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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/08/2026, with respect to USC 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the office action fails to identify the result effective variables or provide an articulated rationale explaining why the claimed operating condition would have been achieved through routine optimization. This argument is not persuasive.
Woodard teaches an active hydraulic suspension system in which suspension performance is controlled by hydraulic pressure, pump operation, and accumulator characteristics. Woodard expressly teaches that suspension stiffness is affected by accumulator behavior and that the hydraulic pump may be precisely controlled to adjust pressure differential and suspension response. Thus, Woodard recognizes suspension stiffness as a desired performance characteristic and recognizes hydraulic pressure and accumulator characteristics as variables that affect that performance. One the relationship between these variables and suspension stiffness is known, selecting values that achieve a desired stiffness under a representative operating condition amounts to optimization of recognized result effective variables.
Applicant further argues that the claimed operating conditions of 12Hz input, a 5mm peak to peak amplitude and a commanded pressure differential of a t least 1000 psi must occur simultaneously and therefore are not taught by the prior art, this argument is not persuasive. The claim merely defines the operating conditions under which the observed stiffness is measured. Woodard teaches configuring the suspension through adjustment of hydraulic pressure and accumulator characteristics to obtain desired suspension behavior. Evaluating suspension performance at a representative operating point constitutes no more than selecting a point within the normal operating envelope of the disclosed suspension system.
Applicant argues that tuning active suspension systems involves numerous interacting variables is acknowledged. However, the existence of multiple adjustable variables does not demonstrate that routine optimization is beyond the ordinary skill in the art. Applicant has not provided objective evidence demonstrating criticality of the claimed operating point or unexpected results associated with the claimed stiffness threshold.
Applicant additionally argues that achieving the claimed stiffness would require extensive experimentation. However, no evidence has been presented demonstrating that the claimed operating point is critical or produces unexpected results. While tuning an active suspension system may involve balancing multiple interacting parameters, the existence of multiple adjustable variables does not remove the claimed subject matter from the realm of routing design wherein the prior art already recognizes the variables affecting the desired results. Discovering optimum or workable values of recognized result effective variables ordinarily involves only routine skill in the art.
Applicant characterizes the rejection as relying upon hindsight reconstruction. The rejection instead relies upon the teachings of Woodard that accumulator characteristics and hydraulic pressure affect suspension stiffness, together with the ordinary skill in the art in selecting known operating parameters to achieve desired suspension performance. The rejection therefore relies only upon knowledge available before the filing date of the instant application. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Here, the reason is that tuning suspension parameters to maintain adequate ride comfort across expected operating conditions is a known design goal, and that optimizing stiffness values requires a predictable variation within the scope of ordinary skill. The rejection does not rely on applicant’s disclosure but on the teachings of the prior art and the knowledge of one skilled in the art.
The amendment has been fully considered but does not overcome the previous rejection because the cited references continue to disclose or render obvious each of the recited limitations.
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.
Claims 1-5, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodard (WO 2017210492).
In regards to claim 1 and 2, Woodard discloses a suspension system component (see fig.7) comprising: a hydraulic cylinder (700) at least partially defining a first internal volume (702); a piston (708) slidably inserted into the hydraulic cylinder (700), thereby dividing the internal volume into a compression chamber (706) and an extension chamber (704); a piston rod (714) attached to the piston (708) and extending out of the hydraulic cylinder (700); a hydraulic pump (718) that includes a first port in fluid communication with the compression chamber and a second port in fluid communication with the extension chamber (see fig.7); a compression accumulator (726, first accumulator) in fluid communication with the compression chamber arranged to exchange fluid with the compression chamber (706, see fig.7); an extension accumulator (second accumulator, 720) in fluid communication with the compression chamber arranged to exchange fluid with the extension chamber (704).
Woodard discloses the pump 718 is a variable speed pump such that pressure difference and/or flow rate between the compression chamber and extension chamber may be precisely controlled to achieve desires suspension performance (see fig. 7). Woodard therefore teaches controlling hydraulic pressure and accumulator operation to influence the stiffness and dynamic response of suspension system.
Woodard fails to explicitly disclose wherein when the hydraulic pump generates a first commanded pressure differential of at least 1,000 psi, an observed stiffness of the suspension system component in response to an external input having a frequency of 12 Hz and a peak-to-peak amplitude of 5 mm does not exceed 80 N/mm.
However, Woodard recognizes that suspension stiffness is determined by hydraulic system operating parameters, including hydraulic pressure and accumulator characteristics. Accordingly, hydraulic pressure differential and accumulator characteristics are recognized result effective variables affecting suspension stiffness. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have selected or adjusted these known operating parameters so that the suspension exhibits a desired stiffness under a representative operating condition, because optimizing recognized result effective variables to obtain a desired system performance is within the ordinary level of skill in the art.
Furthermore, the recited external input having a frequency of 12 Hz and a peak to peak amplitude of 5mm defines the operating condition under which the suspension stiffness is evaluated and does not require a different structure or mode of operating than that disclosed by Woodard. Evaluating suspension performance at a selected operating point would have been an obvious matter of routing engineering analysis in order to characterize or tune the suspension response. Applicant has not presented evidence demonstrating that the claimed operating point is critical or produces an unexpected result relative to the prior art. In the absence of such evidence, selecting hydraulic operating parameters that achieve a desired suspension stiffness through adjustment of recognized result effective variables amounts to no more than routine optimization. Discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) and in re Gardner v.TEC Syst., Inc., 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984),
In regards to claim 3, WOODARD fails to explicitly teach wherein the observed stiffness is equal to or greater than 5 N/mm,10 N/mm, or 25 N/mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date with reasonable expectations of success to modify the pump wherein the observed stiffness is equal to or greater than 5, 10 or 25 N/mm and does not exceed 80N/mm (from claim 1 see above), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Woodard discloses the pump may be precisely controlled to adjust the suspension system including the differential pressure and stiffness), discovering the optimum value or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In regards to claim 4, WOODARD fails to explicitly teach wherein the observed stiffness is less than or equal to 80N/mm, 70N/mm, or 50 N/mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date with reasonable expectations of success to modify the pump wherein the observed stiffness is less than or equal to 80N/mm, 70N/mm, or 50N/mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Woodard discloses the pump may be precisely controlled to adjust the suspension system including the differential pressure and stiffness), discovering the optimum value or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In regards to claim 5, Woodard discloses wherein the observed stiffness is a function of the commanded pressure differential and/or of the frequency of the external input. Woodward discloses the stiffness of the accumulator is understood to refer to a ratio of the magnitude of a force exerted on the barrier of an accumulator to the change in physical dimensions of the chamber, “The stiffness of an accumulator (and therefore the compliance and/or associated resonance frequency) having a compliant arrangement that includes a compressible fluid (e.g., gas) contained in a contained chamber, as disclosed herein, may vary responsive to internal pressure of the compressible fluid and/or the volume of the contained chamber according to various thermodynamic principles (e.g. ideal gas law, Boyle's law, adiabatic compression)” therefore the stiffness is known to be a function of the pressure differential.
In regards to claim 7, Woodard discloses wherein the compression accumulator (726) is in direct fluid communication with the compression chamber (706) and wherein the extension accumulator (720) is in direct fluid communication with the extension chamber (704)(see fig.7 fluid communication lines 724,726).
In regards to claim 8, WOODARD discloses a vehicle (see fig.10) comprising a suspension system that includes a plurality of suspension systems (700a, 700b) components according to claim 1 (see above).
In regards to claim 9, Woodard discloses further comprising a sprung mass (for example wheels) and an un-sprung mass (for example the vehicle body), and wherein each suspension system component of the plurality of suspension system components is arranged between an un-sprung mass of the vehicle and a sprung mass of the vehicle (see fig.10, the suspension components couples the wheels to the vehicle body and therefore between the sprung and un-sprung mass).
In regards to claim 10, Woodard discloses wherein each suspension system component of the plurality of suspension system components is fluidly isolated, see fig.10, each suspension system component is for different wheels and is fluidly isolated.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schedgick (US 7497452).
In regards to claim 1 and 2, Schedgick discloses a suspension system component comprising: a hydraulic cylinder at least partially defining an internal volume (cylinder 18 with internal volume, fig.2, Col.2 lines 61-67); a piston (38, Col.3 lines 25-27) slidably inserted into the hydraulic cylinder, thereby dividing the internal volume into a compression chamber and an extension chamber (chamber 41 and 42, Col.3 lines 27-30); a piston rod (19) attached to the piston and extending out of the hydraulic cylinder; a hydraulic pump (24, col.3 para.1) that includes a first port in fluid communication with the compression chamber (41) and a second port in fluid communication with the extension chamber (42) (24 sends fluid through lines 26 and into the first and second chamber 41,42); a compression accumulator arranged to exchange fluid with the compression chamber (accumulator 80 exchanges fluid with second chamber 42 via accumulator valve 78, Col.4 lines 26-35); an extension accumulator arranged to exchange fluid with the extension chamber (accumulator 66 is in fluid communication with first chamber 41 via first accumulator valve 64; fig.2).
Schedgick fails to disclose wherein when the hydraulic pump (24) generates a first commanded pressure differential of at least 1,000 psi, an observed stiffness of the suspension system component in response to an external input having a frequency of 12 Hz and a peak-to-peak amplitude of 5 mm does not exceed 80 N/mm. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art by the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Schedgick to include a pump when generating a pressure differential of at least 1000 psi does not exceed 80N/mm in response to an external input having a frequency of 12Hz and a peak to peak amplitude of 5mm. Given the structure Schedgick it would be reasonably obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Schedgick to achieve that level of both pressure differential and suspension stiffness because the high pump pressure differential allows the suspension to return to a neutral state rapidly and the stiffness allows increased compression for when vehicles encounter rough conditions as would be desirable to the operator.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodard (WO 2017210492) and further in view of Klees (US 7240906).
Woodard discloses a method of sizing at least one accumulator of an active suspension system component, the active suspension system component including a hydraulic cylinder (700), a pump (718), a compression accumulator (726), and an extension accumulator (720) (see fig. 7). Woodard further discloses producing commanded hydraulic pressure differential between the compression chamber (706) and the extension chamber (704 using the hydraulic pump (718), wherein the hydraulic pump is controlled to adjust the pressure differential and suspension response. Woodard therefore teaches producing a commanded pressure differential. Woodard further teaches operating the suspension system in response to external loading conditions and controlling accumulator behavior to influence suspension stiffness. As discussed above with respect to claim 1, Woodard recognizes that suspension stiffness is affected by hydraulic pressure differential and accumulator characteristics, and that these parameters may be adjusted to obtain desired suspension performance.
Woodard fails to disclose selecting an accumulator volume such that an observed stiffness does not exceed 80 N/mm when the hydraulic pump is commanded to produces a pressure differential of at least 1000 psi while the hydraulic cylinder is subjected to an external input having a frequency of 12 Hz and a peak to peak amplitude of 5mm.
Klees teaches that accumulator volume and accumulator precharge pressure are selected to provide desired ride stiffness, roll stiffness, and suspension compliance (see col. 4 lines 5-9). Klees further teaches that suspension stiffness may be modified by increasing or otherwise selecting accumulator volume to achieve desired suspension characteristics (see col. 4 lines 50-53). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the method of Woodard by selecting the accumulator volume as taught by Klees in order to obtain a desired suspension stiffness, because both references recognize accumulator volume as a result effective variable affecting suspension performance. Selecting an appropriate accumulator volume to achieve a desired suspension stiffness under a representative operating condition would have amounted to routine optimalization of a recognized result effective variable in order to obtain predictable suspension characteristics.
Furthermore, the recited operating conditions of a pressure differential of at least 1,000 psi, a 12 Hz external input, and a 5mm peak to peak amplitude merely define the conditions under which the suspension stiffness is evaluated and do not impart patentable distinction. Selecting operating conditions for evaluating or tuning suspension performance would have been within the ordinary level of skill in the art. In the absence of evidence demonstrating that the claimed operating point is crucial or produces unexpected results, selecting an accumulator volume that achieves the claimed stiffness through adjustment of recognized result effective variables would have been obvious, see in re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 22 F.2d 454, (CCPA 1955).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-19 allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Woodard teaches a hydraulic suspension system including a hydraulic cylinder, a piston defining compression and extension chambers, a hydraulic pump, and compression and extension accumulators in fluid communication with the respective chambers. Woodard further teaches adjusting accumulator characteristics and hydraulic pressure to influence suspension performance. Klees (US 7240906) teaches selecting accumulator volume and precharge pressure to achieve desired ride stiffness and roll stiffness. However, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest a suspension component in which both the compression accumulator and the extension accumulator each define an internal volume greater than the internal volume of the hydraulic cylinder. Additionally, while the prior art teaches selecting accumulator parameters to generally affect suspension performance, it does not teach the structural volume relationship together with accumulator parameters configured to achieve the recited suspension stiffness. Accordingly, the prior art fails to teach or suggest the claimed suspension component as recited in claim 11.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. PTO-892 provides a list of relevant prior art that teach active suspensions systems similar to that claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN ANNE MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4356. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-5:00pm (est).
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, Jason Shanske can be reached at (571) 270-5985. 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.
/C.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights