CTFR 18/659,839 CTFR 89058 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 03/02/2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Claims 1-6 and 8-20 have been amended; no claims have been added, canceled, or withdrawn. Claims 1-20 are now pending and under consideration. The previous objections to claims 2, 3, 6, 16, and 20 have been withdrawn, in light of the amendments to the claims. The previous non-statutory double patenting warnings between claims 9 and 17, between claims 11-13 and 18, and between claims 10 and 19 have been withdrawn, in light of the amendments to the claims. The previous rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn, in light of the amendments to the claim. The previous rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) has been withdrawn, in light of the amendments to the claim. Applicant asserts on pages 8-11 of the remarks that the prior art rejections of independent claims 1, 17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0138645 to Larose et al., as well as the alternative prior art rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larose in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0224493 to Buma et al., cannot be maintained in view of the amendments to the claims. Pages 8-9 of Applicant’s remarks present an alternative characterization of Larose, and Applicant generically asserts on pages 8-9 that Larose fails to teach amended claim 1. Regarding claims 17 and 20, the examiner agrees that Larose does not fully teach each and every limitation of the amended claims. However, upon further consideration, amended claim 17 is now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larose in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0043744 to Villegas Muriel et al. (hereinafter: “Villegas”), and amended claim 20 is now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larose in view of Villegas, and in view of Buma. Regarding claim 1, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Larose teaches a product comprising: an active suspension power system (for example, apparent from at least Figs. 12 & 14 in view of at least ¶ 0092-0098) comprising: a motor (e.g., 121) and a rotatable mass [e.g., “reduction mechanism” (or one or more elements thereof)]; a first shaft, second shaft, and a third shaft (as pointed out and labeled by the marked-up copy of Fig. 14 provided directly below); a bidirectional clutch [clutch unit 10, including magnetorheological (MR) fluid clutch apparatuses 10A, 10A’; apparent from at least Fig. 12 in view of at least ¶ 0098]; a movable arm (“roll bar portion”); and a vehicle strut (as discussed by at least ¶ 0090 & 0095); the first shaft connected to the rotatable mass (apparent from the marked-up copy of Fig. 14 provided directly below), and the first shaft directly or indirectly connected to a first side of the bidirectional clutch (apparent from the marked-up copy of Fig. 14 provided directly below; because directly connected and indirectly connected are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives), the second shaft connected to the motor (apparent from the marked-up copy of Fig. 14 provided directly below), the third shaft connected to the moveable arm (apparent from the marked-up copy of Fig. 14 provided directly below) and the third shaft connected to a second side of the bidirectional clutch (apparent from the marked-up copy of Fig. 14 provided directly below), and wherein the vehicle strut is directly or indirectly connected to the movable arm (as discussed by at least ¶ 0090 & 0095; all elements of the vehicle are connected, either directly or indirectly, to each other, such that the roll bar portion of the vehicle is necessarily directly or indirectly connected to the strut of the vehicle, and vice versa; because directly connected and indirectly connected are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives). PNG media_image1.png 404 607 media_image1.png Greyscale Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 has been maintained and updated in order fully address the amendments to the claim. Regarding Applicant’s generic unsupported assertion on pages 9 and 11 of the remarks that the prior art rejections of the non-final Office Action mailed 01/21/2026 “ improperly ignores numerous claim limitations ,” the examiner further disagrees that any limitations were or have been ignored by the preceding non-final Office Action or by the instant final Office Action, and it is unclear which limitations are believed by Applicant to be ignored because Applicant’s remarks are generic and unsupported. Instead, it is unmistakable that all limitations were and have been fully considered and addressed by each Office Action. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the complete subject matter of claims 1, 7, 16, 17, and 20 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters “104” and “121” have both been used to designate a first shaft. 06-22 Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 1, 4, 6, 17, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “second shaft” in line 4, which appears to be a misstating of -- a second shaft--. Claim 4 recites “connect” in line 2, which appears to be a misspelling of -- connect connected --. Claim 6 recites “form” in line 3, which appears to be a misspelling of -- form formed --. Claim 17 recites “second shaft” in line 4, which appears to be a misstating of -- a second shaft--. Claim 17 recites “an elongated link second end” in line 7, which should be amended to instead recite --an elongated link second [[end]] end; and --. Claim 20 should be amended to remove “and” from the end of line 3 in view of inclusion of “and” at the end of line 4 of the claim. Claim 20 recites “vehicle wheel” in line 20, which appears to be a misstating of -- the vehicle wheel--. Claim 20 recites “an electronic processor, non-transitory memory” in lines 23-24, which appears to be a misstating of --an electronic processor, processor and non-transitory memory --. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 07-31-01 Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1, as amended, now recites “ the first shaft directly or indirectly connected to a first side of the bidirectional clutch ” in lines 9-10; however, it is unclear exactly where and exactly how Applicant’s originally-filed specification sufficiently discloses a first shaft directly connected to a first side of a bidirectional clutch. For example, only Figs. 1 and 2 of Applicant’s drawings show a product including each of a first shaft 104, a second shaft 108 (i.e., “third shaft”), and a third shaft 109 (i.e., “second shaft”), in which the first shaft 104 is connected to a “first side” of a clutch 120, where a rotatable mass 102 is shown between the first shaft 104 and the clutch 120, and Applicant’s specification is silent to a direct connection between the first shaft 104 and to either side of the clutch 120. Thus, the amended claim now improperly includes “new matter,” such that the claim fails to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 2-16 depend from claim 1, such that claims 2-16 also include the “new matter” recited by claim 1 and are rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 1 is rejected. Claim 7, as amended, now recites “ wherein the motor is directly connected to the first shaft ” in lines 1-2. Claim 7 is dependent from claim 1, via claim 6, and claim 1, as amended, now recites “ comprising: […] a first shaft, second shaft, and a third shaft ” in lines 2-4 and “ the second shaft connected to the motor ” in line 10. As best understood by the examiner, the only disclosure providing support for “ wherein the motor is directly connected to the first shaft ” in lines 1-2 of claim 10 is derived from ¶ 0010 & 0017 of the “SUMMARY” section of Applicant’s originally-filed specification (e.g., “ A number of variations may include a product wherein the motor is directly connected to a first shaft .”) as well as original claim 7, and only Fig. 3 of Applicant’s drawings shows a motor 106 being directly connected to a first shaft 104; however, Fig. 3 of Applicant’s drawings lacks inclusion of a second shaft (e.g., second shaft 108) in addition to the first shaft 104 and a third shaft 109, as only Figs. 1 & 2 of Applicant’s drawings include the second shaft 108 as a partial means for indirect connection between the motor 106 and a rotatable mass 102. Specifically, Applicant’s specification fails to disclose inclusion of “ a first shaft, second shaft, and a third shaft ” and “ the second shaft connected to the motor ” together with “ the motor is directly connected to the first shaft ” as is now required by amended claim 7. Thus, the amended claim now improperly includes “new matter,” such that the claim fails to comply with the written description requirement. Claim 16, as amended, now recites “ further comprising an elongated link pivotally connected to the movable arm and the vehicle strut ” in lines 1-2. Claim 16 is dependent from claim 1 via claims 9 and 10, and claim 10, as amended, now recites “ wherein the vehicle strut is directly connected to the movable arm ” in lines 1-2. As best understood by the examiner, the only disclosure providing support for “ wherein the vehicle strut is directly connected to the movable arm ” in lines 1-2 of claim 10 is derived from ¶ 0013 of the “SUMMARY” section of Applicant’s originally-filed specification (e.g., “ A number of variations may include a product further including a vehicle strut directly or indirectly connected to the movable arm .”) as well as original claim 10, and Applicant’s drawings fail to show how the vehicle strut would be directly connected to the movable arm because, for example, only Figs. 2 and 8 of Applicant’s drawings show a strut 126 (e.g., “vehicle strut”), with Fig. 2 clearly showing the strut 126 being indirectly connected to a movable arm 112, and with Fig. 8 merely providing schematic illustration of a vehicle 301 in which the strut 126 is described (see ¶ 0043 of Applicant’s specification) as being “ operatively connected ” to the movable arm 112, and with only Fig. 2 further showing an elongated link 130 pivotally connected to the movable arm 112 and the strut 126. Specifically, Applicant’s specification fails to disclose inclusion of “ an elongated link pivotally connected to the movable arm and the vehicle strut ” together with “ the vehicle strut is directly connected to the movable arm ” as is now required by amended claim 16. Thus, the amended claim now improperly includes “new matter,” such that the claim fails to comply with the written description requirement. Claim 17, as amended, now recites “ the first shaft directly or indirectly connected to a first side of the clutch ” in lines 10-11; however, it is unclear exactly where and exactly how Applicant’s originally-filed specification sufficiently discloses a first shaft directly connected to a first side of a clutch. For example, only Figs. 1 and 2 of Applicant’s drawings show a product including each of a first shaft 104, a second shaft 108 (i.e., “third shaft”), and a third shaft 109 (i.e., “second shaft”), in which the first shaft 104 is connected to a “first side” of a clutch 120, where a rotatable mass 102 is shown between the first shaft 104 and the clutch 120, and Applicant’s specification is silent to a direct connection between the first shaft 104 and to either side of the clutch 120. Thus, the amended claim now improperly includes “new matter,” such that the claim fails to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 18 and 19 depend from claim 17, such that claims 18 and 19 also include the “new matter” recited by claim 17 and are rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 17 is rejected. Claim 20, as amended, now recites “ the first shaft directly or indirectly connected to a first side of the clutch ” in lines 13-14; however, it is unclear exactly where and exactly how Applicant’s originally-filed specification sufficiently discloses a first shaft directly connected to a first side of a clutch. For example, only Figs. 1-3 of Applicant’s drawings show a product including each of a first shaft 104, a third shaft 109 (i.e., “second shaft”), and a clutch 120, in which the first shaft 104 is connected to a “first side” of the clutch 120, where a rotatable mass 102 (or a motor 106) is shown between the first shaft 104 and the clutch 120, and Applicant’s specification is silent to a direct connection between the first shaft 104 and to either side of the clutch 120. Thus, the amended claim now improperly includes “new matter,” such that the claim fails to comply with the written description requirement. 07-36 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. 07-36-01 AIA Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim 15, as amended, now recites “ wherein the rotatable mass is connected to the first shaft ” in lines 1-2. Claim 15 is dependent from claim 1 via claims 9 and 14, and claim 1, as amended, now recites “ the first shaft connected to the rotatable mass ” in lines 8-9, such that claim 15 fails to further limit claim 14. Therefore, claim 15 is of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 2, 4, 9, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0138645 to Larose et al. (hereinafter: “Larose”) . With respect to claim 1 , Larose teaches a product comprising: an active suspension power system (for example, apparent from at least Figs. 12 & 14 in view of at least ¶ 0092-0098) comprising: a motor (e.g., 121) and a rotatable mass [e.g., “reduction mechanism” (or one or more elements thereof)] ; a first shaft, second shaft, and a third shaft (as pointed out and labeled by the marked-up copy of Fig. 14 provided directly below) ; a bidirectional clutch [clutch unit 10, including magnetorheological (MR) fluid clutch apparatuses 10A, 10A’; apparent from at least Fig. 12 in view of at least ¶ 0098] ; a movable arm (“roll bar portion”) ; and a vehicle strut (as discussed by at least ¶ 0090 & 0095) ; the first shaft connected to the rotatable mass (apparent from the marked-up copy of Fig. 14 provided directly below) , and the first shaft directly or indirectly connected to a first side of the bidirectional clutch (apparent from the marked-up copy of Fig. 14 provided directly below; because directly connected and indirectly connected are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives) , the second shaft connected to the motor (apparent from the marked-up copy of Fig. 14 provided directly below) , the third shaft connected to the moveable arm (apparent from the marked-up copy of Fig. 14 provided directly below) and the third shaft connected to a second side of the bidirectional clutch (apparent from the marked-up copy of Fig. 14 provided directly below) , and wherein the vehicle strut is directly or indirectly connected to the movable arm (as discussed by at least ¶ 0090 & 0095; all elements of the vehicle are connected, either directly or indirectly, to each other, such that the roll bar portion of the vehicle is necessarily directly or indirectly connected to the strut of the vehicle, and vice versa; because directly connected and indirectly connected are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives) . PNG media_image1.png 404 607 media_image1.png Greyscale With respect to claim 2 , Larose teaches the product as set forth in claim 1 wherein the motor is indirectly connected to the first side of the bidirectional clutch (apparent from the marked-up copy of Fig. 14 provided above with respect to claim 1) . With respect to claim 4 , Larose teaches the product as set forth in claim 2 further comprising a vehicle wheel connect to the vehicle strut (as discussed by at least ¶ 0090-0095; all elements of the vehicle are connected, either directly or indirectly, to each other, such that the wheel of the vehicle is necessarily directly or indirectly connected to the strut of the vehicle, and vice versa) . With respect to claim 9 , Larose teaches the product as set forth in claim 1 wherein the bidirectional clutch is constructed and arranged to selectively decouple the movable arm from the rotatable mass, to selectively rotate the movable arm in a first direction, and to selectively rotate the movable arm in a second direction (as depicted by at least Figs. 12 & 14 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0075-0081 & 0092-0098; because arranged to and configured to are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives) . With respect to claim 13 , Larose teaches the product is set forth in claim 9 wherein the bidirectional clutch comprises a bidirectional magnetorheological fluid clutch (apparent from at least Fig. 12 in view of at least ¶ 0098) . With respect to claim 15 , Larose teaches the product as set forth in claim 14 wherein the rotatable mass is connected to the first shaft (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3, 6, 7, 10, 14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larose in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0043744 to Villegas Muriel et al. (hereinafter: “Villegas”) . With respect to claim 3 , Larose teaches the product as set forth in claim 1 wherein the movable arm has a first end and a second end (apparent from at least Fig. 12) , and wherein the rotatable mass is connected to the first side of the bidirectional clutch (apparent from the marked-up copy of Fig. 14 provided above with respect to claim 1) . Larose appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the product further comprises an elongated link having an elongated link first end and an elongated link second end. Therefore, Larose also appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether an elongated link first end [of an elongated link is] pivotally connected to the second end of the movable arm, and whether an elongated link second end [of an elongated link is] pivotally connected to the vehicle strut. Villegas teaches an analogous product (apparent from at least Figs. 2-4C) including a movable arm (e.g., 210 or 212) , a vehicle strut (e.g., 228) connected to the movable arm (apparent from at least Fig. 2) , and an elongated link (e.g., 220 or 222) pivotally connected to the movable arm and the vehicle strut (apparent from at least Fig. 2) , where an elongated link first end of the elongated link is pivotally connected to the second end of the movable arm (apparent from at least Fig. 2) , and an elongated link second end of the elongated link is pivotally connected to the vehicle strut (apparent from at least Fig. 2) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the product of Larose with the teachings of Villegas, if even necessary, to further include an elongated link having an elongated link first end and an elongated link second end, where the elongated link first end [is] pivotally connected to the second end of the movable arm, and the elongated link second end [is] pivotally connected to the vehicle strut, to provide a particular type of connection between the movable arm and the vehicle (e.g., via an elongated link pivotally connected to the movable arm and the vehicle strut) via the disclosure of Villegas in place of the generic type of connection between the movable arm and the vehicle disclosed by Larose, especially since Villegas alternatively discloses connecting the vehicle strut to the movable arm without the elongated link, and especially since Villegas discloses that inclusion of the elongated link pivotably connecting to the vehicle strut and the movable arm does not affect operation or function of the product (as discussed by at least ¶ 0030 of Villegas), such that one having ordinary skill in the art would have no reason to believe that modifying the product of Larose with the teachings of Villegas, if even necessary, such that the product further comprises the elongated link pivotally connected to the movable arm and the vehicle strut would destroy functionality of the product of Larose. Therefore, such a modification, if even necessary, would also amount to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (e.g., see: MPEP 2143_I_A). With respect to claim 6 , Larose teaches the product as set forth in claim 1; however, Larose appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the movable arm has a through hole [formed] therein at an end of the movable arm. Villegas teaches an analogous product (apparent from at least Figs. 2-4C) including a movable arm (e.g., 210 or 212) , a vehicle strut (e.g., 228) connected to the movable arm (apparent from at least Fig. 2) , and an elongated link (e.g., 220 or 222) pivotally connected to the movable arm and the vehicle strut (apparent from at least Fig. 2) , where the movable arm has a through hole formed therein at an end of the movable arm to pivotally connect the movable arm to the elongated link (apparent from at least Fig. 2 in view of at least ¶ 0030; at 216) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the product of Larose with the teachings of Villegas, if even necessary, such that the movable arm has a through hole [formed] therein at an end of the movable arm to provide a particular type of connection between the movable arm and the vehicle (e.g., via an elongated link pivotally connected to the movable arm and the vehicle strut) via the disclosure of Villegas in place of the generic type of connection between the movable arm and the vehicle disclosed by Larose, especially since Villegas alternatively discloses connecting the vehicle strut to the movable arm without the elongated link, and especially since Villegas discloses that inclusion of the elongated link pivotably connecting to the vehicle strut and the movable arm does not affect operation or function of the product (as discussed by at least ¶ 0030 of Villegas), such that one having ordinary skill in the art would have no reason to believe that modifying the product of Larose with the teachings of Villegas, if even necessary, such that the product further comprises the elongated link pivotally connected to the movable arm and the vehicle strut would destroy functionality of the product of Larose. Therefore, such a modification, if even necessary, would also amount to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (e.g., see: MPEP 2143_I_A). With respect to claim 7 , Larose modified supra teaches the product as set forth in claim 6 wherein the motor is directly connected to the first shaft (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 6) . With respect to claim 10 , Larose teaches the product as set in claim 9; however, Larose appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the vehicle strut is directly connected to the movable arm. Villegas teaches an analogous product (apparent from at least Figs. 2-4C) including a movable arm (e.g., 210 or 212) and a vehicle strut (e.g., 228) directly connected to the movable arm (apparent from at least Fig. 2 in view of at least ¶ 0030; e.g., “ In some examples, the first link 220 and/or the second link 222 are not provided. In some such examples, the first end 216 of the first stabilizer bar 210 and/or the first end 216 of the second stabilizer bar 212 may couple (e.g., directly attach) to a shock absorber, a spring, a control arm, a steering knuckle, an axle, a wheel assembly and/or any other portion of the suspension, a frame or a subframe of the vehicle 100 without affecting the operation or function of the anti-roll system 200 disclosed herein ”) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the product of Larose with the teachings of Villegas, if even necessary, such that the vehicle strut is directly connected to the movable arm to provide a particular type of connection between the movable arm and the vehicle (e.g., via a direct connection between the movable arm and the vehicle strut) via the disclosure of Villegas in place of the generic type of connection between the movable arm and the vehicle disclosed by Larose, especially since Villegas alternatively discloses indirectly connecting the vehicle strut to the movable arm via an elongated link, and especially since Villegas discloses that inclusion/omission of the elongated link pivotably connecting to the vehicle strut and the movable arm does not affect operation or function of the product (as discussed by at least ¶ 0030 of Villegas), such that one having ordinary skill in the art would have no reason to believe that modifying the product of Larose with the teachings of Villegas, if even necessary, such that the product further comprises a direct connection between the movable arm and the vehicle strut would destroy functionality of the product of Larose. Therefore, such a modification, if even necessary, would also amount to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (e.g., see: MPEP 2143_I_A). With respect to claim 14 , Larose modified supra teaches the product as set forth in claim 9 further comprising an elongated link pivotally connected to the movable arm (as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 3 and 9) . With respect to claim 16 , Larose teaches the product is set forth in claim 10, further comprising an elongated link pivotally connected to the movable arm and the vehicle strut (as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claims 3 and 10) . With respect to claim 17 , Larose modified supra teaches a product comprising: an active suspension power system comprising: a motor and a rotatable mass; a first shaft, second shaft, and a third shaft; a clutch; a movable arm having a first end and a second end; an elongated link having an elongated link first end and an elongated link second end; a vehicle strut; and the first shaft connected to the rotatable mass, the first shaft directly or indirectly connected to a first side of the clutch, the second shaft connected to the motor, the third shaft connected to the movable arm and the third shaft connected to a second side of the clutch, wherein the clutch is constructed and arranged or configured to selectively decouple the movable arm from the rotatable mass, to selectively rotate the movable arm in a first direction, and to selectively rotate the movable arm in a second direction, the elongated link first end pivotally connected to the second end of the movable arm, the elongated link second end pivotally connected to the vehicle strut, and wherein the motor is indirectly connected to the first side of the clutch (as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claims 1-3 and 9) . With respect to claim 18 , Larose modified supra teaches the product as set forth in claim 17 wherein the clutch is bidirectional and comprises an epicyclic gear train, a plurality of planetary gear sets, or a bidirectional magnetorheological fluid clutch (as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claims 1 and 13; because an epicyclic gear train , a plurality of planetary gear sets , or a bidirectional magnetorheological fluid clutch are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives) . With respect to claim 19 , Larose modified supra teaches the product as set forth in claim 17 wherein the second end of the movable arm has a through hole formed therein (as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claims 6 and 17) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larose in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0305555 to Chouinard et al. (hereinafter: “Chouinard”) . With respect to claim 5 , Larose teaches the product as set forth in claim 3, wherein the motor is connected to the rotatable mass via the reduction mechanism (as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 1-3) ; however, Larose appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the motor is connected to the rotatable mass via a belt , and Larose appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the reduction mechanism, which is a transmission, includes a belt. Even so, note that 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 from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (e.g., see: MPEP 2114_II), and claim 5 does not necessarily require inclusion of the “belt” by the claimed “product” and, instead, merely requires for the “belt” to be usable in combination with the “product” to connect the “motor” of the “product” to the “rotatable mass” of the “product.” Chouinard teaches an analogous product (apparent from at least Fig. 4; compare with at least Fig. 14 of Larose) , in which each of a motor (21) and a transmission (22) is connected to a first side of a clutch (10, or 10A, or 10B) (apparent from at least Fig. 4 in view of at least ¶ 0077 & 0079) , and the motor is connected to the first side of the clutch via the transmission (apparent from at least Fig. 4 in view of at least ¶ 0077 & 0079) , where the transmission is optionally structured by a belt and pulleys (as discussed by at least ¶ 0079; in the alternative to a gearbox, chain and pinions, or other non-limiting transmission types) , the pulleys including a motor-side pulley and a clutch-side pulley (apparent from at least Fig. 4 in view of at least ¶ 0077 & 0079) . In Chouinard, the clutch-side pulley is necessarily definable as a rotatable mass, such that the motor is connected to the rotatable mass via the belt. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the product of Larose with the teachings of Chouinard such that the reduction mechanism is structured by a belt and pulleys, in which the pulleys include a motor-side pulley and a clutch-side pulley defined as the rotatable mass, such that the motor is connected to the rotatable mass via the belt, because, while Larose only appears to generically define structure (or type) of the reduction mechanism (which is a transmission) that connects the motor to the clutch, Chouinard teaches a non-limiting list of alternative specific transmission types that would suitably connect a motor to a clutch in an analogous context, thereby demonstrating that structuring the reduction mechanism of Larose via inclusion of a belt and pulleys, in which the pulleys include a motor-side pulley and a clutch-side pulley, would suitably provide a specific type of reduction mechanism for connecting the motor to the clutch if substituted in place of the generic reduction mechanism, and one having ordinary skill in the art would have no reason to believe that structuring the reduction mechanism of the product of Larose via the belt and the pulleys of Chouinard in place of the generic reduction mechanism of Larose would destroy functionality of the product of Larose because Chouinard demonstrates that a transmission having a belt and pulleys is suitable for use in connecting a motor to a clutch, just as other alternative non-limiting transmission types (e.g., gearbox) are similarly suitable for said use. Therefore, such a modification would also amount to a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (e.g., see: MPEP 2143_I_B). Also, in such a modification, the rotatable mass would include the clutch-side pulley of the reduction mechanism, such that the motor would be connected to the rotatable mass via the belt . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larose in view of Villegas, and in view of Chouinard . With respect to claim 8 , Larose modified supra teaches the product as set forth in claim 6 further comprising the reduction mechanism operatively connected to the second shaft and to the rotatable mass to rotate the rotatable mass (for example, as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 1, 5, and 6) ; however, Larose appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the product further comprises a belt operatively connected to the second shaft and to the rotatable mass to rotate the rotatable mass, and Larose appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the reduction mechanism, which is a transmission, includes a belt. Chouinard teaches an analogous product, in which each of a motor and a transmission is connected to a first side of a clutch, and the motor includes a shaft that is operatively connected to the first side of the clutch via the transmission, where the transmission is optionally structured by a belt and pulleys, the pulleys including a motor-side pulley and a clutch-side pulley (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 5 and apparent from at least Fig. 4) . In Chouinard, the clutch-side pulley is necessarily definable as a rotatable mass, such that the belt is operatively connected to the shaft of the motor and to the rotatable mass to rotate the rotatable mass. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the product of Larose with the teachings of Chouinard such that the reduction mechanism is structured by a belt and pulleys, in which the pulleys include a motor-side pulley and a clutch-side pulley defined as the rotatable mass, such that the belt operatively connects to the second shaft of the motor and to the mass to rotate the mass, because, while Larose only appears to generically define structure (or type) of the reduction mechanism (which is a transmission) that connects the second shaft of the motor to the clutch, Chouinard teaches a non-limiting list of alternative specific transmission types that would suitably operatively connect a motor shaft to a clutch in an analogous context, thereby demonstrating that structuring the reduction mechanism of Larose via inclusion of a belt and pulleys, in which the pulleys include a motor-side pulley and a clutch-side pulley, would suitably provide a specific type of reduction mechanism for operatively connecting the motor shaft to the clutch if substituted in place of the generic reduction mechanism, and one having ordinary skill in the art would have no reason to believe that structuring the reduction mechanism of the product of Larose via the belt and the pulleys of Chouinard in place of the generic reduction mechanism of Larose would destroy functionality of the product of Larose because Chouinard demonstrates that a transmission having a belt and pulleys is suitable for use in operatively connecting a motor shaft to a clutch, just as other alternative non-limiting transmission types (e.g., gearbox) are similarly suitable for said use. Therefore, such a modification would also amount to a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (e.g., see: MPEP 2143_I_B). Also, in such a modification, the rotatable mass would include the clutch-side pulley of the reduction mechanism, such that the second shaft of the motor would be operatively connected to the rotatable mass via the belt to rotate the rotatable mass . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larose in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0111752 to Park (hereinafter: “Park”) . With respect to claim 11 , Larose teaches the product as set forth in claim 9 wherein the second side of the bidirectional clutch comprises an additional reduction mechanism (apparent from at least Fig. 14 in view of at least ¶ 0051) ; however, Larose appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the bidirectional clutch comprises an epicyclic gear train , and Larose appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the additional reduction mechanism, which is a transmission, includes an epicyclic gear train. Park teaches an analogous product (apparent from at least Figs. 1-5) including an active suspension power system comprising a motor (300) connected to a first side of a clutch unit (e.g., 50) and a movable arm (e.g., 100) connected to a second side of the clutch unit (apparent from at least Figs. 1-5 in view of at least ¶ 0028-0031) , where the second side of the clutch unit includes a transmission (e.g., via at least 31 & 33 together and/or via at least 35 & 39 together) which includes an epicyclic gear train (apparent from at least Figs. 2-4) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the product of Larose with the teachings of Park such that the additional reduction mechanism is structured to include an epicyclic gear train because, while Larose only appears to generically define structure (or type) of the additional reduction mechanism (which is a transmission) included by the second side of the clutch, Park teaches a specific type of transmission for a second side of a clutch that would suitably connect the second side of the bidirectional clutch to an arm of an active suspension power system in an analogous context, thereby demonstrating that structuring the additional reduction mechanism of the second side of the bidirectional clutch of Larose to include an epicyclic gear train would suitably provide a specific type of additional reduction mechanism for connecting the second side of the bidirectional clutch to the arm if substituted in place of the generic additional reduction mechanism, and one having ordinary skill in the art would have no reason to believe that structuring the additional reduction mechanism of the second side of the bidirectional clutch of Larose via the epicyclic gear train of Park in place of the generic additional reduction mechanism of Larose would destroy functionality of the product of Larose because Park demonstrates that including an epicyclic gear train via a second side of a clutch suitably connects the bidirectional clutch to an arm. Therefore, such a modification, if even necessary, would also amount to a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (e.g., see: MPEP 2143_I_B). With respect to claim 12 , Larose teaches the product as set forth in claim 9 wherein the second side of the bidirectional clutch comprises an additional reduction mechanism (apparent from at least Fig. 14 in view of at least ¶ 0051) ; however, Larose appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the bidirectional clutch comprises a plurality of planetary gear sets , and Larose appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the additional reduction mechanism, which is a transmission, includes a plurality of planetary gear sets. Park teaches an analogous product (apparent from at least Figs. 1-5) including an active suspension power system comprising a motor (300) connected to a first side of a clutch unit (e.g., 50) and a movable arm (e.g., 100) connected to a second side of the clutch unit (apparent from at least Figs. 1-5 in view of at least ¶ 0028-0031) , where the second side of the clutch unit includes a transmission (e.g., via at least 31 & 33 together and at least 35, 37 & 39 together) which includes a plurality of planetary gear sets (apparent from at least Figs. 2-4) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the product of Larose with the teachings of Park such that the additional reduction mechanism is structured to include a plurality of planetary gear sets because, while Larose only appears to generically define structure (or type) of the additional reduction mechanism (which is a transmission) included by the second side of the bidirectional clutch, Park teaches a specific type of transmission for a second side of a bidirectional clutch that would suitably connect the second side of the bidirectional clutch to an arm of an active suspension power system in an analogous context, thereby demonstrating that structuring the additional reduction mechanism of the second side of the bidirectional clutch of Larose to include a plurality of planetary gear sets would suitably provide a specific type of additional reduction mechanism for connecting the second side of the bidirectional clutch to the arm if substituted in place of the generic additional reduction mechanism, and one having ordinary skill in the art would have no reason to believe that structuring the additional reduction mechanism of the second side of the bidirectional clutch of Larose via the plurality of planetary gear sets of Park in place of the generic additional reduction mechanism of Larose would destroy functionality of the product of Larose because Park demonstrates that including a plurality of planetary gear sets via a second side of a bidirectional clutch suitably connects the bidirectional clutch to an arm. Therefore, such a modification, if even necessary, would also amount to a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (e.g., see: MPEP 2143_I_B) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larose in view of Villegas, and in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0224493 to Buma et al. (hereinafter: “Buma”) . With respect to claim 20 , Larose modified supra teaches a system comprising: a vehicle wheel; sensors ; and a special-purpose computer; and an active suspension power system comprising: a rotatable mass; a first shaft, and a second shaft; a clutch; a movable arm having a first end and a second end; an elongated link having an elongated link first end and an elongated link second end; and a vehicle strut; the first shaft connected to the rotatable mass, and the first shaft directly or indirectly connected to a first side of the clutch, the second shaft connected to the movable arm and the second shaft connected to a second side of the clutch, wherein the clutch is constructed and arranged or configured to selectively decouple the movable arm from the rotatable mass, to selectively rotate the movable arm in a first direction, and to selectively rotate the movable arm in a second direction, the elongated link first end pivotally connected to the second end of the movable arm, the elongated link second end pivotally connected to the vehicle strut, the vehicle strut connected to vehicle wheel, the sensors and the clutch operatively connected to communication with the special-purpose computer, wherein the special-purpose computer comprises an electronic processor, non-transitory memory having written instructions stored thereon and executable by the electronic processor to carry out a functionality of receiving data from the sensors and controlling the clutch [as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 17 (with the “third shaft” of claims 1 and 17 being interpreted as the “second shaft” of claim 20); also, as discussed by at least ¶ 0069, 0090-0098 & 0106, the clutch unit 10 is controllable via a controller (e.g., “special-purpose computer”) including one or more processing units (e.g., “electronic processor”) and a non-transitory computer-readable memory (e.g., “non-transitory memory”) communicatively coupled to the one or more processing units and comprising computer-readable program instructions (e.g., “written instructions”) executable by the one or more processing units to receive data from sensors and control the clutch unit 10, the sensors and the clutch unit 10 each communicatively coupled to the controller] . Larose appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the sensors include a wheel vertical movement sensor operatively connected to the vehicle wheel, such that Larose also appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether a wheel vertical movement sensor is operatively connected to communication with the special-purpose computer or whether the written instructions stored on the non-transitory memory are executable by the electronic processor to carry out functionality of receiving data from a wheel vertical movement sensor. Buma teaches an analogous system (apparent from at least Figs. 1-4) including an active suspension power system comprising a motor (70) connected to a movable arm (e.g., 60) (apparent from at least Figs. 1-4 in view of at least ¶ 0147-0150) , where a wheel vertical movement sensor (126) is operatively connected to a vehicle wheel (16) (apparent from at least Fig. 1 in view of at least ¶ 0155 & 0197) and is operatively connected to communication with a special-purpose computer (110) (apparent from at least Fig. 1 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0155) , and where written instructions (control program) stored on a non-transitory memory (ROM) are executable by an electronic processor (CPU) of the special-purpose computer to carry out the functionality of receiving data from the wheel vertical movement sensor (apparent from at least Fig. 1 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0155 & 0197) . Therefore, even if the claimed system is differently interpreted to require inclusion of the wheel vertical movement sensor operatively connected to the vehicle wheel, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system of Larose with the teachings of Buma, if even necessary, to further include the wheel vertical movement sensor operatively connected to the vehicle wheel, and such that the wheel vertical movement sensor is operatively connected to communication with the special-purpose computer, and such that the written instructions stored on the non-transitory memory are executable by the electronic processor to carry out functionality of receiving data from a wheel vertical movement sensor, to beneficially judge, via the special-purpose computer based on the data received from the wheel vertical movement sensor during travel of a vehicle, whether the vehicle is traveling on a bad road based on an obtained vertical acceleration to thereby enable an appropriate operation mode to be identified for controlling the active suspension power system of the system (apparent from at least ¶ 0155 & 0197 of Buma). Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 Application/Control Number: 18/659,839 Page 2 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/659,839 Page 3 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/659,839 Page 4 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/659,839 Page 5 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/659,839 Page 6 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/659,839 Page 8 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/659,839 Page 9 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/659,839 Page 10 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/659,839 Page 11 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/659,839 Page 12 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/659,839 Page 13 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/659,839 Page 15 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/659,839 Page 16 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/659,839 Page 18 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/659,839 Page 19 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/659,839 Page 21 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/659,839 Page 22 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/659,839 Page 23 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/659,839 Page 24 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/659,839 Page 25 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/659,839 Page 26 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/659,839 Page 27 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/659,839 Page 28 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/659,839 Page 29 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/659,839 Page 30 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/659,839 Page 31 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/659,839 Page 32 Art Unit: 3747 Application/Control Number: 18/659,839 Page 33 Art Unit: 3747
Prosecution Insights