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
The applicant respectfully argues that
Futura fails to teach or describe
receiving, at a microprocessor in the vehicle, road surface profile data associated with the road surface ahead of the vehicle
filtering the road surface profile data with a lower frequency band pass filter to produce a first filtered output
filtering the road surface profile date with a higher frequency band pass filter to produce a second filtered output
Z2 is not road surface profile data, but rather a vehicle state quantity corresponding to the displacement of the sprung mass
any filtering arrangement in which two band-pass filters operate in parallel on a common input signal to produce multiple filtered outputs corresponding different frequency bands
The examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons
as understood Futura teaches
receiving, at a microprocessor (fig. 3; CPU of the ECU 30; [0109]) in the vehicle (as suggested in fig. 3), road surface profile data associated with the road surface ahead of the vehicle (fig. 4; ECU 30 determines a predicted passing position pf1 of the front wheel 11F at a time later (in the future) than the current time tp by a front wheel preview period tpf; [0096]). Here, as shown in fig. 4, it is important to note that the road surface is 55 (road surface 55; [0005]), and thus the vertical displacements (as shown and further explained below, wherein the vertical displacements change with respect to time) represent a road surface profile.
filtering the road surface profile data with a lower frequency band pass filter (fig. 11; step 1105, execute BPF for sampled displacements Z2; [0156-0157]; note: BPF is band-pass filtering) to produce a first filtered output (the unsprung condition amount contained in the preview reference data may be an unsprung condition amount subjected to filtering for removing a frequency component lower than a predetermined first cutoff frequency that is lower than a predetermined sprung resonance frequency; [0018]; note: first filtered output is Z2, from step 1105, which is used to calculate Z1, in step 825, as indicated in fig. 11, and includes road surface profile data that was filtered with a lower frequency filter, as indicated via. [0018; 0156-0157])
filtering the road surface profile data with a higher frequency band pass filter (as suggested via. fig. 11; step 1105, execute BPF for sampled displacements Z2; [0156-0157]; note: BPF is band-pass filtering) to produce a second filtered output (the unsprung condition amount contained in the preview reference data may be an unsprung condition amount subjected to filtering for removing a frequency component higher than a predetermined second cutoff frequency between a sprung resonance frequency; [0020]; note: first filtered output is Z2, from step 1105, which is used to calculate Z1, in step 825, as indicated in fig. 11, and includes road surface profile data that was filtered with a higher frequency filter, as indicated via. [0020; 0156-0157])
The examiner agrees with the applicant in that Z2 is not road surface profile data, but rather a vehicle state quantity corresponding to the displacement of the sprung mass. Further in [0090] Futura explains that “the actual value of the unsprung displacement z.sub.1 is acquired by subtracting “stroke H (=z.sub.2−z.sub.1) acquired by stroke sensor 32” from a value obtained through second-order integral of the sprung acceleration ddz.sub.2 acquired by the vertical acceleration sensor 31.” Here, the stroke sensor is used to determine H, and the value of Z2, to find Z1, which is the unsprung displacement, as indicated in fig. 4. Further, as can be seen in fig. 3, the values of Z1 are correlated with positional information (x, y), which are coordinates where the Z1 values are located. This combination is readily understood by those with an ordinary level of skill in the art to constitute a road surface profile.
any filtering arrangement in which two band-pass filters operate in parallel on a common input signal to produce multiple filtered outputs corresponding different frequency bands (as indicated in [0172-0173]; damping control device 20 calculates the target control force Fct by adding the low-frequency-side target control force FctLO and the high-frequency-side target control force FctHI together; [0173]; note: FctLO and FctHI are time indexed, and thus are determined in parallel (or effectively in parallel), such that values with the same time index can be added together, otherwise the target control force Fct would be incorrect and result in dampers 17fl-17rr (as shown in fig. 2) being operated out of phase (due to a mismatch in the time index )).
Status of the Claims
Claims 9, 21-32 and 34-38 have been cancelled by the applicant.
Claims 1, 4-8, 10-12, 15, 18 and 20 remain as previously presented.
Claims 2, 13-14 and 19 remain as originally presented.
Claims 3, 16-17 and 33 are currently amended.
Claim 39 is new.
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8, and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Furuta (U.S. 20210331545).
In re claim 1, Furuta teaches a method of operating a system onboard a vehicle while the vehicle is travelling along a road surface (abstract), the method comprising:
receiving, at a microprocessor (fig. 3; CPU of the ECU 30; [0109]) in the vehicle,
road surface profile data (fig. 1; road surface displacement; [0005]) associated with the road surface ahead of the vehicle (fig. 4; ECU 30 determines a predicted passing position pf1 of the front wheel 11F at a time later (in the future) than the current time tp by a front wheel preview period tpf; [0096]);
filtering the road surface profile data with a lower frequency band pass filter (fig. 11; step 1105, execute BPF for sampled displacements Z2; [0156-0157]; note: BPF is band-pass filtering) to produce a first filtered output (the unsprung condition amount contained in the preview reference data may be an unsprung condition amount subjected to filtering for removing a frequency component lower than a predetermined first cutoff frequency that is lower than a predetermined sprung resonance frequency; [0018]; note: first filtered output is Z2, from step 1105, which is used to calculate Z1, in step 825, as indicated in fig. 11, and includes road surface profile data that was filtered with a lower frequency filter, as indicated via. [0018; 0156-0157]),
wherein the lower frequency band pass filter has
a first lower frequency limit equal to a first frequency (fig. 10; first cutoff frequency f1cut of the band-pass filtering is set to a value lower than a sprung resonance frequency fsr; [0197]) and
a first upper frequency limit equal to a second frequency (fig. 10; sprung resonance frequency fsr; [0197]);
supplying the first filtered output to a lower frequency transfer function (as indicated via. fig. 10; “actual road surface displacement z.sub.0 when vehicle 10 travels at given vehicle speed V1a” is an input and “unsprung displacement z.sub.1 acquired when vehicle 10 travels on road surface in predetermined zone” is an output, a transfer function between the input and the output is defined as a transfer function (z1 /z0); [0146]) to produce a lower frequency command signal (a low-frequency-side target control force FctLO; [0173]);
filtering the road surface profile data with a higher frequency band pass filter (as suggested via. fig. 11; step 1105, execute BPF for sampled displacements Z2; [0156-0157]; note: BPF is band-pass filtering) to produce a second filtered output (the unsprung condition amount contained in the preview reference data may be an unsprung condition amount subjected to filtering for removing a frequency component higher than a predetermined second cutoff frequency between a sprung resonance frequency; [0020]; note: first filtered output is Z2, from step 1105, which is used to calculate Z1, in step 825, as indicated in fig. 11, and includes road surface profile data that was filtered with a higher frequency filter, as indicated via. [0020; 0156-0157]),
wherein the higher frequency band pass filter has
a second lower frequency limit equal to the second frequency (fig. 10; sprung resonance frequency fsr; [0197]) and
a second upper frequency limit equal to a third frequency (fig. 10; The second cutoff frequency f2cut of the band-pass filtering is set to a value between the sprung resonance frequency fsr of the measurement-specific vehicle and an unsprung resonance frequency fur; [0197]),
wherein the higher frequency (CPU executes “high-pass filtering (HPF) whose cutoff frequency is discrimination threshold frequency fde” for the time series variations of the sampled displacements z.sub.1, and acquires, as a high-frequency-side displacement z.sub.1HI; [0188]) band pass filter operates in parallel with the lower frequency (CPU executes “low-pass filtering (LPF) whose cutoff frequency is discrimination threshold frequency fde” for the time series variations of the sampled displacements z.sub.1, and acquires, as a low-frequency-side displacement z.sub.1LO; [0187]) band pass filter (as indicated in [0172-0173]; damping control device 20 calculates the target control force Fct by adding the low-frequency-side target control force FctLO and the high-frequency-side target control force FctHI together; [0173]; note: FctLO and FctHI are time indexed, and thus are determined in parallel (or effectively in parallel), such that values with the same time index can be added together, otherwise the target control force Fct would be incorrect and result in dampers 17fl-17rr (as shown in fig. 2) being operated out of phase (due to a mismatch in the time index ));
supplying the second filtered output to a higher frequency transfer function (as indicated via. fig. 10; “actual road surface displacement z.sub.0 when vehicle 10 travels at given vehicle speed V1a” is an input and “unsprung displacement z.sub.1 acquired when vehicle 10 travels on road surface in predetermined zone” is an output, a transfer function between the input and the output is defined as a transfer function (z1 /z0); [0146]) to produce a higher frequency command signal (a high-frequency-side target control force FctHI; [0173]);
determining a total command signal (The damping control device 20 controls the active actuator 17 to output control force Fc corresponding to the target control force Fct; [0088]; Here, the total command signal corresponds to the control force Fc; The damping control device 20 calculates the target control force Fct by adding the low-frequency-side target control force FctLO and the high-frequency-side target control force FctHI together; [0173]) based on
the lower frequency command signal (the damping control device 20 in the second modified example calculates a low-frequency-side target control force FctLO; [0173]) and
the higher frequency command signal (the damping control device 20 calculates a high-frequency-side target control force FctHI; [0173]); and
operating the system based at least partly on the total command signal (The damping control device 20 controls the active actuator 17 to output control force Fc corresponding to the target control force Fct; [0088]).
In re claim 4, Furuta teaches the method of claim 1, and further teaches wherein
the first frequency ( predetermined first cutoff frequency; [0018]) and the third frequency (predetermined second cutoff frequency; [0020]) are predetermined.
In re claim 5, Furuta teaches the method of claim 1, and further teaches wherein
the road surface profile data (fig. 3; preview reference data 45; [0073]) is received at the microprocessor in the vehicle from a source selected from the group consisting of
a remote data base (see below; note: a database in a cloud is a type of remote database),
a database (fig. 3; storage devices 44a-44n; [0071]; note: databases, such as map database, preview reference data 45, as indicated in fig. 3 and [0073; 0112], are considered to be stored either remotely in the storage devices 44a-44n) in a cloud (fig. 3; cloud 40; [0071]),
a local database (i.e. map database, as indicated in [0112]) located in the vehicle (as shown in fig. 3; ECU 30 can store (save) information in the storage device 30a, and can read information stored (saved) in the storage device 30a; [0064]).
In re claim 8, Furuta teaches the method of claim 1, and further teaches wherein
the system is an active suspension actuator (fig. 3; ECU 30 is connected to the right front wheel active actuator 17FR, the left front wheel active actuator 17FL, the right rear wheel active actuator 17RR, and the left rear wheel active actuator 17RL via drive circuits (not illustrated); [0075]).
In re claim 10, Furuta teaches the method of claim 1, and further teaches wherein
the lower frequency command signal (a low-frequency-side target control force FctLO) causes a portion of the vehicle (fig. 1; unsprung portion 50; [0005]) to track (as indicated in fig. 1-6) at least a first vertical motion of the road surface (fig. 1; An actual value of the unsprung displacement z.sub.1 is acquired based on a motion condition amount indicating a vertical motion of the sprung portion 51 or the unsprung portion 50; [0090]).
In re claim 11, Furuta teaches the method of claim 1, and further teaches wherein
the higher frequency command signal (high-frequency-side target control force FctHI) causes a portion of the vehicle (fig. 1; sprung portion 51; [0005]) to be isolated from at least a vertical motion of the road surface (as shown in fig. 1, isolation is via. spring 52, damper 53, and actuator 54; [0005]).
In re claim 12, Furuta teaches the method of claim 1, and further teaches wherein
the total command signal is determined by summing the lower frequency command signal and the higher frequency command signal (The damping control device 20 calculates the target control force Fct by adding the low-frequency-side target control force FctLO and the high-frequency-side target control force FctHI together; [0173]).
In re claim 13, Furuta teaches the method of claim 10, and further teaches wherein
the lower frequency command signal (low-frequency-side target control force FctLO; [0173]) is a first series of force commands (as indicated in fig. 4-6 and [0170-0173], the data used for force commands is time series data, which indicate a series of force commands).
In re claim 14, Furuta teaches the method of claim 11, and further teaches wherein
the higher frequency command signal (high-frequency-side target control force FctHI; [0173]) is a second series of force commands (as indicated in fig. 4-6 and [0170-0173], the data used for force commands is time series data, which indicate a series of force commands).
In re claim 15, Furuta teaches the method of claim 8, further comprising
determining the second frequency (fig. 10; sprung resonance frequency fsr; [0197]) while the vehicle is travelling along the road surface (inherent, fsr is the sprung resonance frequency, which generally requires determining a vertical (Z) displacement with respect to time, as is known in the art; note: the heavier the vehicle loading, such as when carrying cargo (or via. speed dependent generation of downforce), which compresses the springs, which then results in a change the spring constant K, which changes the value of the natural frequency (sqrt(K/M)) as well as the sprung resonance frequency).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuta (U.S. 20210331545) in view of Ogawa (U.S. 20190168785).
In re claim 2, Furuta teaches the method of claim 1, but lacks wherein
the first frequency may be in a range of frequencies that are greater than or equal to 0.3 Hz and less than or equal to 0.8 Hz.
Ogawa teaches an analogous suspension system for a vehicle, including an actuator and a controller configured to obtain a target control force for reducing a vibration of the vehicle body based on a lateral acceleration of the vehicle body, and the controller includes a bandpass filter configured to extract a low frequency control force, which is a frequency component lower than a resonant frequency of the vehicle body, and a correcting part configured to correct a target control force based on the low frequency control force, and further teaches
the first frequency may be in a range of frequencies that are greater than or equal to 0.3 Hz and less than or equal to 0.8 Hz (0.3 Hz to 1 Hz; [0059]).
Thus it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Furuta, to incorporate the first frequency may be in a range of frequencies that are greater than or equal to 0.3 Hz and less than or equal to 0.8 Hz, as clearly suggested and taught by Ogawa, in order to provide a railway vehicle vibration damping device capable of improving riding comfort during the travel in the relaxation curve zone without impairing cost and mountability on the railway vehicle ([0010]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuta (U.S. 20210331545).
In re claim 3, Furuta teaches the method of claim 1, but lacks wherein
the third frequency is in a range of frequencies that are greater than or equal to 8 Hz and less than or equal to 0.8 12 Hz.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a third frequency is in a range of range of frequencies that are greater than or equal to 8 Hz and less than or equal to 0.8 12 Hz, 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuta (U.S. 20210331545) in view of Thomsen et al. (U.S. 10277990).
In re claim 6, Furuta teaches the method of claim 1, but lacks wherein
the first lower frequency limit is determined at a lower -3 dB point of the lower frequency band pass filter and
the first upper frequency limit is determined at an upper -3 dB point of the lower frequency band pass filter.
Thomsen teaches a method incorporating a known of technique of analyzing a plurality of frequencies of a signal (as shown in fig. 1) and filtering a signal (low pass filtering the comparison signal; [Col. 17, ln 3-4]) and further teaches
a frequency limit (first threshold frequency f.sub.th1) is substantially equivalent to a 3 dB cut-off frequency of a low pass filter ([Col. 17, ln 35-37]).
Thus, modifying the method of Furuta with the known technique, as disclosed by Thomsen to both the first lower frequency limit and the first upper frequency limit of the lower frequency band pass filter of Furuta, would lead one having an ordinary level of skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention.
This being the case, one having an ordinary level of skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the teachings of Furuta with a known technique of filtering a signal and a frequency limit substantially equivalent to a 3 dB cut-off frequency of a low pass filter, as clearly suggested and taught by Thomsen, in order to provide the resulting level estimate based on the first and second level estimates and a signal to noise ratio of the electric input signal.
In re claim 7, see claims 1 and 6 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuta (U.S. 20210331545) in view of Gruber et al. (U.S. 20240182037).
In re claim 16, Furuta teaches the method of claim 15, but lacks
operating a vertical motion planner based at least in part on a cost function associated with the active suspension actuator.
Gruber teaches an analogous vehicle method, having oscillation control (abstract) and features
a first control module is configured to:
determine a front vertical force request for the one or more front suspension actuators of the vehicle based on the front wheel road profile; and
control one or more damping characteristics the one or more front suspension actuators based on the front vertical force request; and
the second control module is configured to:
determine a rear vertical force request for the one or more rear suspension actuators of the vehicle based on the rear wheel road profile; and
control one or more damping characteristics of the one or more rear suspension actuators based on the rear vertical force request ([0012]).
Gruber further teaches
operating a vertical motion planner (front and rear NMPC modules 120 and 124; [0074]) based at least in part on a cost function associated with the active suspension actuator (introducing control on the vertical force of the suspension actuator F.sub.u by the front and rear NMPC modules 120 and 124. This solution can be integrated with the motor torque control to additionally compensate for vertical oscillations induced by road irregularities. The cost function can be adapted with additional outputs (e.g., vertical body acceleration deviation) and control actions (e.g., the vertical actuator force); [0074]; note: NMPC is nonlinear model predictive control, [0037]).
Thus it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Furuta, to incorporate operating a vertical motion planner based at least in part on a cost function associated with the active suspension actuator, as clearly suggested and taught by Gruber, in order to compensate for vertical oscillations induced by road irregularities ([0074]).
In re claim 17, Furuta as modified by Gruber teach the method of claim 16, and Gruber further teaches wherein
operating the vertical motion planner based at least in part on the cost function includes minimizing a degree to which the total command signal includes commands that are beyond an ability of the active suspension actuator to implement (The optimal control action (corrected front and rear torque requests) is achieved by minimizing a cost function accounting for the system dynamics along the prediction horizon, including a set of constraints. Only the first control input (or control move) is applied to the plant, according to the receding horizon approach; [0067]).
In re claim 18, Furuta as modified by Gruber teach the method of claim 17, and Gruber further suggests wherein
the vertical motion planner (front and rear NMPC modules 120 and 124; [0074]) operates at a first cycle time and the microprocessor operates at a second cycle time faster than the first cycle time (For optimization, the front and rear NMPC modules 120 and 124 may predict and optimize the response of the plant along the prediction horizon to generate the corrected front and rear torque requests; [0067]; In [0036-0037; 0053; 0067], it is strongly suggested that front and rear NMPC modules 120 and 124, are simply blocks of code that run on the processor. This being the case, the processor would necessarily have a faster cycle time, than the NMPC due to the latency in execution of the code, by the same processor, that forms front and rear NMPC modules 120 and 124).
In re claims 19, Furuta as modified by Gruber teach the method of claim 18, but lack wherein
the first cycle time of is in a range of cycle times that is greater than equal or equal to 0.1 seconds to less than or equal to 1 second.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the first cycle time of is in a range of cycle times that is greater than equal or equal to 0.1 seconds to less than or equal to 1 second, 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 (such as a range of cycle times) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In re claim 20, Furuta as modified by Gruber teach the method of claim 19, but lack wherein
the second cycle time is in a range of cycle times that is greater than or equal to 0.0005 seconds to less than or equal to 0.02 seconds.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the second cycle time is in a range of cycle times that is greater than or equal to 0.0005 seconds to less than or equal to 0.02 seconds, 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 (such as a range of cycle times) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knox et al. (U.S. 20040251643).
In re claim 33, Knox teaches a controller system of an actuator of an active suspension system (active suspension system for a vehicle; [abstract]), comprising:
a microprocessor-based (fig. 2a-2b; microprocessor 20; [0037]) vertical motion planner configured to
develop
a first motion plan (first trajectory plan corresponding to a profile; [0014]) for a vehicle for frequencies in a range below a first frequency (The first trajectory plan may be developed using an initial seed value for the break frequency of the low pass filter. The initial seed value may be selected based on the smoothness of the road, using a longer (or lower frequency) break point if the road is smooth, and a shorter (or higher frequency) break point if the road is rough; [0081]) and
a second motion plan (second trajectory plan corresponding to a profile; [0014]), different than the first motion plan (the trajectory plans are developed by smoothing the profile data, using a low pass filter; [0081]; as suggested in [0081], both plans are initially developed using a low pass filter, which suggests a frequency),
wherein the first motion plan and the second motion plan are at least partially based on a road motion profile for a segment of road ahead of the vehicle (as indicated in [0081]); and
a microprocessor-based controller,
wherein the microprocessor-based controller is configured to
control a vertical motion of a vehicle with an active suspension controller (as indicated in fig. 10a and [0089]) based on
the first motion plan (a method for developing an optimized trajectory plan for a vehicle that includes a controllable suspension element includes a first developing, by a microprocessor, using a first characteristic value, of a first trajectory plan corresponding to a profile; a first executing, of the first trajectory plan, the first executing including recording performance data corresponding to the first trajectory plan; [0014]) and
the second motion plan (a second developing, using the second characteristic value, by the microprocessor, of a second trajectory plan corresponding to the profile; a second executing, of the second trajectory plan, the second executing including recording a measure of performance data corresponding to the second trajectory plan; [0014]).
Knox lacks
a second motion plan for frequencies above the first frequency
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a second optimal motion plan for frequencies above the first frequency, since Knox already teaches a second optimal motion plan at a frequency, and 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 (such as a frequency above a first frequency) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knox et al. (U.S. 20040251643) in view of Gruber et al. (U.S. 20240182037).
In re claim 39, Knox teaches the controller system of claim 33, and further teaches
wherein one or both of
the first motion plan (a method for developing an optimized trajectory plan for a vehicle that includes a controllable suspension element includes a first developing, by a microprocessor, using a first characteristic value, of a first trajectory plan corresponding to a profile; a first executing, of the first trajectory plan, the first executing including recording performance data corresponding to the first trajectory plan; [0014]) and
the second motion plan
are optimized motion plans,
Knox lacks
wherein optimizing a motion plan includes
minimizing a cost function associated with the active suspension actuator.
Gruber teaches an analogous vehicle method, having oscillation control (abstract) and features
wherein optimizing a motion plan includes
minimizing a cost function (The present application involves a nonlinear model predictive control (NMPC) module formulation for the management of the vehicle powertrains. The NMPC module evaluates and minimizes a cost function along a prediction horizon and is configured to do so based on an expected road profile along the prediction horizon; [0036]) associated with the active suspension actuator (introducing control on the vertical force of the suspension actuator F.sub.u by the front and rear NMPC modules 120 and 124. This solution can be integrated with the motor torque control to additionally compensate for vertical oscillations induced by road irregularities. The cost function can be adapted with additional outputs (e.g., vertical body acceleration deviation) and control actions (e.g., the vertical actuator force); [0074]; note: NMPC is nonlinear model predictive control, [0037]).
Thus it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Furuta, to incorporate optimizing a motion plan includes minimizing a cost function associated with the active suspension actuator, as clearly suggested and taught by Gruber, in order to compensate for vertical oscillations induced by road irregularities ([0074]).
Conclusion
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 JOHN D BAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5692. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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 571-270-5625. 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 D BAILEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/KURT PHILIP LIETHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights