DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to Applicants’ amendment received on December 31, 2025.
Claims 1-16 are pending in the application.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-8, 10-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (WO 2015/153811 A1), hereinafter “Anderson”, in view of Yang et al. (CN 118579003 A), hereinafter “Yang”.
Regarding claim 1, Anderson discloses a control system for a vehicle having a suspension system (Abstract), the control system comprising one or more controllers (paragraph 12), the control system configured to: while the vehicle is operating in a first mode, receive a first collision warning signal (paragraph 35); and modify one or more parameters of the suspension system to operate the vehicle in a second mode in response to the received first collision warning signal (paragraphs 35, 164).
Anderson fails to disclose that while the vehicle is operating in a second mode, receives a second collision warning signal; and maintains the vehicle in the second mode in response to the received second collision warning signal.
However, Yang discloses that while the vehicle is operating in a second mode, it receives a second collision warning signal; and maintains the vehicle in the second mode in response to the received second collision warning signal. Yang states the following: “In some embodiments, the step of determining the collision warning signal according to the second vehicle speed comprises: when the second vehicle speed is greater than or equal to a second preset vehicle speed threshold, determining the collision early warning signal as a first collision early warning signal; when the second vehicle speed is less than the second preset vehicle speed threshold, determining the collision early warning signal as the second collision early warning signal, wherein the second preset vehicle speed threshold is greater than the first preset vehicle speed threshold.
In some embodiments, after adjusting the seat distance of the second vehicle according to the collision warning signal, the method further comprises: determining an end of the collision between the first vehicle and the second vehicle; A seat adjuster of the vehicle is controlled to be adjusted to an initial state.
In some embodiments, the vehicle includes an anti-collision system including an active suspension for adjusting a chassis height of the second vehicle.
In some embodiments, the seat of the second vehicle is a primary and/or secondary seat.
In order to achieve the above object, an embodiment of the second aspect of the present invention provides a control device for a vehicle, and the control device for a vehicle comprises: an obtaining module for obtaining the first driving parameter of the first vehicle and the second driving parameter of the second vehicle; a determining module for determining the collision pre-warning signal according to the first driving parameter and the second driving parameter; an adjusting module for adjusting the seat distance of the second vehicle according to the collision pre-warning signal.
According to the vehicle control device of the embodiment of the invention, when the device performs vehicle safety protection on the vehicle, by obtaining the first driving parameter of the first vehicle and the second driving parameter of the second vehicle, and according to the parameter, determining the collision early warning signal, after receiving the collision early warning signal, the seat distance of the second vehicle is adjusted based on the collision pre-warning signal, the seat distance is adjusted, such that the driver and passenger are in the relative safety area, the splashing object can be avoided from hurting the driver and passenger in the vehicle, the safety of the driver and passenger in the vehicle is protected, and the safety of the anti-collision protection is improved.
the embodiment, when the vehicle is driving on the road, the driving parameters of the first vehicle and the second vehicle are different, the driving parameters are different, the collision condition to be occurred by the vehicle is considered to be different, different collision pre-warning signals are sent according to the collision condition to be occurred, so as to according to different collision pre-warning signals, different collision protection strategies are executed to improve the intelligence of the vehicle collision protection.
In the embodiment, the first vehicle and the second vehicle are judged based on the first driving parameter and the second driving parameter according to the collision pre-warning signal, and then the pre-warning signal is sent based on different possible collision conditions. when the vehicle runs on the road, the driving parameters of the first vehicle and the second vehicle are different, the driving parameters are different, the vehicle is considered to have different collision conditions, different collision pre-warning signals are sent according to the collision conditions to be generated, so as to according to different collision pre-warning signals, different collision protection strategies are executed, such as adjusting the chassis height of the second vehicle and the seat distance of the second vehicle, and improving the intelligence of the vehicle collision protection.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Anderson by incorporating the teachings of Yang in order to keep the vehicle prepared for an ongoing or maintained threat of collision.
Regarding claim 2, the modified invention of Anderson discloses the control system of claim 1, wherein the one or more controllers collectively comprise: at least one electronic processor having an electrical input for receiving the first collision warning signal (paragraphs 35, 164); and at least one memory device electrically coupled to the at least one electronic processor and having instructions stored therein (paragraphs 35, 164)); wherein the at least one electronic processor is configured to access the at least one memory device and execute the instructions thereon so as to modify the one or more parameters of the suspension system (paragraphs 35, 164).
Regarding claim 3, the modified invention of Anderson discloses the control system of claim 1, wherein the one or more parameters of the suspension system are modified to increase primary body control (paragraphs 9, 38, 40).
Regarding claim 4, the modified invention of Anderson discloses the control system of claim 1, wherein the one or more parameters (paragraphs 17, 40) are modified to one or more of: (a) increase stiffness of the suspension system (paragraphs 25, 179); (b) increase a level of damping provided by the suspension system (paragraphs 9, 17, 44); and (c) increase a level of roll compensation provided by the suspension system (paragraphs 23, 32, 44).
Regarding claim 5, the modified invention of Anderson discloses the control system of claim 1, wherein the suspension system is configurable into a user selectable driving mode, and the modification of the one or more parameters is carried out by automatically configuring the suspension system into the user selectable driving mode (paragraphs 8, 13, 58), the user selectable driving mode including the second mode (Yang (Abstract)).
Regarding claim 6, the modified invention of Anderson discloses the control system of claim 1, comprising reverting the one or more parameters to their previous settings in response to a trigger (paragraphs 35-45).
Regarding claim 7, the modified invention of Anderson discloses the control system of claim 16, wherein the absence or completion of the vehicle evasive maneuver is determined in dependence on one or more of vehicle lateral and/or longitudinal acceleration, vehicle yaw rate, vehicle roll rate, vehicle speed and driver inputs (paragraphs 17, 40, 125).
Regarding claim 8, the modified invention of Anderson discloses the control system of claim 1, wherein the first collision warning signal is received from a forward collision warning system of the vehicle (paragraphs 164).
Regarding claim 10, the modified invention of Anderson discloses a vehicle comprising the control system of claim 1 (paragraph 140).
Regarding claim 11, the modified invention of Anderson discloses the vehicle according to claim 10, the vehicle comprising one or more external sensors for sensing objects ahead of the vehicle (Abstract; paragraphs 8, 34, 37), and wherein the control system is configured to identify a potential collision based on an output of the one or more external sensors, and to generate the first collision warning signal when the potential collision is identified (Abstract; paragraphs 35, 164).
Regarding claim 12, the modified invention of Anderson discloses the vehicle of claim 10, wherein the one or more controllers comprise a first controller for generating the first collision warning signal (paragraphs 12, 35), a second controller for receiving the first collision warning signal and responsive to receipt of the first collision warning signal generating a suspension modification request to modify the one or more parameters of the suspension system (Abstract; paragraphs 35, 164), and a third controller for receiving the suspension modification request and responsive to the suspension modification request to modify the one or more parameters of the suspension system (paragraphs 35-45).
Regarding claim 13, the modified invention of Anderson discloses the vehicle of claim 12, wherein the third controller is configured to select between a plurality of predetermined suspension settings (paragraphs 35-45, 164).
Regarding claim 16, the modified invention of Anderson discloses the control system of claim 6, the trigger comprising one or more of an expiry of a time period, a detected collision, the vehicle becoming stationary, the absence of a vehicle evasive maneuver, and completion of a vehicle evasive maneuver (paragraphs 35-50, 164).
Claims 9, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (WO 2015/153811 A1), hereinafter “Anderson”, in view of Meng et al. (CN 112879487 A), hereinafter “Meng”.
Regarding claim 9, Anderson discloses a method for controlling vehicle suspension (Abstract), the method comprising: receiving a collision warning signal (paragraph 35); and modifying one or more parameters of a vehicle suspension system in response to the received collision warning signal (paragraphs 35, 164).
Anderson fails to disclose that the modifying includes adjusting a damping current and/or air spring volume of dampers and springs of the vehicle suspension system to increase an amount of damping and increase a stiffness of the springs.
However, Meng discloses that the modifying includes adjusting a damping current and/or air spring volume of dampers and springs of the vehicle suspension system to increase an amount of damping and increase a stiffness of the springs (Meng (Abstract; Referring to FIG. 10, the embodiment of the invention provides a vehicle 1000, vehicle 1000 comprises a vehicle body 200 and air spring system 100. The air spring system 100 is set on the vehicle body 200. Specifically, in the vehicle 1000 driving process, for collision; high speed over-bending or wet sliding road and other dangerous condition, detecting the current state of the vehicle 1000 by the sensor 91, and the vehicle 1000 current state is sent to the controller 92, the controller 92 can receive the sensor 91 signal to the air spring system 100 sends instruction; actively and quickly adjusting the air spring 10, so as to improve the safety of the vehicle 1000 and the stability of the operation; and it can self-adaptively adjust when there is no dangerous working condition, which can reduce the energy consumption and improve the driving experience of the user.)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Anderson by incorporating the teachings of Meng in order to prepare the vehicle suspension for better dealing with the state of a collision.
Regarding claim 14, the modified invention of Anderson discloses a computer software that, when executed, is arranged to perform the method according to claim 9 (paragraphs 40, 47, 48).
Regarding claim 15, the modified invention of Anderson discloses a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium storing instructions thereon that, when executed by one or more electronic processors, causes the one or more electronic processors to carry out the method of claim 9 (paragraphs 40-50).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ remarks filed on December 31, 2025 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current rejection.
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Omar Morales whose telephone number is (571)272-5923. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached on (571)272-1196. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/O.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LINDSAY M LOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747
