DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Applicant Arguments and Remarks Made in an Amendment filed on 03/05/2026.
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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to application number 18/776,889 filed on 07/18/2024, in which claims 1-6, 8-14, 16-19, & 21-23 are presented for examination, claims 7, 15, & 20 have been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/05/2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Regarding the claim(s) rejections under 35 USC §103: Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 8-9, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Irwin et al. US 20170080770 A1 & Jing et al. US 20230415537 A1. A search yielded Irwin, which reads on the currently amended claims pertaining to adjusting aerodynamic surfaces and velocity of the vehicle. Jing was also newly discovered and better reads on the limitations pertaining to neural networks (fuzzy) and non-linear models.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 11-13, & 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irwin et al. US 20170080770 A1 (hereinafter Irwin).
Claim 1: Irwin discloses a computer-implemented method for coordination between active downforce and active suspension controls for a vehicle, the method comprising [[0031]; The controller 50 is additionally configured to regulate a position of the adjustable aerodynamic-aid element 44 in response to the determined height of the vehicle body 14 relative to the road surface 12. Such regulation of position of the adjustable aerodynamic-aid element 44 is intended to generally control the aerodynamics of the vehicle 10, and specifically a downforce F.sub.d (shown in FIGS. 2, 4, and 5) on the vehicle body 14]: determining an optimal ride height for the vehicle based on current conditions of the vehicle, wherein determining the optimal ride height is based at least in part on a specific aerodynamic position of an adjustable aerodynamic surface of the vehicle and a longitudinal velocity of the vehicle [[0005] & [0042]; The system also includes a mechanism configured to vary a position of the adjustable aerodynamic-aid element relative to the vehicle body to thereby control a movement of the ambient airflow relative the vehicle body. (…) The controller is also configured to determine a ride-height of the vehicle using the detected height of the vehicle body relative to the predetermined reference point and to regulate the mechanism in response to the determined ride-height of the vehicle to control the aerodynamics of the vehicle. (...) A yet another sensor can be used to detect a velocity of ambient airflow 27 relative to the vehicle 10. The fourth sensor may be additionally configured to communicate the detected velocity of the ambient airflow 27 to the controller 50 for correlation of the airflow velocity to the road speed of the vehicle 10]; determining a suspension actuator force to implement the optimal ride height for the vehicle; and controlling, by an active suspension system of the vehicle, an actuator using the suspension actuator force to achieve the optimal ride height for the vehicle [[0029] & [0034]; The aerodynamic-aid element 44 can be adjusted relative to the vehicle body 14 via an electric motor or another type of an actuator, as will be described in more detail below. As shown, the vehicle 10 also includes one or more height sensors arranged on the vehicle body 14 and configured to determine the ride-height of the vehicle. (...) The controller 50 may be configured to vary an angle θ (shown in FIG. 4) of the element body 45 with respect to the road surface 12 via the mechanism 52 in response to the signal received from the sensor(s) 48-1 or 48-2 indicative of the ride-height of the vehicle 10].
Claim 2: Irwin teaches the method of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated.
Irwin discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the optimal ride height comprises a front ride height of the vehicle and a rear ride height of the vehicle [[0027]; In order to determine the height H1 using the height H2, the specific height H2 can be further adjusted for a tire deflection TD (shown in phantom in FIG. 2) of each front pneumatic tire 30-1 and rear pneumatic tire 32-1 under load at any particular moment during operation of the vehicle 10. As understood by those skilled in the art, the ride-height of the vehicle 10 can change in response to various forces acting on the vehicle body 14].[0037]; Hence, the controller 50 can then be enabled to either estimate or determine directly the individual ride-height at the front end 16 and the rear end 18 of the vehicle 10.
Claim 3: Irwin teaches the method of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated.
Irwin discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the optimal ride height is determined using a ride height optimizer engine [[0036]; The controller 50 may be programmed with a look-up table 55 (shown in FIG. 2) establishing a correlation between the detected height H2 of the vehicle body 14 relative to the particular road wheel 30, 32 and the deflection TD of the respective pneumatic tire 30-1, 32-1. Such a correlation can, for example, be based on previously recorded heights H2, for example, a measured position of the upper control arm 38, at various known loads on the vehicle 10].
Claim 11: Irwin discloses a vehicle comprising: an active downforce system for controlling an adjustable aerodynamic surface of the vehicle [[0031]; The controller 50 is additionally configured to regulate a position of the adjustable aerodynamic-aid element 44 in response to the determined height of the vehicle body 14 relative to the road surface 12. Such regulation of position of the adjustable aerodynamic-aid element 44 is intended to generally control the aerodynamics of the vehicle 10, and specifically a downforce F.sub.d (shown in FIGS. 2, 4, and 5) on the vehicle body 14]; an active suspension system for controlling an actuator, the actuator adjusting a ride height of the vehicle [[0033]; The mechanism 52 may include one or more actuators 54 configured to vary the position of the element body 45 relative to the vehicle body 14. Such an actuator 54 can be electric, mechanical, electro-mechanical, pneumatic, or any other type appropriate for the specific packaging, efficiency, and cost constraints applicable to the usage of specific aerodynamic-aid elements 44. The controller 50 is also programmed to regulate the mechanism 52 for whichever embodiments of the adjustable aerodynamic-aid element 44 employed by the vehicle 10, and thereby vary, i.e., selectively increase or decrease, a magnitude of the downforce F.sub.d acting on either the front end 16 or the rear end 18 of the vehicle]; and a processing system communicatively coupled to the active downforce system and the active suspension system, the processing system comprising: a memory comprising computer readable instructions; and a processing device for executing the computer readable instructions, the computer readable instructions controlling the processing device to perform operations for coordination between active downforce and active suspension controls for the vehicle, the operations comprising [[0034]; In order to appropriately control operation of the mechanism 52, the controller 50 includes a memory, at least some of which is tangible and non-transitory. The memory may be any recordable medium that participates in providing computer-readable data or process instructions. Such a medium may take many forms, including but not limited to non-volatile media and volatile media]: determining an optimal ride height for the vehicle based on current conditions of the vehicle, wherein determining the optimal ride height is based at least in part on a specific aerodynamic position of the adjustable aerodynamic surface of the vehicle and a longitudinal velocity of the vehicle [[0005] & [0042]; The system also includes a mechanism configured to vary a position of the adjustable aerodynamic-aid element relative to the vehicle body to thereby control a movement of the ambient airflow relative the vehicle body. (…) The controller is also configured to determine a ride-height of the vehicle using the detected height of the vehicle body relative to the predetermined reference point and to regulate the mechanism in response to the determined ride-height of the vehicle to control the aerodynamics of the vehicle. (...) A yet another sensor can be used to detect a velocity of ambient airflow 27 relative to the vehicle 10. The fourth sensor may be additionally configured to communicate the detected velocity of the ambient airflow 27 to the controller 50 for correlation of the airflow velocity to the road speed of the vehicle 10]; determining a suspension actuator force to implement the optimal ride height for the vehicle; and causing the active suspension system of the vehicle to control the actuator using the suspension actuator force to achieve the optimal ride height for the vehicle [[0029] & [0034]; The aerodynamic-aid element 44 can be adjusted relative to the vehicle body 14 via an electric motor or another type of an actuator, as will be described in more detail below. As shown, the vehicle 10 also includes one or more height sensors arranged on the vehicle body 14 and configured to determine the ride-height of the vehicle. (...) The controller 50 may be configured to vary an angle θ (shown in FIG. 4) of the element body 45 with respect to the road surface 12 via the mechanism 52 in response to the signal received from the sensor(s) 48-1 or 48-2 indicative of the ride-height of the vehicle 10].
Claim(s) 12-13: The claim(s) are directed towards a system of the recited limitations performed by the method of claim(s) 2-3, respectively. The cited portions of Irwin used in the rejection of claim(s) 2-3 teach the same steps to perform the system of claim(s) 12-13, respectively. Therefore, claim(s) 12-13 are rejected under the same rationales used in the rejection of claim(s) 2-3 as outlined above.
Claim(s) 16-18: The claim(s) 16-18 are directed towards an apparatus of the recited limitations performed by the method of claim(s) 1-3, respectively. The cited portions of Irwin used in the rejection of claim(s) 1-3 teach the same steps to perform the apparatus of claim(s) 16-18, respectively. Therefore, claim(s) 16-18 are rejected under the same rationales used in the rejection of claim(s) 1-3 as outlined above.
Claim(s) 4, 6, 14, 19, & 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irwin, in view of Jing et al. US 20230415537 A1 (hereinafter Jing).
Claim 4: Irwin teaches the method of claim 3, accordingly, the rejection of claim 3 above is incorporated. Irwin does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 4.
Jing teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein the ride height optimizer engine comprises aerodynamic maps and a neural network [[0039]; the fuzzy disturbance observer component 116 determine a lumped disturbance to the active suspension system 180 by employing fuzzy variables absent determination of exact physical parameters of the active suspension system 180. The controller 120 can generally apply respective outputs of the dynamics model generator 114 and the fuzzy disturbance observer component 116, in combination with a non-cancelled state-coupling term, to control the active suspension system 180 to thereby cause the nonlinear suppression of the vibration of the active suspension system 180].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Irwin in view of Jing with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – Vehicle optimization. The combination would improve the robustness of the active suspension system [Jing; [0026]; To deal with the parametric/unmodeled uncertainties and external disturbances, a fuzzy disturbance observer component is employed. As a consequence, the proposed controller can function absent exact values of one or more system parameters (such as, sprung/unsprung masses, stiffness and damping coefficients), which can improve the robustness of the overall active suspension control system].
Claim 6: The combination of Irwin and Jing teach the method of claim 4, accordingly, the rejection of claim 4 above is incorporated. Irwin does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 6.
Jing teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein the neural network converts the aerodynamic maps to a non-linear state space model [[0039]; the non-limiting system 100 can comprise an active suspension control system 102 comprising a processor 106, memory 104, bus 105, dynamics model generator 114, fuzzy disturbance observer component 116, and/or controller 120. Generally, the dynamics model generator 114 can generate a bioinspired dynamics model and determine nonlinear dynamics for nonlinear suppression of vibration of an active suspension system 180].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Irwin in view of Jing with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – Vehicle optimization. The combination would improve the robustness of the active suspension system [Jing; [0026]; To deal with the parametric/unmodeled uncertainties and external disturbances, a fuzzy disturbance observer component is employed. As a consequence, the proposed controller can function absent exact values of one or more system parameters (such as, sprung/unsprung masses, stiffness and damping coefficients), which can improve the robustness of the overall active suspension control system].
Claim 14: The combination of Irwin and Jing teach the system of claim 13, accordingly, the rejection of claim 13 above is incorporated. Irwin does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 14.
Jing teaches the vehicle of claim 13, wherein the ride height optimizer engine comprises a neural network that converts aerodynamic maps to a non-linear state space model [[0039]; the non-limiting system 100 can comprise an active suspension control system 102 comprising a processor 106, memory 104, bus 105, dynamics model generator 114, fuzzy disturbance observer component 116, and/or controller 120. Generally, the dynamics model generator 114 can generate a bioinspired dynamics model and determine nonlinear dynamics for nonlinear suppression of vibration of an active suspension system 180. the fuzzy disturbance observer component 116 determine a lumped disturbance to the active suspension system 180 by employing fuzzy variables absent determination of exact physical parameters of the active suspension system 180. The controller 120 can generally apply respective outputs of the dynamics model generator 114 and the fuzzy disturbance observer component 116, in combination with a non-cancelled state-coupling term, to control the active suspension system 180 to thereby cause the nonlinear suppression of the vibration of the active suspension system 180].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Irwin in view of Jing with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – Vehicle optimization. The combination would improve the robustness of the active suspension system [Jing; [0026]; To deal with the parametric/unmodeled uncertainties and external disturbances, a fuzzy disturbance observer component is employed. As a consequence, the proposed controller can function absent exact values of one or more system parameters (such as, sprung/unsprung masses, stiffness and damping coefficients), which can improve the robustness of the overall active suspension control system].
Claim(s) 19: The claim(s) is directed towards a apparatus of the recited limitations performed by the system of claim(s) 14, respectively. The cited portions of Irwin and Jing used in the rejection of claim(s) 14 teach the same steps to perform the apparatus of claim(s) 19, respectively. Therefore, claim(s) 19 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejection of claim(s) 14 as outlined above.
Claim(s) 22: The claim(s) is directed towards a system of the recited limitations performed by the method of claim(s) 6, respectively. The cited portions of Irwin and Jing used in the rejection of claim(s) 6 teach the same steps to perform the system of claim(s) 22, respectively. Therefore, claim(s) 22 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejection of claim(s) 6 as outlined above.
Claim(s) 5, 21, & 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irwin, in view of Jing and Huang et al. US 20200249356 A1 (hereinafter Huang).
Claim 5: The combination of Irwin and Jing teach the method of claim 4, accordingly, the rejection of claim 4 above is incorporated. Irwin does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 5.
Huang teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein the neural network is a shallow fully connected neural network [[0040]; The neural network 118 may be configured as a shallow neural network, a convolutional neural network, a Recurrent Neural Network that includes a plurality of fully connected layers, or another type of neural network].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Irwin in view of Huang with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – Vehicle optimization. The combination would ADD [Huang; [0040]; the neural network 118 may utilize the ECU 104 of the ego vehicle 102 to process a programming model which enables computer/machine based/deep learning that may be centered on one or more forms of data that are inputted to the neural network 118].
Claim(s) 21: The claim(s) is directed towards a system of the recited limitations performed by the method of claim(s) 5, respectively. The cited portions of Irwin, Jing, and Huang used in the rejection of claim(s) 5 teach the same steps to perform the system of claim(s) 21, respectively. Therefore, claim(s) 21 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejection of claim(s) 5 as outlined above.
Claim(s) 23: The claim(s) is directed towards a apparatus of the recited limitations performed by the method of claim(s) 5, respectively. The cited portions of Irwin, Jing, and Huang used in the rejection of claim(s) 5 teach the same steps to perform the apparatus of claim(s) 23, respectively. Therefore, claim(s) 23 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejection of claim(s) 5 as outlined above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 8-10 are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Auden et al. (US 20170088192 A1) discloses a multi-wheeled vehicle employing an active aerodynamic control system is described. A method for controlling the vehicle and the active aerodynamic control system includes determining states of parameters related to ride and handling of the vehicle, and determining a current tractive effort based upon the states of parameters related to ride and handling of the vehicle. A desired tractive effort is determined based upon an operator desired acceleration, and an available tractive effort is determined based upon an available downforce transferable to the wheels from the active aerodynamic control system and downforces of the wheels. The active aerodynamic control system controls the downforce on one of the wheels to control the current tractive effort responsive to the desired tractive effort.
Giovanardi et al. (US 20240317008 A1) discloses systems and methods described herein include implementation of road surface-based localization techniques for advanced vehicle features and control methods including confidence-based consumption, air suspension control systems and methods, end of travel management, road profile creation techniques, and others.
Michener (US 20230213081 A1) discloses an adaptive suspension damper may include a body defining a working chamber, and a sleeve operably coupled to the body to alternately open the working chamber to enable a working fluid to enter or leave the working chamber relative to compression and rebound events experienced at the adaptive suspension damper, and close the working chamber to enable the piston head to act as a hydraulic ram inside the working chamber to selectively adjust a position of a piston head in the working chamber to adjust a height of a corner of a vehicle at which the adaptive suspension damper is located.
Bray et al. (US 20190092403 A1) discloses downforce feedback systems for active aerodynamic devices, methods for making/using such systems, and vehicles equipped with a closed-loop downforce feedback system to govern operation of the vehicle's active aero device(s). A feedback control system for operating an active aerodynamic device of a motor vehicle includes one or more pressure sensors for detecting fluid pressures in one or more pneumatic or hydraulic actuators for moving the active aero device. A vehicle controller receives fluid pressure signals from these sensor(s), and calculates an actual downforce value from these signal(s). The controller retrieves a calibrated downforce value from mapped vehicle downforce data stored in memory, and determines if the actual downforce value differs from the calibrated value. If so, the controller determines a target position for a target downforce value for a current vehicle operating condition, and commands the actuator(s) to move the active aero device to the target position.
Fahland et al. (US 20190161089 A1) discloses an exemplary method of controlling an automotive vehicle includes providing a damper coupled to the vehicle, the damper being provided with magnetorheological fluid and including a magnetic field generator, providing a vehicle sensor configured to measure a vehicle characteristic, providing at least one controller in communication with the actuator, the magnetic field generator, and the vehicle sensor, and in response to a vehicle operating condition being satisfied, determining a vehicle balance and a downforce generation capacity and automatically controlling the magnetic field generator, via the at least one controller, to adjust viscosity of the magnetorheological fluid.
De Pinto (US 20240132053 A1) discloses a method for adjusting one or more vehicle dynamics systems of a vehicle, the vehicle comprising a road wheel and at least one vehicle sensor configured to provide vehicle condition data, the road wheel comprising a tyre sensor configured to output tyre operation data, the method comprising: receiving tyre operation data from the tyre sensor; receiving vehicle condition data from at least one vehicle sensor; calculating one or more vehicle dynamics parameters based on the vehicle condition data and the tyre operation data; and adjusting one or more vehicle dynamics systems in response to the calculated one or more vehicle dynamics parameters.
Yen et al. (US 11485429 B2) discloses a control system of a vehicle comprising: i) a plurality of adjustable aerodynamic control devices associated with the vehicle; ii) a fuel economy sensor configured to determine a first fuel economy measurement; and iii) an aerodynamic device controller module configured to adjust a first one of the plurality of adjustable aerodynamic control devices and to receive from the fuel economy sensor a second fuel economy measurement. The aerodynamic device controller module stores in an onboard database state information corresponding to settings of the plurality of adjustable aerodynamic control devices if the second fuel economy measurement is an improvement over the first fuel economy measurement.
Jeong et al. (US 20150149046 A1) discloses a system of controlling an adjustable spoiler includes an ignition detector configured to detect whether an engine is turned on or off. A vehicle speed detector is configured to detect a vehicle speed. A weight detector is configured to detect a vehicle weight that is changed when the number of passengers or the amount of loaded freight is increased or decreased. A controller is configured to determine variation of the vehicle weight, set an extension reference speed and a retraction reference speed of the adjustable spoiler based on the variation of the vehicle weight, and extend or retract the adjustable spoiler trough an actuator.
Allmandingeret al. (US 20220363322 A1) discloses an aerodynamics control system for a vehicle may include a repositionable aerodynamic device disposed at a portion of the vehicle, a controller operably coupled to components or sensors of the vehicle to receive information including vehicle performance data and position information for the aerodynamic device, and a vehicle location sensor determining location information for the vehicle. The controller stores the vehicle performance data and the position information in association with the location information for each of a plurality of locations. Responsive to detecting an approach of the vehicle to one of the locations, the controller provides a control instruction to position the aerodynamic device based on recorded vehicle performance data and recorded position information associated with the one of the locations.
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 Anthony G Mora whose telephone number is (571)272-2306. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday 8am-5pm PST, Alternating Friday 8am-4pm PST.
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, Kito R Robinson can be reached at (571)270-3921. 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.
/ANTHONY GABRIEL MORA/Examiner, Art Unit 3664 /KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664