynamics data; and
outputting, from said processor, said suspension control data to said suspension component.
Claim 2 recites:
A suspension control system comprising:
an inertial measurement unit (IMU) device, said IMU device configured to measure vehicle dynamics data for a vehicle to which said IMU device is coupled at a first location;
a first suspension component; and
a processor communicatively coupled with said IMU device and said first suspension component, said processor configured to:
receive said vehicle dynamics data from said IMU device;
generate suspension control data configured for use by said first suspension component, said suspension control data configured for use by said first suspension component corresponding to said vehicle dynamics data;
output, to said first suspension component, said suspension control data configured for use by said first suspension component;
generate adjusted vehicle dynamics data, said adjusted vehicle dynamics data corresponding to information which would be received from said IMU device provided said IMU device was disposed at a second location on said vehicle; and
generate adjusted suspension control data configured for use by said first suspension component, said adjusted suspension control data configured for use by said first suspension component corresponding to said adjusted vehicle dynamics data.
Claim 21 recites:
A vehicle having a single IMU device controlled suspension system comprising:
a first suspension component coupled with said vehicle;
an inertial measurement unit (IMU) device, said IMU device configured to measure vehicle dynamics data for said vehicle to which said IMU device is coupled at a first location; and
a processor configured to:
receive said vehicle dynamics data from said IMU;
generate suspension control data configured for use by a first suspension component, said suspension control data configured for use by said first suspension component corresponding to said vehicle dynamics data;
generating, at said processor, virtual vehicle dynamics data, said virtual vehicle dynamics data corresponding to information which would be received from said IMU device provided said IMU device was disposed at a second location on said vehicle; and
output said suspension control data configured for use by said first suspension component.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, each instance of “generating…” (or “generate…”) in the context of these claims encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming simple judgments. Accordingly, each of independent claims 1, 2, and 21 recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are the underlined portions provided above while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea.”
For the following reasons, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Firstly, claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I), and apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does, and a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (e.g., see: MPEP 2114_II).
For example, in claims 2 and 21, it is noted that the recitation “configured for use by said first suspension component corresponding to said vehicle dynamics data” does not necessarily the “suspension control data” to be generated based on (or as a function of, or using) the received “vehicle dynamics data” and, instead, only requires relationship between the received “vehicle dynamics data” and the generated “suspension control data,” thereby broadly establishing the manner in which the “suspension control data” is intended to be used, and the recitation “configured for use by said first suspension component” also does not require the “first suspension component” to actually receive or use the generated “suspension control data,” as “configured for use by said first suspension component” also broadly establishes the manner in which the “suspension control data” is intended to be used, such that neither of “configured for use by said first suspension component” and “configured for use by said first suspension component corresponding to said vehicle dynamics data” necessarily further defines structure of the claimed “suspension control system” under a broadest reasonable interpretation.
In claim 1, the step “receiving vehicle dynamics data from an inertial measurement unit (IMU) device, wherein said IMU device is disposed at a first location on a vehicle,” and, in claims 2 and 21, the processor-implemented function “receive said vehicle dynamics data from said IMU device” amount to nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activities that merely define data gathering, all recited at a high level of generality, in conjunction with the respective aforementioned abstract ideas [e.g., see: MPEP 2106.04(d) & 2106.05(g)]. Note that ¶ 0016 of Applicant’s specification admits that it is conventional in the art to attach an IMU device to a vehicle and to receive measurements from said IMU device for processing of said measurements.
Also, in claims 2 and 21, recitation of a “processor” amounts to merely using a computer as a tool to perform the aforementioned abstract idea or reciting implementation of the abstract idea on a computer [e.g., see: MPEP 2106.04(d) & 2106.05(f)].
Additionally, in claim 1, the step “output said suspension control data to said suspension component,” and, in claims 2 and 21, the processor-implemented function “output said suspension control data to said suspension component” amount to nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activities that merely define sending of data, all recited at a high level of generality, in conjunction with the respective aforementioned abstract ideas [e.g., see: MPEP 2106.04(d) & 2106.05(g)].
¶ 0001 of Applicant’s specification acknowledges suspension systems (e.g., a first suspension component) as background art (i.e., prior art). ¶ 0014 of Applicant’s specification also acknowledges that “In some instances, well-known methods, procedures, and objects have not been described in detail as not to unnecessarily obscure aspects of the present disclosure.”
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, independent claims 1, 2, and 21 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. As discussed in detail above, the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the art. Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 3-8, 10, and 11, which depend from claim 2, do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Thus, claims 3-8, 10, and 11 are also ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 8, 10, 11, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0362806 to Hedlund et al. (hereinafter: “Hedlund”).
With respect to claim 1, Hedlund teaches a suspension control method utilizing virtual vehicle dynamics data (apparent from at least Figs. 1-10C), said suspension control method comprising the steps of: receiving, at a processor (e.g., 104), vehicle dynamics data from an inertial measurement unit (IMU) device (e.g., 132), wherein said IMU device is disposed at a first location (e.g., “offset from [a] center of gravity of the snowmobile 10”) on a vehicle (apparent from at least Figs. 1A, 1C, 4, 6 & 7 in view of at least ¶ 0085-0089); generating, at said processor, said virtual vehicle dynamics data (e.g., “the acceleration values of [the] snowmobile 10 at the center of gravity of snowmobile 10”), said virtual vehicle dynamics data corresponding to information which would be received from said IMU device provided said IMU device was disposed at a second location (e.g., “at the center of gravity of [the] snowmobile 10”) on said vehicle (as discussed by at least ¶ 0089); generating, at said processor, suspension control data configured for use by a suspension component, said suspension control data generated by said processor using said virtual vehicle dynamics data (for example, apparent from at least Figs. 1, 4, 6, 8C, 9A-10C & 15 in view of at least ¶ 0089 & 0129-0132, 0159-0176 & 0202); and outputting, from said processor, said suspension control data to said suspension component (for example, apparent from at least Figs. 1, 4, 6, 8C, 9A-10C & 15 in view of at least ¶ 0089 & 0129-0132, 0159-0176 & 0202).
With respect to claim 2, Hedlund teaches a suspension control system (apparent from at least Figs. 1-8C) comprising: an inertial measurement unit (IMU) device (e.g., 132), said IMU device configured to measure vehicle dynamics data (e.g., “acceleration data of snowmobile 10 along axes 160, 162, and 164” and/or “angular information regarding rotation about each of axes 160, 162, and 164”) for a vehicle (e.g., 10) to which said IMU device is coupled at a first location (apparent from at least Figs. 1A, 1C, 6 & 7 in view of at least ¶ 0088-0089; e.g., “offset from [a] center of gravity of the snowmobile 10”); a first suspension component (e.g., front left suspension assembly 24, or left front adjustable shock absorber 142); and a processor (e.g., 104) communicatively coupled with said IMU device and said first suspension component (apparent from at least Figs. 1, 4 & 6), said processor configured to: receive said vehicle dynamics data from said IMU device (apparent from at least Figs. 1, 4 & 6 in view of at least ¶ 0085-0089); generate suspension control data (e.g., “damping value”) configured for use by said first suspension component, said suspension control data configured for use by said first suspension component corresponding to said vehicle dynamics data [it is noted that the recitation “configured for use by said first suspension component corresponding to said vehicle dynamics data” does not necessarily the “suspension control data” to be generated based on (or as a function of, or using) the received “vehicle dynamics data” and, instead, only requires relationship between the received “vehicle dynamics data” and the generated “suspension control data,” thereby broadly establishing the manner in which the “suspension control data” is intended to be used, and the recitation “configured for use by said first suspension component” also does not require the “first suspension component” to actually use the generated “suspension control data,” as “configured for use by said first suspension component” also broadly establishes the manner in which the “suspension control data” is intended to be used, such that neither of “configured for use by said first suspension component” and “configured for use by said first suspension component corresponding to said vehicle dynamics data” necessarily further defines structure of the claimed “suspension control system” under a broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2114_II, as discussed in detail above); even so, for example, apparent from at least Figs. 1, 4, 6, 8C, 9A-10C & 15 in view of at least ¶ 0089 & 0129-0132, 0159-0176 & 0202]; output, to said first suspension component, said suspension control data configured for use by said first suspension component (for example, apparent from at least Figs. 1, 4, 6, 8C, 9A-10C & 15 in view of at least ¶ 0089 & 0129-0132, 0159-0176 & 0202); generate adjusted vehicle dynamics data (e.g., “the acceleration values of [the] snowmobile 10 at the center of gravity of snowmobile 10”), said adjusted vehicle dynamics data corresponding to information which would be received from said IMU device provided said IMU device was disposed at a second location (e.g., “at the center of gravity of [the] snowmobile 10”) on said vehicle (as discussed by at least ¶ 0089); and generate adjusted suspension control data configured for use by said first suspension component, said suspension control data configured for use by said first suspension component corresponding to said adjusted vehicle dynamics data (for example, apparent from at least Figs. 1, 4, 6, 8C, 9A-10C & 15 in view of at least ¶ 0089 & 0129-0132, 0159-0176 & 0202).
With respect to claim 3, Hedlund teaches the suspension control system of claim 2, wherein said processor is further configured to: generate suspension control data (e.g., “damping value”) configured for use by a second suspension component (e.g., front right suspension assembly 24, or right front adjustable shock absorber 140) coupled to said vehicle (for example, apparent from at least Figs. 1, 4, 6, 8C, 9A-10C & 15 in view of at least ¶ 0089 & 0129-0132, 0159-0176 & 0202), wherein said first suspension component and said second suspension component are coupled to different locations of said vehicle (apparent from at least Figs. 1-2, 4, 6 & 7).
With respect to claim 4, Hedlund teaches the suspension control system of claim 2, wherein said vehicle dynamics data comprises linear and rotational acceleration data corresponding to said vehicle (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1).
With respect to claim 8, Hedlund teaches the suspension control system of claim 2, wherein said suspension control data configured for use by said first suspension component is configured for use by said first suspension component of said vehicle to adjust a damping characteristic of said first suspension component of said vehicle, wherein said damping characteristic is selected from the group consisting of: a compression characteristic, and a rebound characteristic (for example, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1, and as further discussed by at least ¶ 0002-0003, 0007, 0016 & 0159-0160; because a compression characteristic and a rebound characteristic are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives).
With respect to claim 10, Hedlund teaches the suspension control system of claim 2 further comprising: a user interface (UI) input receiver (e.g., 180 or 182) communicatively coupled with said processor (apparent from at least Figs. 5 & 6 in view of at least ¶ 0098-0100, 0109 & 0113), said UI input receiver configured to receive input data and communicate said input data with said processor (apparent from at least Figs. 5, 6 & 29A-30 in view of at least ¶ 0098-0100, 0102-0109 & 0113), wherein said processor is further configured to generate said suspension control data configured for use by said first suspension component utilizing said input data (for example, apparent from at least Figs. 8C, 9A & 10A in view of at least ¶ 0112, 0133, 0155, 0159-160 & 0168-0169).
With respect to claim 11, Hedlund teaches the suspension control system of claim 2, wherein said processor is further configured to: generate suspension control data (e.g., “damping value”) configured for use by a second suspension component (e.g., front right suspension assembly 24, or right front adjustable shock absorber 140), said suspension control data configured for use by said second suspension component corresponding to said vehicle dynamics data (for example, apparent from at least Figs. 1, 4, 6, 8C, 9A-10C & 15 in view of at least ¶ 0089 & 0129-0132, 0159-0176 & 0202); and output said suspension control data configured for use by said second suspension component (for example, apparent from at least Figs. 1, 4, 6, 8C, 9A-10C & 15 in view of at least ¶ 0089 & 0129-0132, 0159-0176 & 0202).
With respect to claim 21, Hedlund teaches a vehicle (e.g., 10) having a single IMU controlled suspension system [the aforementioned recitation of “having” is understood to amount to a preamble transitional phrase that is synonymous with “comprising” (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.03_I), such that the “vehicle” includes the “single IMU controlled suspension system”; as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 1 and 2] comprising: a first suspension component coupled with said vehicle; an inertial measurement unit (IMU) device, said IMU device configured to measure vehicle dynamics data for said vehicle to which said IMU device is coupled at a first location; and a processor configured to: receive said vehicle dynamics data from said IMU device; generate suspension control data configured for use by said first suspension component, said suspension control data configured for use by said first suspension component corresponding to said vehicle dynamics data; generating, at said processor, virtual vehicle dynamics data, said virtual vehicle dynamics data corresponding to information which would be received from said IMU device provided said IMU device was disposed at a second location on said vehicle; and output said suspension control data configured for use by said first suspension component (as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 1 and 2).
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.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hedlund in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0382175 to Rogers et al. (hereinafter: “Rogers”).
With respect to claim 6, Hedlund teaches the suspension control system of claim 2, wherein said processor is integral with an electronic controller, and said IMU device is integral with the electronic controller [for example, as discussed by at least ¶ 0085 & 0089 in view of at least Figs. 4 & 6, the IMU 132 is integrated into the suspension controller 200 that is included by the electronic controller 100 (or integrated into the electronic controller 100) such that the IMU 132 is formed as a unit with the suspension controller 200 (or is formed as a unit with the electronic controller 100) and vice versa, and the processor 104 is included by the suspension controller 200 (or included by the electronic controller 100) ]; however, Hedlund appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether said processor is integral with said IMU device.
Rogers teaches an analogous suspension control system (apparent from at least Figs. 1A-1C, 8 & 19 in view of at least ¶ 0029-0030, 0039, 0096-0099, 0101-0102, 0154-0155 & 0164-0166) including an IMU device (3, or 3’) and a processor that is integral with the IMU device [as discussed by at least ¶ 0029-0030, 0039 & 0101-0102, the central IMU 3 (or 3’) is (or includes) a processor, such that the central IMU 3 (or 3’) is formed as a unit with the processor and vice versa].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the suspension control system of Hedlund with the teachings of Rogers, if even necessary, such that said processor is integral with said IMU device because Rogers demonstrates that configuring an IMU device as (or inclusive of) a processor of an analogous suspension control system enables the IMU device and the processor to function no differently as compared to arranging the IMU device and the processor separate from each other as part of the analogous suspension control system, especially since Hedlund already teaches arranging the IMU device and the processor together in an electronic controller of the suspension control system in the alternative to arranging the IMU device and the processor separate from each other in the suspension control system, and especially since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art (e.g., see: MPPE 2144.04_V_B).
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 JOHN ZALESKAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 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, 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.
/JOHN M ZALESKAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights