DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to applicant’s argument that Furuta fails to teach “controlling a suspension force acting on the suspension system due to a movement of the vehicle along the driving surface to be below a predetermined suspension force value”, the examiner disagrees. Furuta teaches that the suspension force is below the predetermined value of the damping force of the unsprung suspension system. The maximum force allowed by the suspension system in the unsprung setting would be the threshold value that the suspension force is kept below. Therefore, Furuta teaches each and every limitation of claims 16 and 29.
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.
(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.
Claims 16-18, 20-23, and 25-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Furuta (PG Pub 2021/0276566).
Regarding claim 16, Furuta teaches a control system for a suspension system of a vehicle (figure 2, all), the control system comprising one or more controllers (paragraphs 77-78; figure 2, element 20), the control system configured to:
receive a driving surface signal indicative of a property of a driving surface ahead of the vehicle (paragraphs 12, 13, and 90);
determine, in dependence on the received driving surface signal and on a current vehicle operational state, an attribute parameter (paragraphs 91-95), wherein the attribute parameter, when provided to an actuator of the suspension system, causes the actuator to act to control a suspension force acting on the suspension system due to a movement of the vehicle along the driving surface to be below a predetermined suspension force value (paragraphs 101, 112-114, and 139); and
output an actuator control signal to the actuator of the suspension system to control the actuator in dependence on the determined attribute parameter (paragraphs 101, 104, 112, and 175).
Regarding claim 17, Furuta teaches the control system of claim 16, configured to determine the attribute parameter in dependence on a vehicle model, and on the current vehicle operational state, to determine a predicted suspension force expected to arise as the vehicle travels over the driving surface ahead of the vehicle (paragraphs 120-127).
Regarding claim 18, Furuta teaches the control system of claim 17, wherein the predicted suspension force is determined using the vehicle model by:
predicting a motion of the vehicle over the driving surface ahead of the vehicle (paragraph 144), and
predicting a force that will arise from the predicted motion of the vehicle (paragraphs 120-127).
Regarding claim 20, Furuta teaches the control system of claim 16, configured to determine the attribute parameter in dependence on one or more of a driver model, a loads estimation model, and the current vehicle operational state, to determine a predicted path of the vehicle (paragraphs 120-123 and 144).
Regarding claim 21, Furuta teaches the control system of claim 20, wherein the driver model represents a predicted vehicle operation by a user of the vehicle, the predicted vehicle operation determined in dependence on at least one of the property of the driving surface and a route history pattern of the vehicle (paragraphs 120-123 and 144).
Regarding claim 22, Furuta teaches the control system of claim 16, wherein the current vehicle operational state comprises one or more of: a current speed, a current acceleration, a vehicle body motion, a wheel vertical displacement value, a wheel vertical speed, a wheel vertical acceleration, and a current suspension control state of the vehicle (paragraphs 80-86, 76-77, 114, and 128).
Regarding claim 23, Furuta teaches the control system of claim 22, wherein the current vehicle operational state comprises the current speed of the vehicle, and the control system is configured to coordinate in time the output of the actuator control signal to the actuator to control the actuator to be in a desired state when the vehicle reaches a portion of the driving surface whereby the suspension force is to be controlled to be below the predetermined threshold suspension force (paragraphs 80-86, 76-77, 114, 128).
Regarding claim 25, Furuta teaches the control system of claim 16, further comprising one or more sensors configured to obtain driving surface data relating to one or more properties of the driving surface ahead of the vehicle (paragraphs 87-90).
Regarding claim 26, Furuta teaches the control system of claim 16, wherein the suspension system comprises one or more of an active roll control system, an active damping system, an active spring system, an active steering system, and an active suspension system (figure 3; paragraphs 74 and 102-105).
Regarding claim 27, Furuta teaches a system comprising a suspension system (figure 1; paragraphs 65-76) and the control system (figure 2; paragraphs 77-80) according to claim 16.
Regarding claim 28, Furuta teaches a vehicle (figure 1; paragraph 2) comprising a control system (figure 2; paragraphs 77-80) according to claim 16.
Regarding claim 29, Furuta teaches a method of operating a control system for a suspension system of a vehicle (paragraphs 77-78; figure 2, element 20), the method comprising:
receiving a driving surface signal indicative of a property of a driving surface in ahead of the vehicle (paragraphs 12, 13, and 90);
determining, in dependence on the received driving surface signal and on a current vehicle operational state, an attribute parameter (paragraphs 91-95), wherein the attribute parameter, when provided to an actuator of the suspension system, causes the actuator to act to control a suspension force acting on the suspension system due to a movement of the vehicle along the driving surface, to be below a predetermined suspension force value (paragraphs 101, 112-114, and 139); and
outputting an actuator control signal to the actuator of the suspension system to control the actuator in dependence on the determined attribute parameter (paragraphs 101, 104, 112, and 175).
Regarding claim 30, Furuta teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer readable instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause performance of the method of claim 29 (figure 2; paragraphs 77-80).
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 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuta (PG Pub 2021/0276566) in view of Ficca et al. (PG Pub 2019/0023095).
Regarding claim 24, Furuta teaches the control system of claim 16.
Furuta is silent as to wherein the control system is further configured to control the actuator to revert to a state that the actuator was in prior to receiving the actuator control signal, once the vehicle has passed a portion of the driving surface whereby the suspension force is to be controlled to be below the predetermined threshold suspension force.
Ficca teaches wherein the control system is further configured to control the actuator to revert to a state that the actuator was in prior to receiving the actuator control signal, once the vehicle has passed a portion of the driving surface whereby the suspension force is to be controlled to be below the predetermined threshold suspension force (paragraphs 80-84).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the control system of Furuta with the control system of Ficca since doing so would be an example of applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. In this case, Ficca uses the suspension system similar to that of Furuta in a method to traverse a speed bump which is a portion of the driving surface that requires a use of the suspension system. Ficca would be obvious to amend Furuta since Ficca states that after the speed bump the suspension force returns to the nominal level.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to teach or render obvious both if the predicted suspension force is greater than the predetermined suspension force value, the attribute parameter is determined; and if the predicted suspension force is less than the predetermined suspension force value, the attribute parameter is not determined.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUSAN E SCHARPF whose telephone number is (571)270-5304. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am-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, Pat Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. 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.
/Susan E Scharpf/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LINDSAY M LOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747