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, see Rejections under USC 112, filed 06/26/2025, with respect to 112a rejection of claims 1-10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejection of 12/27/2024 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/26/2025, with respect to USC 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the inventor recognizes that tuning the accumulator at a single operating point provides improved performances across the suspension system's entire range and that is recognition supports patentability.
This argument is not persuasive, Woodard discloses a system with two accumulators and a variable speed pump to adjust pressure differential and flow rate to achieve desired suspension performances (see fig.7). Therefore, tuning accumulator parameters to achieve desired stiffness falls within the optimization of a result effective variable which has long been held obvious. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP 2144.05(II) "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation". The applicant has not provided evidence that tuning the accumulator to an operator point, as claim 1 recites is not obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant argues that the claimed limitations solves the problem of simultaneous low-frequency, high amplitude events and high frequency, low amplitude events, and that configured the accumulators to maintain ≤80 N/mm stiffness under such conditions is not routine.
This argument is not persuasive. It is well established that a suspension system must accommodate body roll/handling motions (low frequency) and road irregularities (high frequency). A person of ordinary skill in the art is presumed to be aware of and motivated by the ordinary problems known in the art (MPEP 2144). Therefore, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to configure accumulators and pump pressure to balance these performance needs as the supreme court held in KSR Int'l Co.v.Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007), "if a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §103 likely bars its patentability.". The claimed stiffness value (recited in claim 1) represents a predictable result of such optimization, not a new mode of operation.
Applicant argues that achieving the ≤80 N/mm value requires “exceedingly difficult” and “time-consuming” testing, such that one of ordinary skill would not have arrived at the claimed value by routine procedures.
This argument is not persuasive because applicant has not provided evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed stiffness value. Difficulty and time doesn’t provide evidence it is not obvious to try. KSR held that something can still be obvious even if experimentation is required, so long as there are finite number of identified predictable solutions, and a person of reasonable skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Obviousness does not require absolute predictability or zero effort.
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.
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, as is common in the art. 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, this feature is based on the choice of particular parameters (pressure differential, observed stiffness for the suspension system component) from a limited range of possibilities, and it is clear that these parameters could be arrived at by routine trial and error or by normal design procedures. It is maintained that the selection of a specific accumulator volume for the system of Woodard, in order to achieve a particular behavior of the suspension, is merely a matter of applying normal design procedures for the skilled person. The range for said parameters is common for vehicles. In addition, the consideration of said parameters at a specific frequency of 12 Hz and amplitude of 5 mm is obvious for the skilled person. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date with a reasonable expectation of success for the skilled person to select said range, depending on the circumstances, without exercising inventive skill, in order to minimize the risk of ride degradation in typical vehicles due to excessive stiffness of an active suspension system component, even when actively operating the pump, thereby arriving at the subject-matter of claim 1.The frequency 12 Hz and the amplitude of 5 mm is not particularly a special range during normal running. Moreover, it is a well-known problem for suspension that when the vehicle is running, the ride comfort is poor, so that it is desired to be set so as not to make the rigidity of the system excessively high. There is no particular difficulty in considering that a person skilled in the art does not exceed a certain value, and the numerical range not exceeding 80 N / mm does not limit a range that could not normally be taken in a suspension system.
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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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, Paul Dickson can be reached on 571-272-7742. 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
/PAUL N DICKSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614