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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 1/20/26. These drawings are acceptable.
Examiners Note
The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the reference(s) applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are adopted to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2149.02 VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e. as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. WL Gore & Associates, inc. v. Garlock, inc., 721 F.2d 1540,220 USPQ303 (Fed, Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 489 US 851 (1984). See also MPEP 2123.
35 USC § 101 - Examiner Comment
The claims were evaluated under the 2019 PEG and found to be statutory. Assuming in arguendo that the claims recite abstract ideas, e.g. mathematical concepts or mental processes, the claim contains significantly more including at least, a structurally limited electronic device positioned inside a cabin of a first vehicle, a second vehicle, the electronic device configured a user interface of a second vehicle to a first option, configuring a user interface of the first vehicle to the first option, configuring a vehicle setting of the first vehicle to the second option, see MPEP 2106, 2106.03, 2106.04.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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(s) 1-3,8-10,15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al US 2020/0384980 in view of Abe et al US 2017/0334454.
In Re 1, Yu teaches
A vehicle (title, 402 fig 4a) comprising:
a sensor unit (fig 2 212-218) for detecting driving information of a vehicle;
a front wheel suspension (fig 1a 140a) and a rear wheel suspension(140d), each provided on a front wheel (fig 1a) and a rear wheel of the vehicle, respectively, and each including a spring (160a springs fig 1a,1b) and a damper (162b,164b fig 1b, para 43); and
a control unit for (120/202/220), when a driving mode of the vehicle is an autonomous (title) driving mode or (optional) a semi-autonomous driving mode,
setting a degree of sensitivity (506 fig 5, para 27) for controlling damping force (“dampening performance) of the front wheel suspension and rear wheel suspension based on a distance (para 64 “distance”) to a vehicle ahead (fig 4a 406) of the vehicle (402) detected by the sensor unit (404 and or 212-218), and
adjusting (510) the damping force of the front wheel suspension and rear wheel suspension according to (502,504) a state of a change in distance to the vehicle ahead (para 64, determining a slower car ahead is determining change of distance to ahead car) and a state of acceleration (accelerate) and deceleration (decelerate) (lateral acceleration sensor 112 para 34 detects positive and negative acceleration including deceleration) of the vehicle,
wherein the control unit (120/202/220)is configured to set the degree of sensitivity (506 fig 5, para 27) for controlling the damping force of the front wheel suspension and the rear wheel suspension (at least all figs and paras).
Yu does not teach however Abe teaches to one of a plurality of modes (para 133 “modes”, fig 15 ECO/Automated, Normal/Automated, Sports/Automated) by comparing the distance (para 133 “inter-vehicle distance”) to the vehicle ahead (with a plurality of reference distances (para 133 plural threshold values). Abe further teaches multiple modes including sports automated mode can be used to overtake ahead vehicle, paras 128-133 especially 132). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to modify Yu’s suspension damping with Abe’s plural modes and thresholds to affect various control modes and benefits including overtaking ahead vehicle.
In Re 2, Yu further teaches the driving information detected by the sensor unit includes a road surface condition of a road (504), the distance to the vehicle ahead (para 64, determining a slower car ahead is determining change of distance to ahead car), the acceleration of the vehicle (see in re 1 mapping above over Yu), and the deceleration of the vehicle (see in re 1 mapping above over Yu).
In Re 3, Yu as modified by Abe further teaches:
the control unit (Yu 120/202/220) is configured to: set the degree of sensitivity (Yu 506 fig 5, para 27) for controlling the damping force of the front wheel suspension and rear wheel suspension to a first mode (Abe Sports/Automated fig 16) of the plurality of modes when the distance to the vehicle ahead is less than a first reference distance (Abe Th3(b) ) of the plurality of reference distances;
set the degree of sensitivity for controlling the damping force of the front wheel suspension and rear wheel suspension to a second mode (Abe Normal/Automated) of the plurality of modes when the distance to the vehicle ahead is equal to or greater than the first reference distance and less than a second reference (Abe Th2(b) satisfies the claimed mathematical operation of equal to or greater than first reference distance and less than second reference distance) distance of the plurality of reference distances; and
set the degree of sensitivity for controlling the damping force of the front wheel suspension and rear wheel suspension to a third mode (Abe ECO/Automated) of the plurality of modes when the distance to the vehicle ahead is equal to or greater than the second reference distance (Abe Th1(b) satisfies claimed mathematical operation of equal to or greater than the second reference distance).
In Re 8, Yu further teaches only when a flatness of a road surface condition of a front road detected by the sensor unit is equal to or greater than a reference flatness (abstract, para 22 abnormal bumps or potholes are beyond the threshold of normal road conditions), the control unit adjusts the degree of sensitivity for controlling damping force of the front wheel suspension and the damping force of the rear wheel suspension (active suspension adjustment to compensate for abnormal road conditions).
In Re 9,10,15, the method of claims 9,10,15 rejected over in re 1,3,8 as described above as taught by Yu in view of Abe.
Claim(s) 4-7,11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al US 2020/0384980 in view of Abe et al US 2017/0334454 and Birch et al US 2023/0271469.
In Re 4-7, Yu teaches state of change in distance as increasing or decreasing as is known in adaptive cruise control paras 33-34 and adaptive suspension control paras 27-29. Yu does not teach specifically claimed pitch control of the adaptive suspension for accelerating/decelerating. However, Birch teaches specifically claimed pitch control of the adaptive suspension for accelerating/decelerating as follows:
4. The vehicle of claim 1, wherein: when the state of the change in distance from the vehicle ahead is a decreasing state (Yu’s slower car ahead, decreasing distance, deceleration or braking required of the instant vehicle 406), the control unit increases compression damping force of the front wheel suspension of the front wheel (Birch figs 7,8a,8b specifically 8b car shown pitching forward during deceleration and front wheel compression force increase to compensate), and increases rebound damping force of the rear wheel suspension of the rear wheel (Birch rear wheel shown with increased rebound damping force to compensate fig 8b, paras 56-58) (Birch para 57 active pitch control, paras 92-108 especially paras 99-108 pitch control). .
5. The vehicle of claim 1, wherein: when the state of the change in distance from the vehicle ahead is an increasing state (Yu’s car ahead, increasing distance, acceleration required of instant vehicle to maintain distance), the control unit increases rebound damping force of the front wheel suspension of the front wheel (Birch figs 7,8a,8b specifically 8b car shown pitching backwards due to acceleration, rebound increased paras 56-58), and increases compression damping of the rear wheel suspension of the rear wheel (Birch rear wheel shown with increased compression damping force or stiffer suspension paras 56-58) (Birch para 57 active pitch control, paras 92-108 pitch control). .
6. The vehicle of claim 1, wherein: when an acceleration of the vehicle is equal to or greater than a reference acceleration (Yu 502 para 40 “source of vehicle acceleration and speed”), the control unit additionally increases rebound damping force of the front wheel suspension of the front wheel (Birch figs 7,8a,8b specifically 8b car shown pitching backwards due to acceleration, rebound increased paras 56-58), and additionally increases compression damping force of the rear wheel suspension of the rear wheel (Birch rear wheel shown with increased compression damping force or stiffer suspension paras 56-58) (Birch para 57 active pitch control, paras 92-108 pitch control). .
7. The vehicle of claim 1, wherein: when a deceleration of the vehicle is equal to or greater than a reference deceleration (Yu 502 para 40 “source of vehicle acceleration and speed”), the control unit additionally increases compression damping force of the front wheel suspension of the front wheel (Birch figs 7,8a,8b specifically 8b car shown pitching forward during deceleration and front wheel compression force increase to compensate), and additionally increases rebound damping force of the rear wheel suspension of the rear wheel (Birch rear wheel shown with increased rebound damping force to compensate fig 8b, paras 56-58)(Birch para 57 active pitch control, paras 92-108 pitch control).
Birch further teaches para 99 pitch control to reduce undesirable passenger head jerk. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to add Birch’s specific pitch control to Yu’s vehicle as modified by Abe to reduce undesirable passenger head jerk to increase passenger comfort.
In Re 11-14, the method of claims 11-14 rejected over in re 4-7 as described above as taught by Yu in view of Abe and Birch.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg 8, filed 1/20/26, with respect to drawing objection and 35 USC 112b have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objection and 35 USC 112b rejection of claims 1-15 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 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. See rejection above over Yu in view of Abe.
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 CARL C STAUBACH whose telephone number is (571)272-3748. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 AM to 5:00 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.
/CARL C STAUBACH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747