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 .
Claim Interpretation
Lacking a special definition (or evidence to the contrary), the term “reactive- proactive controller” as used in both the claims and the specification is being interpreted to simply mean a “PID controller”, which is well known, obvious, and understood by those having ordinary skill in the art. In general, a PID controller is governed by the following equation
u
t
=
K
p
e
t
+
K
i
∫
0
t
e
τ
d
τ
+
K
d
d
e
(
t
)
d
t
, where
K
p
is the proportional coefficient (often referred to as gain for the proportional component),
K
i
is the integral coefficient (often referred to as gain for the integral component), and
K
d
is the derivative coefficient (often referred to as gain for the derivative component). Further, the integral component (
K
i
∫
0
t
e
τ
d
τ
) is considered to be the reactive component, since the integral component reacts/responds to accumulated error from the past and derivative component (
K
d
d
e
(
t
)
d
t
) is considered to be the proactive component, since the derivative component anticipates or predicts future trending of the system.
Claim Objections
The following is a quotation of 37 CFR 1.52(b):
(b) The application (specification, including the claims, drawings, and the inventor’s oath or declaration) or reexamination or supplemental examination proceeding, any amendments to the application or reexamination proceeding, or any corrections to the application, or reexamination or supplemental examination proceeding.
(1) The application or proceeding and any amendments or corrections to the application (including any translation submitted pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section) or proceeding, except as provided for in § 1.69 and paragraph (d) of this section, must:
Comply with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section; and
Be in the English language or be accompanied by a translation of the application and a translation of any corrections or amendments into the English language together with a statement that the translation is accurate.
Claims 1 and 18 are objected to as failing to comply requirements under with 37 CFR 1.52(b).
In re claim 1, claim 1 recites “a priori” in lines 4 and 7, further “a priori” is a Latin phrase (i.e. non-English), which is commonly defined as meaning from a general law to a particular instance; valid independently of observation; existing in the mind prior to and independent of experience, as a faculty or character trait; not based on prior study or examination; or nonanalytic. Further, the specification, including the claims, fails to specifically state which interpretation of “a priori” is intended to be used as an accurate translation.
In re claim 18, claim 18 recites “a priori” in lines 5, 7 and 10, and is subsequently objected to, for substantially the same reasons as claim 1 above.
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 1-6, 10-13 and 40-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Unger et al. (U.S. 20170096042).
In re claim 1, Unger teaches a method of controlling a system, in a vehicle, with a combination reactive- proactive controller, when the vehicle is traveling along a road surface ([abstract; 0025]), the method comprising:
in a first mode of operation (invention provides that a reactive controller is parameterized or switched when sensor data exist that indicate that for example an unevenness lies ahead on a road to be driven on and an uncertainty of the underlying sensor data is high, i.e., above a threshold value; [0009]; Here, the switching indicates that there is at least, both a first mode and also a second.):
receiving a priori information (calculate settings for controlling respective chassis components or controllers early, for example before sensor data regarding a potentially relevant road section are available; [0023]) from a database (the senor data are combined with GPS-data into a dataset and are transmitted to a server, which provides further vehicles with corresponding datasets of road sections that are potentially relevant for a reactive control; [0022]), about an aspect of a first portion of the road surface, at a microprocessor before arriving at the first portion of the road surface (as suggested via. [0022-0023]);
operating the combination reactive-proactive controller in a reactive-proactive mode to formulate a first command based on the a priori information (correspondingly regulate or control the respective chassis components fast and precisely; [0023]); and
when the vehicle is at the first portion of the road surface, operating the system based on the first command ([0009]); and
in a second mode of operation (normal operation; [0016]):
receiving information about an aspect of a second portion of the road surface from at least one on-board sensor, at a microprocessor, when the vehicle is at the first portion of the road surface (the reactive controller is controlled or operated with a high bandwidth and amplification only so long as the sensor data are subject to a high uncertainty or for the time that a respective relevant road section is expected to last according to the sensor data; [0016]);
operating the combination reactive-proactive controller in a reactive-only mode to formulate a second command (while in reactive-only mode, begin transition from reactive to proactive) based on the information from the at least one sensor (as indicated in [0016]); and
when the vehicle is at the second portion of the road surface (portion of road section having sensor data with high uncertainty),
operating the system based on the second command ([0016-0017]).
In re claim 2, Unger teaches the method of claim 1, and further teaches wherein
the system is a suspension system actuator of a suspension system (at least one component of the chassis of the vehicle is selected from the following list of chassis components: actuators, shock absorbers; [0027]).
In re claim 3, Unger teaches the method of claim 2, and further teaches wherein
the suspension system is an active suspension system (the invention can be used for any arrangement of vehicles with active or semi-active chassis components such as active chasses or semi-active chasses and also individual actuators; [0029]).
In re claim 4, Unger teaches the method of claim 1, and further teaches wherein
the database is a remote database, wherein the remote database is in the cloud (the senor data are combined with GPS-data into a dataset and are transmitted to a server, which provides further vehicles with corresponding datasets of road sections; [0022-0023]; Here, the storage and transmission of data from a remote server indicates at least temporary cloud storage of that same data; note: in [0022] sensor is misspelled senor.).
In re claim 5, Unger teaches the method of claim 1, and further suggests wherein
the vehicle operates in the second mode (normal operation; [0016]) of operation when communication with the database is interrupted for a predetermined period of time (Based on the data provided by the server respective vehicles can evaluate, for example via a control device, a certainty or reliability of sensor data provided by own sensors, and may calculate settings for controlling respective chassis components or controllers early, for example before sensor data regarding a potentially relevant road section are available, and correspondingly regulate or control the respective chassis components fast and precisely; [0023]; Here, information from the database is sent to the vehicle, before the vehicle arrives at the relevant road section (i.e. at a time before sensor data regarding a potentially relevant road section are available), thus in a case that communication is interrupted, the vehicle can operate in either the first mode or the second mode, as explained above.).
In re claim 6, Unger teaches the method of claim 1, and further suggests wherein
the vehicle operates in the second mode (normal operation; [0016]) of operation when a location of the vehicle cannot be determined with a sufficient degree of precision (the respective sensor data of respective vehicles are linked by the server with GPS data, i.e., Global Positioning System data, or are assigned to respective GPS data of a respective vehicle; [0023]; As explained in claim 5, information from the database is sent to the vehicle, before the vehicle arrives at the relevant road section (i.e. at a time before sensor data regarding a potentially relevant road section are available), which further suggests linking by the server with GPS data, thus in a case that communication is interrupted (such as an interruption in GPS signal/data, which would necessarily result in a location of the vehicle being unable to be determined with any degree of precision, due to a lack of GPS signal/data), the vehicle can operate in either the first mode or the second mode, as explained above.).
In re claim 10, Unger teaches the method of claim 1, and further teaches wherein,
under at least one operating condition (a certainty, i.e., validity or reliability of respective sensor data; [0020]) the vehicle transitions from operating in the first mode to operating in the second mode (In order to evaluate a certainty, i.e., validity or reliability of respective sensor data an embodiment provides that for example a certainty index in the form of a numerical value is provided so that by way of the certainty index it can be evaluated whether an accelerated reactive control or a normal operation, for example a with proactive control, is required; [0020]; Here, transitions between first/second modes is governed via. certainty of sensor data.).
In re claim 11, Unger teaches the method of claim 1, and further teaches wherein,
under at least one operating condition (a certainty, i.e., validity or reliability of respective sensor data; [0020]) the vehicle transitions from operating in the second mode to operating in the first mode (In order to evaluate a certainty, i.e., validity or reliability of respective sensor data an embodiment provides that for example a certainty index in the form of a numerical value is provided so that by way of the certainty index it can be evaluated whether an accelerated reactive control or a normal operation, for example a with proactive control, is required; [0020]; Here, transitions between first/second modes is governed via. certainty of sensor data.).
In re claim 12, Unger teaches the method of claim 10, and further teaches
wherein the combination reactive-proactive controller operates according to an algorithm running on at least one microprocessor (vehicles can evaluate, for example via a control device; [0023]; note: microprocessor is necessarily present),
wherein the algorithm includes at least one parameter (Based on the data provided by the server respective vehicles can evaluate, for example via a control device, a certainty or reliability of sensor data provided by own sensors, and may calculate settings for controlling respective chassis components or controllers early, for example before sensor data regarding a potentially relevant road section are available; [0023]; Here, it is strongly suggested that there is an algorithm present in the controller/control device that evaluates/calculates/manipulates parameters/settings/sensor values so as to result in control of various chassis components), and
wherein a value of the at least one parameter is changed during a transition between the first mode and the second mode (invention provides that a reactive controller is parameterized or switched when sensor data exist that indicate that for example an unevenness lies ahead on a road to be driven on and an uncertainty of the underlying sensor data is high, i.e., above a threshold value; [0009]; Here, the switching indicates that there is at least, both a first mode and also a second mode, and that the switching is based upon the value of a parameter that changes, such as an unevenness of a road and a level of uncertainty of underlying sensor data).
In re claim 13, Unger teaches the method of claim 12, and further teaches
wherein the at least one parameter (The term parameterization in the context of the present invention means a process in which a device such as a reactive controller is parameterized, i.e., it is set so that the device adapts its properties such as bandwidth and amplification of respective sensor data to parameters, i.e., operating parameters, changed by the parameterization; [0010]) is a gain (The term amplification in the context of the present invention describes a transformation of a signal such as a level, for example by using an offset or a multiplier, wherein the transformation can increase or decrease original sensor data; [0014]; Here, this amplification/multiplier of sensor data to parameters is commonly referred to as a gain),
wherein the value of the at least one parameter is changed from a first value (sensor data; [0010]) to a second value (parameters, i.e., operating parameters, changed by the parameterization; [0010], as explained above).
In re claim 40, Unger teaches a method of controlling a system, in a vehicle, with a combination reactive- proactive controller, when the vehicle is traveling along a road surface ([abstract; 0025]), the method comprising:
in a first mode of operation (invention provides that a reactive controller is parameterized or switched when sensor data exist that indicate that for example an unevenness lies ahead on a road to be driven on and an uncertainty of the underlying sensor data is high, i.e., above a threshold value; [0009]; Here, the switching indicates that there is at least, both a first mode and also a second.):
controlling the system by operating the combination reactive-proactive controller in a reactive-proactive mode ([0009]); and
in a second mode of operation (normal operation; [0016]):
controlling the system by operating the combination reactive-proactive controller in a reactive-only mode ([0016]).
In re claim 41, Unger teaches the method of claim 40, and further teaches wherein
the system is selected from a group consisting of
an active suspension system (active chassis components; [0029]),
a semi-active suspension system (semi-active chassis components; [0029]),
a braking system, and
a steering system.
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.
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unger et al. (U.S. 20170096042).
In re claim 14, Unger teaches the method of claim 13, but lacks wherein
the first value of the at least one parameter is one and
the second value of the at least one parameter is zero.
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 value of the at least one parameter is one and the second value of the at least one parameter is zero, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable (such as a zero or a one) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In re claim 15, Unger teaches the method of claim 13, but lacks wherein
first value of the at least one parameter is zero and
the second value of the at least one parameter is one.
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 value of the at least one parameter is zero and the second value of the at least one parameter is one, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable (such as a zero or a one) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In re claim 16, Unger teaches the method of claim 13, but is silent wherein
the change occurs gradually over a period of at least 0.5 seconds but less than 1.5 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 change occur gradually over a period of at least 0.5 seconds but less than 1.5 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 changing a first value to a second value, over a time period (i.e. a range) of at least 0.5 seconds but less than 1.5 seconds) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In re claim 17, Unger teaches the method of claim 16, but lacks explicitly stating wherein
the change is a linear function of time.
However, one having an ordinary level of skill in the art would readily recognize that the change (i.e. changing a first value to a second value), necessarily occurs over a period of time (limited via. the processor speed and algorithmic efficiency within the controller), and thusly can be considered to be a function of time. Further, one having an ordinary level of skill in the art would readily recognize that time occurs linearly.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unger et al. (U.S. 20170096042) in view of Hilliard et al. (U.S. 20050143918).
In re claim 7, Unger teaches the method of claim 6, but is silent wherein
the sufficient degree of precision is when the location of the vehicle is known to within 10 centimeters.
Hilliard teaches an analogous method of determining position via. GPS (fig. 1; abstract) and further teaches
the sufficient degree of precision is when the location of the vehicle is known to within 10 centimeters (The advances in GPS technology in recent years have produced high precision navigation systems with very fine accuracies in position definition of an object, normally within a few centimeters of the object’s actual location; [0004]).
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 Unger, to incorporate wherein the sufficient degree of precision is when the location of the vehicle is known to within 10 centimeters, as clearly suggested and taught by Hilliard, in order to indicates that a collision with an obstacle will occur and a protection is then activated to protect the user of the collision avoidance apparatus ([0009]).
In re claim 8, Unger teaches the method of claim 6, but is silent wherein
the sufficient degree of precision is when the location of the vehicle is known to within 5 centimeters.
Hilliard teaches an analogous method of determining position via. GPS (fig. 1; abstract) and further teaches
the sufficient degree of precision is when the location of the vehicle is known to within 5 centimeters (The advances in GPS technology in recent years have produced high precision navigation systems with very fine accuracies in position definition of an object, normally within a few centimeters of the object’s actual location; [0004]).
Motivation to combine is given above in claim 7.
In re claim 9, Unger teaches the method of claim 6, but is silent wherein
the sufficient degree of precision is when the location of the vehicle is known to within 1 centimeter.
Hilliard teaches an analogous method of determining position via. GPS (fig. 1; abstract) and further teaches
the sufficient degree of precision is when the location of the vehicle is known to within 1 centimeter (The advances in GPS technology in recent years have produced high precision navigation systems with very fine accuracies in position definition of an object, normally within a few centimeters of the object’s actual location; [0004]; note: the term “few” is considered to be at least 3, and thus within a “few”, is interpreted to be a range from 0 to 3 (or more)).
Motivation to combine is given above in claim 7.
Claims 18-24 and 28-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unger et al. (U.S. 20170096042) in view of Hanson et al. (U.S. 5024460).
In re claim 18, Unger teaches a method of controlling a system, in a vehicle, with a first combination reactive- proactive controller
in a first mode of operation (invention provides that a reactive controller is parameterized or switched when sensor data exist that indicate that for example an unevenness lies ahead on a road to be driven on and an uncertainty of the underlying sensor data is high, i.e., above a threshold value; [0009]; Here, the switching indicates that there is at least, both a first mode and also a second.):
receiving a priori information (calculate settings for controlling respective chassis components or controllers early, for example before sensor data regarding a potentially relevant road section are available; [0023]) from a database (the senor data are combined with GPS-data into a dataset and are transmitted to a server, which provides further vehicles with corresponding datasets of road sections that are potentially relevant for a reactive control; [0022]), about an aspect of a first portion of the road surface, at a microprocessor before arriving at the first portion of the road surface (as suggested via. [0022-0023]);
operating the a priori information (correspondingly regulate or control the respective chassis components fast and precisely; [0023]), to control the system in a
when the vehicle is at the first portion of the road surface,
operating the system based on the first command
in a second mode of operation (normal operation; [0016]):
receiving information about an aspect of a second portion of the road surface from at least one on-board sensor, at a microprocessor when the vehicle is at the second portion of the road surface (the reactive controller is controlled or operated with a high bandwidth and amplification only so long as the sensor data are subject to a high uncertainty or for the time that a respective relevant road section is expected to last according to the sensor data; [0016]);
operating the in reactive-only mode, begin transition from reactive to proactive) based on the information from the at least one sensor (as indicated in [0016]);
when the vehicle is at the second portion of the road surface,
operating the system based on the
Unger lacks
operating the first combination reactive-proactive controller in a reactive-proactive mode to formulate a first command, based on the a priori information, to control the system in a first frequency range; and
operating the second combination reactive-proactive controller in a reactive-proactive mode to formulate a second command, based on the a priori information, to control the system in a second frequency range;
when the vehicle is at the first portion of the road surface,
operating the system based on the first command and the second command; and
in a second mode of operation:
operating the first combination reactive-proactive controller in a reactive-only mode to formulate a third command based on the information from the at least one sensor, to control the system in a third frequency range;
operating the second combination reactive-proactive controller in a reactive-only mode to formulate a fourth command based on the information from the at least one sensor, to control the system in a fourth frequency range; and
when the vehicle is at the second portion of the road surface,
operating the system based on the third and fourth command.
Hanson teaches an analogous suspension controller (fig. 1; abstract) and further teaches
suspension control (fig. 1, fig. 5) comprising
a damper (fig.2; the valve of damper 20 must respond at least up to 24 Hz and preferably up to 50 Hz.; [Col. 4, ln 32-58]) having a valve switchable at frequencies within a desired activation range (a valve switchable in response to a binary filtered damper signal at frequencies within a desired activation frequency range between a first mode of operation characterized by a low damping force, in response to a first value of the filtered damper signal, and a second mode of operation having a high damping force, in response to a second value of the filtered damper signal; [Col. 2, ln 23-34]; Here, the suspension is controlled at different frequencies within a desired range to switch between a first mode and a second mode).
It is in this way, that one having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that the modifying the teachings if Unger with the teachings of Hanson would necessarily arrive at the claimed invention, to result in
a first mode of operation having first combination reactive-proactive controller (as taught by Unger) to control the system in a first frequency range, and a second combination reactive-proactive controller to control the system in a second frequency range, so as to be able to switch between the desired frequencies, to produce a valve switchable in response to a binary filtered damper signal at frequencies within a desired activation frequency range between a first mode of operation characterized by a low damping force, in response to a first value of the filtered damper signal, and a second mode of operation having a high damping force, in response to a second value of the filtered damper signal (as taught by Hanson)
a second mode of operation having first combination reactive-proactive controller in a reactive-only mode (as taught by Unger) to formulate a third command based on the information from the at least one sensor, to control the system in a third frequency range, and a second combination reactive-proactive controller in a reactive-only mode (as taught by Unger) to formulate a fourth command based on the information from the at least one sensor, to control the system in a fourth frequency range, so as to be able to switch between the desired frequencies, to produce a valve switchable in response to a binary filtered damper signal at frequencies within a desired activation frequency range between a first mode of operation characterized by a low damping force, in response to a first value of the filtered damper signal, and a second mode of operation having a high damping force, in response to a second value of the filtered damper signal (as taught by Hanson).
This combination further results in a first mode of operation, where operating the system is based on the first command and the second command, and a second mode of operation, where operating the system is based on the third and fourth command. Further, this combination of Unger in view of Hanson, essentially results in a duplication of reactive-proactive controller of Unger (i.e. a first and a second reactive-proactive controller), so as to correspond with the first and second frequencies of Hanson, and such that the first and the second reactive-proactive controller in a reactive-only mode, correspond with the third and fourth frequencies of Hanson. (Note: mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.)
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 Unger, to incorporate suspension control, as clearly suggested and taught by Hanson, in order to have a damper that responds without unnecessary delay to signals within the desired activation frequency range ([Col. 2, ln 35-53]).
In re claim 19, Unger as modified by Hanson teach the method of claim 18, and Unger further teaches wherein
the system is a suspension system actuator of a suspension system (at least one component of the chassis of the vehicle is selected from the following list of chassis components: actuators, shock absorbers; [0027]).
In re claim 20, Unger as modified by Hanson teach the method of claim 19, and Unger further teaches wherein
the suspension system is an active suspension system (the invention can be used for any arrangement of vehicles with active or semi-active chassis components such as active chasses or semi-active chasses and also individual actuators; [0029]).
In re claim 21, Unger as modified by Hanson teach the method of claim 18, and Unger further teaches wherein
the database is a remote database (the senor data are combined with GPS-data into a dataset and are transmitted to a server, which provides further vehicles with corresponding datasets of road sections; [0022]; Here, the storage and transmission of data from a remote server indicates at least temporary cloud storage of that same data; note: in [0022] sensor is misspelled senor.).
In re claim 22, see claim 21 above.
In re claim 23, Unger as modified by Hanson teach the method of claim 18, and Unger further teaches wherein
the vehicle operates in the second mode (normal operation; [0016]) of operation when communication with the database is interrupted for a predetermined period of time (Based on the data provided by the server respective vehicles can evaluate, for example via a control device, a certainty or reliability of sensor data provided by own sensors, and may calculate settings for controlling respective chassis components or controllers early, for example before sensor data regarding a potentially relevant road section are available, and correspondingly regulate or control the respective chassis components fast and precisely; [0023]; Here, information from the database is sent to the vehicle, before the vehicle arrives at the relevant road section (i.e. at a time before sensor data regarding a potentially relevant road section are available), thus in a case that communication is interrupted, the vehicle can operate in either the first mode or the second mode, as explained above.).
In re claim 24, Unger as modified by Hanson teach the method of claim 18, and Unger further suggests wherein
the vehicle operates in the second mode (normal operation; [0016]) of operation when a location of the vehicle cannot be determined with a sufficient degree of precision (the respective sensor data of respective vehicles are linked by the server with GPS data, i.e., Global Positioning System data, or are assigned to respective GPS data of a respective vehicle; [0023]; As explained in claim 5, information from the database is sent to the vehicle, before the vehicle arrives at the relevant road section (i.e. at a time before sensor data regarding a potentially relevant road section are available), which further suggests linking by the server with GPS data, thus in a case that communication is interrupted (such as an interruption in GPS signal/data, which would necessarily result in a location of the vehicle being unable to be determined with any degree of precision, due to a lack of GPS signal/data), the vehicle can operate in either the first mode or the second mode, as explained above.).
In re claim 28, Unger as modified by Hanson teach the method of claim 18, and Unger further teaches wherein,
under at least one operating condition (a certainty, i.e., validity or reliability of respective sensor data; [0020]) the vehicle transitions from operating in the first mode to operating in the second mode (In order to evaluate a certainty, i.e., validity or reliability of respective sensor data an embodiment provides that for example a certainty index in the form of a numerical value is provided so that by way of the certainty index it can be evaluated whether an accelerated reactive control or a normal operation, for example a with proactive control, is required; [0020]; Here, transitions between first/second modes is governed via. certainty of sensor data.).
In re claim 29, Unger as modified by Hanson teach the method of claim 18, and Unger further teaches wherein,
under at least one operating condition (a certainty, i.e., validity or reliability of respective sensor data; [0020]) the vehicle transitions from operating in the second mode to operating in the first mode (In order to evaluate a certainty, i.e., validity or reliability of respective sensor data an embodiment provides that for example a certainty index in the form of a numerical value is provided so that by way of the certainty index it can be evaluated whether an accelerated reactive control or a normal operation, for example a with proactive control, is required; [0020]; Here, transitions between first/second modes is governed via. certainty of sensor data.).
In re claim 30, Unger as modified by Hanson teach the method of claim 28, and Unger further teaches
wherein the combination reactive-proactive controller operates according to at least one algorithm running on at least one microprocessor (vehicles can evaluate, for example via a control device; [0023]; note: microprocessor is necessarily present),
wherein the at least one algorithm includes at least one parameter (Based on the data provided by the server respective vehicles can evaluate, for example via a control device, a certainty or reliability of sensor data provided by own sensors, and may calculate settings for controlling respective chassis components or controllers early, for example before sensor data regarding a potentially relevant road section are available; [0023]; Here, it is strongly suggested that there is an algorithm present in the controller/control device that evaluates/calculates/manipulates parameters/settings/sensor values so as to result in control of various chassis components), and
wherein a value of the at least one parameter is changed during a transition between the first mode and the second mode (invention provides that a reactive controller is parameterized or switched when sensor data exist that indicate that for example an unevenness lies ahead on a road to be driven on and an uncertainty of the underlying sensor data is high, i.e., above a threshold value; [0009]; Here, the switching indicates that there is at least, both a first mode and also a second mode, and that the switching is based upon the value of a parameter that changes, such as an unevenness of a road and a level of uncertainty of underlying sensor data).
In re claim 31, Unger as modified by Hanson teach the method of claim 30, and Unger further teaches wherein
the at least one parameter (The term parameterization in the context of the present invention means a process in which a device such as a reactive controller is parameterized, i.e., it is set so that the device adapts its properties such as bandwidth and amplification of respective sensor data to parameters, i.e., operating parameters, changed by the parameterization; [0010]) is a gain (The term amplification in the context of the present invention describes a transformation of a signal such as a level, for example by using an offset or a multiplier, wherein the transformation can increase or decrease original sensor data; [0014]; Here, this amplification/multiplier of sensor data to parameters is commonly referred to as a gain).
In re claim 32, Unger as modified by Hanson teach the method of claim 30, and Unger further teaches wherein
the value of the at least one parameter is changed from a first value (sensor data; [0010]) to a second value (parameters, i.e., operating parameters, changed by the parameterization; [0010], as explained above).
In re claim 33, Unger as modified by Hanson teach the method of claim 32, but lacks wherein
the first value of the at least one parameter is one and
the second value of the at least one parameter is zero.
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 value of the at least one parameter is one and the second value of the at least one parameter is zero, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable (such as a zero or a one) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In re claim 34, Unger as modified by Hanson teach the method of claim 32, but lacks wherein
the first value of the at least one parameter is zero and
the second value of the at least one parameter is one.
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 value of the at least one parameter is zero and the second value of the at least one parameter is one, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable (such as a zero or a one) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In re claim 35, Unger as modified by Hanson teach the method of claim 32, but is silent wherein
the change occurs gradually over a period of at least 0.5 seconds but less than 1.5 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 change occur gradually over a period of at least 0.5 seconds but less than 1.5 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 changing a first value to a second value, over a time period (i.e. a range) of at least 0.5 seconds but less than 1.5 seconds) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In re claim 36, Unger as modified by Hanson teach the method of claim 35, but lacks explicitly stating wherein
the change is a linear function of time.
However, one having an ordinary level of skill in the art would readily recognize that the change (i.e. changing a first value to a second value), necessarily occurs over a period of time (limited via. the processor speed and algorithmic efficiency within the controller), and thusly can be considered to be a function of time. Further, one having an ordinary level of skill in the art would readily recognize that time occurs linearly.
In re claim 37, Unger as modified by Hanson teach the method of claim 18, but lacks wherein
the first frequency range and third frequency range are equal.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the first frequency range and third frequency range being equal, 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 (including having one range being equal to another range, such as a first frequency range being equal to a third frequency range) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In re claim 38, Unger as modified by Hanson teach the method of claim 18, but lacks wherein
the second frequency range and fourth frequency range are equal.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the second frequency range and fourth frequency range being equal, 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 (including having one range being equal to another range, such as a second frequency range being equal to a fourth frequency range) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In re claim 39, Unger as modified by Hanson teach the method of claim 18, but are silent wherein
the first frequency range and third frequency ranges include certain frequencies above 0.1 Hz but below 2 Hz and
the second frequency range and fourth frequency range include certain frequencies equal to or above 2 Hz but below 20 Hz.
However, Hanson further teaches wherein
a damper having a frequency response range (the valve of damper 20 must respond at least up to 24 Hz and preferably up to 50 Hz.; [Col. 4, ln 32-58]).
This being the case, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to the first frequency range and third frequency ranges include certain frequencies above 0.1 Hz but below 2 Hz and the second frequency range and fourth frequency range include certain frequencies equal to or above 2 Hz but below 20 Hz, since Hanson teaches having a frequency response range up to 24 Hz (i.e. from 0 Hz to 24 Hz) and preferably up to 50 Hz (i.e. from 0 Hz to 50 Hz) 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 involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unger et al. (U.S. 20170096042) in view of Hanson et al. (U.S. 5024460) and in further view of Hilliard et al. (U.S. 20050143918).
In re claim 25, Unger and Hanson teach the method of claim 24, but are silent wherein
the sufficient degree of precision is when the location of the vehicle is known to within 10 centimeters.
Hilliard teaches an analogous method of determining position via. GPS (fig. 1; abstract) and further teaches
the sufficient degree of precision is when the location of the vehicle is known to within 10 centimeters (The advances in GPS technology in recent years have produced high precision navigation systems with very fine accuracies in position definition of an object, normally within a few centimeters of the object’s actual location; [0004]).
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 Unger, to incorporate wherein the sufficient degree of precision is when the location of the vehicle is known to within 10 centimeters, as clearly suggested and taught by Hilliard, in order to indicates that a collision with an obstacle will occur and a protection is then activated to protect the user of the collision avoidance apparatus ([0009]).
In re claim 26, Unger and Hanson teach the method of claim 24, but are silent wherein
the sufficient degree of precision is when the location of the vehicle is known to within 5 centimeters.
Hilliard teaches an analogous method of determining position via. GPS (fig. 1; abstract) and further teaches
the sufficient degree of precision is when the location of the vehicle is known to within 5 centimeters (The advances in GPS technology in recent years have produced high precision navigation systems with very fine accuracies in position definition of an object, normally within a few centimeters of the object’s actual location; [0004]).
Motivation to combine is given above in claim 25.
In re claim 27, Unger and Hanson teach the method of claim 24, but are silent wherein
the sufficient degree of precision is when the location of the vehicle is known to within 1 centimeter.
Hilliard teaches an analogous method of determining position via. GPS (fig. 1; abstract) and further teaches
the sufficient degree of precision is when the location of the vehicle is known to within 1 centimeter (The advances in GPS technology in recent years have produced high precision navigation systems with very fine accuracies in position definition of an object, normally within a few centimeters of the object’s actual location; [0004]; note: the term “few” is considered to be at least 3, and thus within