DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
This objection is withdrawn due to the amendments made to the drawings.
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.
Claim 16-33 is 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.
Claims 16 and 28 require “the an operating condition” in the amendments which is indefinite as to whether this is requiring a new operating condition or is referring back to the already claimed “subsystem operating condition”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16-20, 23-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Muller (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0195115).
Regarding claim 16 and 28, Muller discloses a control system (¶35) for a vehicle suspension system in a vehicle (¶39), the vehicle suspension system comprising a plurality of connected subsystems, the control system comprising one or more controllers (32), the control system configured to:
Instigate a control action that causes a first subsystem of the plurality of connected subsystems to operate in a de-rated mode in response to a subsystem operating condition of the first subsystem being outside a predetermined operating window (claim 1 is being operated to its operational values where this results in an operational fault is being monitored at which point compensation is made);
determine that the first subsystem of the plurality of connected subsystems is operating in the de-rated mode in response to the subsystem operating condition of the first subsystem being outside the predetermined operating window (¶37, claim 1 states that it is identifying fault); and in dependence on determining that the first subsystem is operating in the de- rated mode, transmit a de-rate indicator to a further subsystem of the plurality of connected subsystems, wherein the de-rate indicator is configured to:
indicate, to the further subsystem, that the first subsystem is operating in a de- rated mode (claim 1 identifies faults in the suspension and then controls the other suspension device differently which is construed as an indication of the de rate mode); and
select a de-rate response mode from a plurality of possible de-rate response modes, and cause the further subsystem to operate in the selected de-rate response mode (claim 1 in adjusting parameters),
wherein the de-rate response mode of the further subsystem is different from a de-rated mode of that further subsystem were that further subsystem to enter a de-rated mode as a result of the an operating condition of the further subsystem being outside of a further subsystem predetermined operating window (this is understood as being a de-rate mode of the first subsystem is different than the further subsystem. ¶16 discloses the different types of de-rate modes that can be experienced and ¶24 discloses different ways in which the system must respond depending on the fault. The subsystems that are operated differently to compensate for the fault would have their own type of de-rate that is different since they are a different system. Where one vertical shock is being adjusted because of the de-rate of another vertical shock both vertical shocks can experience different types of de-rates which addresses the claims.), and wherein the operation of the vehicle suspension system with the first subsystem operating in the de-rated mode and the further subsystem operating in the de-rate response mode provides a higher level of vehicle control in comparison to the vehicle suspension system operating with the first subsystem operating in the de-rated mode without the further subsystem operating in the de-rate response mode (claim 1 is attempting to compensate).
Regarding claim 17 which depends from claim 16, Muller discloses wherein the control system is configured to cause the further subsystem to operate in a de-rate response mode by:
determining at least one subsystem operating window for the further subsystem wherein the further subsystem, operating in dependence on the at least one subsystem operating window, operates in the de-rate response mode; and providing the at least one subsystem operating window to the further subsystem to cause the further subsystem to operate in the de-rated response mode according to the subsystem operating window (the window is until the fault is no longer detected).
Regarding claim 18 which depends from claim 17, Muller discloses wherein the control system is configured to determine the at least one subsystem operating window by identifying the at least one subsystem operating window in a look-up matrix, wherein the look-up matrix indicates, for at least one de-rated mode of the first subsystem, a corresponding subsystem operating window for provision to the further subsystem to cause the further subsystem to operate in the de-rate response mode (the look-up matrix is the fault finding matrix of information).
Regarding claim 19 which depends from claim 16, Muller discloses wherein the control system is configured to determine the at least one subsystem operating window in dependence on at least one vehicle environment parameter, indicating one or more of: a driving surface type on which the vehicle is located (electrical option addressed); an operating temperature of the vehicle suspension system(electrical option addressed); and an operating electrical condition of the vehicle suspension system (the electrical condition is that the sensors are finding a fault communicated electronically to the controller);
Regarding claim 20 which depends from claim 16, Muller discloses wherein the control system is configured to cause the further subsystem to operate in a de-rate response mode causing the further subsystem to change operation mode to gradually operate in the de-rate response mode over a period of time (as per 112 rejection this is addressed by this reference).
Regarding claim 23 which depends from claim 16, Muller discloses wherein the higher level of vehicle control comprises the vehicle suspension system operating at one or more of: reduced power consumption; reduced temperature; increased availability of one or more of the subsystems within the plurality of connected subsystems of the vehicle suspension system (load option addressed); and reduced component loads (¶25 by reducing the load on springs).
Regarding claim 24 which depends from claim 16, Muller discloses wherein the control system is configured to periodically determine the operating mode of each of the plurality of connected subsystems (the system continues to receive input to determine fault).
Regarding claim 25 which depends from claim 16, Muller discloses wherein the plurality of connected subsystems comprise at least one electronic control module (32), and at least one mechatronic component (air suspension system).
Regarding claim 26 which depends from claim 16, Muller discloses wherein one or more of the first subsystem and the further subsystem are: an electronic active roll control system of the vehicle suspension system (damping option addressed); an active damping (¶25 discusses this for the damping system) system of the vehicle suspension system; a rear wheel steering system of the vehicle; and an active springs system of the vehicle suspension system.
Regarding claim 27 which depends from claim 16, Muller discloses wherein the control system is configured to cause the further subsystem to operate in a de-rate response mode by: providing a de-rate response mode indicator to the further subsystem, wherein the de- rate response mode indicator indicates, to the further subsystem, that the further subsystem is to change operation mode to operate in the de-rate response mode and that one or more of the control system and the further subsystem is to determine a subsystem operating window to achieve in the de-rate response mode (¶25).
Regarding claim 29 which depends from claim 28, Muller discloses Computer readable instructions configured to perform the method of claim 28 (32).
Regarding claim 30 which depends from claim 16, Muller discloses a vehicle comprising a control system according to claim 16 (32).
Regarding claim 31 which depends from claim 16, Muller discloses wherein the control system is configured to select the de-rated mode from a plurality of available de-rated modes, the de-rate indicator indicating which of the plurality of available de-rated modes the first subsystem is operating in (the compensation that is used can be the indication of what mode out of the plurality of modes is being selected).
Regarding claim 32 which depends from claim 16, Muller discloses wherein the de-rated mode of the first subsystem comprises a pre-emptive reduction in performance of the first subsystem preventing a forced shutdown of the first subsystem (this is intended use of what steps are being taken, any adjustment that does not completely shutdown the system can be construed as a preemptive and preventing step).
Regarding claim 33 which depends from claim 16, Muller discloses wherein the control system is configured to cause the further subsystem to operate in the de-rate response mode by identifying in a look-up matrix that the de-rated mode of the first subsystem corresponds to the de-rate response mode (the system that is organizing its data in their memories with these settings can be construed as a matrix for de-rate response).
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) 21, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0195115).
Regarding claim 21 which depends from claim 16, Muller discloses wherein the control system is configured to:
determine that the first subsystem has completed operating in the de-rated mode in response to a subsystem operating condition of the first subsystem being within the predetermined operating window; and in dependence on determining that the first subsystem has completed operating in the de-rated mode, transmit a normal operation indicator to the further subsystem, (the sensors are continuously sending data to the controller when no fault is found no de-rate operation is needed).
Muller does not disclose wherein the normal operation indicator is configured to cause the further subsystem to operate in the operating mode it was operating in prior to operating in the de-rate response mode.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to stop operating in fault mode when no fault is found, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 22 which depends from claim 16, Muller discloses wherein the control system is configured to determine that the first subsystem is operating in the de-rated mode by receiving a de-rate indicator from the first subsystem, the de-rate indicator indicating that the subsystem operating condition of the first subsystem is outside a predetermined operating window, optionally wherein the control system is configured to determine that the first subsystem has completed operating in the de-rated mode by receiving a normal operation indicator, from the first subsystem, indicating the first subsystem is operating in an operating mode in which the subsystem operating condition of the first subsystem is within the predetermined operating window (the limitations of this claim have been addressed in claim 21 above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/30/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 8 that the application defines a de-rate response mode as a system that is operating outside of a predetermined operating window. The cited reference calls this type of operation a fault.
Applicant argues on pages 8 and 9 that the amendments overcome the cited reference. The amendments to the claims have attempted to define the de-rate response mode by stating that there are multiple types of de-rate reasons and multiple responses to it which the reference was cited above to address.
Conclusion
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 GONZALO LAGUARDA whose telephone number is (571)272-5920. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-Th Alt. F.
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.
GONZALO LAGUARDA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747 email: gonzalo.laguarda@uspto.gov
/GONZALO LAGUARDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights