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 .
The preliminary amendment filed 08 February 2024, in which claims 3-6, 8, 10, 11, and 13-15 were amended, has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “4” (middle of page 13). 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. 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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested:
Damper Control Arrangement in a Two-Wheeled Vehicle
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because Examiner suggests removing the reference to Fig. 9. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-14 are objected to because of the following informalities. Examiner suggests the changes below:
“A damper control arrangement” be changed to --The damper control arrangement-- (claims 2-10, line 1), since this feature has already been claimed;
“an impact” be changed to --the impact-- (claim 7, line 2), since this feature has already been claimed;
“a detected upward lifting action” be changed to --the detected upward lifting action-- (claim 8, line 3), since this feature has already been claimed;
“a timer module” be changed to --the timer module-- (claim 9, lines 1-2); since this feature has already been claimed;
“the damper open position” be changed to --the open damper position-- (claim 9, line 2), so as to use the same terminology as previously presented;
the open parenthesis “()” be removed (claim 11, end of line 3);
“a damper control arrangement” be changed to --the damper control arrangement-- (claim 11, line 5), since this feature has already been claimed;
“An electronic suspension assembly” be changed to --The electronic suspension assembly-- (claim 12, line 1), since this feature has already been claimed;
“an electronic suspension assembly” be changed to --the electronic suspension assembly-- (claim 13, line 1), since this feature has already been claimed;
“an electronic suspension assembly” be changed to --the electronic suspension assembly-- (claim 14, line 1), since this feature has already been claimed;
“an upward lifting action” be changed to --the upward lifting action-- (claim 14, line 3), since this feature has already been claimed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the sprung mass" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the sensor outputs" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the accelerometer output" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the damper spring" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the inclination" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the magnitude" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the front wheel" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the severity" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the inclination" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the duration" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the impact severity" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the vehicle inclination" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the front wheel" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In regards to claim 11, it is unclear which damper is being referenced by “the damper” (line 6) since “a damper” was set forth in preceding claim 1, and “an electronically controllable damper” was set forth in line 4 of claim 11. Clarification and rephrasing are required.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the detected upward displacement" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the two-wheeled vehicle" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the sprung mass" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the sensor outputs" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the damper" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsuchizawa et al. (US 2020/0023703 A1). Tsuchizawa et al. discloses a damper control arrangement (suspension control device #12) for a damper (including front and rear suspensions #FS, RS) in an electronic suspension assembly (#10) of a two-wheeled vehicle (#1), the damper control arrangement comprising:
(claim 1) a sensor arrangement comprising a number of sensors (including front and rear multi-axis acceleration sensors #20, 22, front and rear tire load sensors #26, 28, front and rear suspension load sensors #30, 32) arranged to measure motion-related parameters of the two-wheeled vehicle (#1; paragraphs 0044, 0046-0061; figure 2);
an upward lift detection means configured to detect an upward lifting action on the sprung mass from the sensor outputs (including jumping, wheelie, jack knife, and off-road states; paragraphs 0063-0072; figures 3-5, 7, 11);
a decision module configured to generate a control signal to open the damper (lockout OFF for front suspension #FS and/or rear suspension #RS, depending on detected state) in response to the detected upward lifting action (paragraphs 0045, 0063-0140; figures 6, 9, 10, 13, 14);
(claim 2) wherein the sensor arrangement comprises a 3-axis accelerometer (including front and rear multi-axis acceleration sensors #20, 22) configured to detect motion along three orthogonal axes, and wherein the upward lifting action is deduced on the basis of the accelerometer output (paragraphs 0046-0053, 0062-0085);
(claim 3) wherein the sensor arrangement comprises a pressure sensor (including front and rear suspension load sensors #30, 32) configured to measure pressure in the damper spring (#FS, RS), and wherein the upward lifting action is deduced on the basis of the measured pressure (paragraphs 0058-0061, 0120-0139);
(claim 6) a computation module configured to compute the magnitude of an impact to the front wheel (#FW; paragraph 0038) of the vehicle (#1) from an output of the sensor arrangement (paragraphs 0045-0139);
(claim 11) an electronic suspension assembly (#10) of a two-wheeled vehicle (#1), comprising:
a shock absorber (including front suspension #FS) arranged to provide suspension to the front wheel (#FW) and comprising an electronically controllable damper (#FS; paragraph 0038);
the damper control arrangement (#12) for controlling the damper (#FS; figure 2; paragraphs 0037-0061);
(claim 12) wherein the shock absorber (including front suspension #FS) is a telescopic front fork, and wherein the electronically controllable damper (#FS) is arranged in a stanchion of the telescopic fork (figure 1; paragraph 0038);
(claim 13) a bicycle (#1) comprising the electronic suspension assembly (#10; figure 1; paragraphs 0036-0039);
(claim 14) a method of controlling the electronic suspension assembly (#10), comprising the steps of:
detecting an upward lifting action (including jumping, wheelie, jack knife, and off-road states) on the sprung mass (paragraphs 0063-0072; figures 3-5, 7, 11);
opening the damper (lockout OFF for front suspension #FS, depending on detected state) in response to the detected upward displacement (paragraphs 0045, 0063-0140; figures 6, 9, 10, 13, 14);
(claim 15) a computer program product comprising a computer program that is directly loadable into a memory (#16b) of a damper control arrangement (#12; paragraphs 0040-0139), which comprises:
a sensor arrangement comprising a number of sensors (including front and rear multi-axis acceleration sensors #20, 22, front and rear tire load sensors #26, 28, front and rear suspension load sensors #30, 32) arranged to measure motion-related parameters of the two-wheeled vehicle (#1; paragraphs 0044, 0046-0061; figure 2);
an upward lift detection means configured to detect an upward lifting action on the sprung mass from the sensor outputs (including jumping, wheelie, jack knife, and off-road states; paragraphs 0063-0072; figures 3-5, 7, 11);
a decision module configured to generate a control signal to open the damper (lockout OFF for front suspension #FS and/or rear suspension #RS, depending on detected state) in response to the detected upward lifting action (paragraphs 0045, 0063-0140; figures 6, 9, 10, 13, 14);
program elements for performing steps of the method when the computer program is executed by a processor (electronic controller #16) of the damper control arrangement (#12; paragraphs 0040-0139).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchizawa et al. (US 2020/0023703 A1) in view of Santurbane et al. (US 2021/0179222 A1). Tsuchizawa et al. does not specifically disclose measuring movement of a damper stanchion. Santurbane et al. teaches a damper control arrangement for a damper (including front fork #108, rear shock #110; paragraphs 0025-0026) of a two-wheeled vehicle (#100), comprising a sensor arrangement (including electronic monitoring devices #138; paragraphs 0029-0031, 0038-0068), wherein the sensor arrangement comprises a movement sensor (pressure sensor) configured to measure movement of a damper stanchion (legs of front fork #108; figures 2, 3), and vehicle, rider, and terrain characteristics are deduced on the basis of the measured movement (pressure in front fork #108 is measured, which can be correlated to position of the legs via the ideal gas law; paragraphs 0019, 0031, 0037). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the damper control arrangement of Tsuchizawa et al. to include measuring movement of a damper stanchion, as taught by Santurbane et al., so as to use the ideal gas law to correlate pressure within the damper, which is already measured by Tsuchizawa et al., to the position of the legs of the damper, which determines displacement of the damper and provides additional performance metrics to help aid the decision module in determining vehicle, rider, and terrain characteristics (Santurbane et al.: paragraphs 0019, 0031, 0037).
Claim(s) 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchizawa et al. (US 2020/0023703 A1) in view of Ebersbach et al. (US 2016/0153515 A1). Tsuchizawa et al. does not disclose computing the inclination of the two-wheeled vehicle. Ebersbach et al. teaches a damper control arrangement for a damper (front and rear suspension systems #300, 400) of a two-wheeled vehicle (#100), comprising determining the inclination of the two-wheeled vehicle from an output of a sensor arrangement, and adjusting damper characteristics based on the vehicle inclination (paragraphs 0038-0039, 0043, 0071-0072; claim 13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the damper control arrangement of Tsuchizawa et al. to include computing the inclination of the vehicle, as taught by Ebersbach et al., so as to adjust damper characteristics based on the vehicle inclination, thereby providing electric power consumption savings/economy (Ebersbach et al.: paragraph 0043).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchizawa et al. (US 2020/0023703 A1) in view of Fox (US 2003/0075402 A1). Tsuchizawa et al. does not disclose a timer module configured to determine the duration of an open damper position. Fox teaches a damper control arrangement for a damper (suspension members #34, 38) of a two-wheeled vehicle (#20), comprising a timer module configured to determine the duration of an open damper position following a detected upward lifting action of the sprung mass (Abstract; paragraphs 0007-0016, 0109, 0118-0119, 0158-0161, 0214-0215). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the damper control arrangement of Tsuchizawa et al. to include a timer module, as taught by Fox, so as to retain the damper in an open position for a predetermined period of time after it is initially opened, thereby allowing the damper to maintain the lowered damping rate for the entire bump, not just the first half (Fox: Abstract; paragraphs 0112-0119).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchizawa et al. (US 2020/0023703 A1) in view of Fox (US 2003/0075402 A1), further in view of Ebersbach et al. (US 2016/0153515 A1). Tsuchizawa et al. does not disclose a timer module configured to determine the duration of the damper open position, or detecting vehicle inclination. Fox teaches a damper control arrangement for a damper (suspension members #34, 38) of a two-wheeled vehicle (#20), comprising a timer module configured to determine the duration of an open damper position on the basis of impact severity (Abstract; paragraphs 0007-0016, 0109, 0118-0119, 0158-0161, 0214-0215). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the damper control arrangement of Tsuchizawa et al. to include a timer module, as taught by Fox, so as to retain the damper in an open position for a predetermined period of time after it is initially opened, thereby allowing the damper to maintain the lowered damping rate for the entire bump, not just the first half (Fox: Abstract; paragraphs 0112-0119). Ebersbach et al. teaches a damper control arrangement for a damper (front and rear suspension systems #300, 400) of a two-wheeled vehicle (#100), comprising determining vehicle inclination (paragraphs 0038-0039, 0043, 0071-0072; claim 13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the damper control arrangement of Tsuchizawa et al. to include determining vehicle inclination, as taught by Ebersbach et al., so as to adjust damper characteristics based on the vehicle inclination, thereby providing electric power consumption savings/economy (Ebersbach et al.: paragraph 0043).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchizawa et al. (US 2020/0023703 A1) in view of Chen et al. (US 9676441 B2). Tsuchizawa et al. does not disclose detecting vibration of the sprung mass. Chen et al. teaches a damper control arrangement for a damper (front and rear shock absorbers #11, 12) of a two-wheeled vehicle (#10), configured to detect vibration of the sprung mass and to open the damper in response to the detected vibration (column 3, line 19-column 5, line 53; column 7, lines 21-32; column 14, line 20-column 22, line 22; figures 17-31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the damper control arrangement of Tsuchizawa et al. to include detecting vibration of the sprung mass, as taught by Chen et al., so as to logically determine whether to increase or decrease the level of the damping force, thereby increasing pedaling efficiency on smooth pavement and increasing comfort and control on bumpy pavement, which improves rider convenience and safety (Chen et al.: column 1, lines 56-59; column 3, lines 15-18; column 7, lines 9-32; column 5, lines 48-53; column 22, lines 7-22).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art discloses suspension assemblies for bicycles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA FREEDMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2442. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4:30pm.
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.
/LAURA FREEDMAN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3614B