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 .
Summary
Claims 1-14 are pending. Claims 1-14 are rejected herein. This is a First Action on the Merits.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the magnetic field element embedded in the spring element as recited in claim 6 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Suggestions
Regarding claim 4: Claim 4 recites “the magnetic field sensor is formed as a Hall sensor.” “Is formed as” connotes some kind of method step or action taking place. The Examiner recommends simply stating “the magnetic field sensor is a Hall sensor.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 14: These claims use the term "and/or." This term is indefinite and the Examiner recommends using "or" which avoids ambiguity and has the same patentable scope as that sought to be covered by "and/or." The Applicant may also consider using phrasing such as "at least one of."
Regarding claim 1: Claim 1 recites “relative movements” however the “spring element” and the “bearing element” are listed in the alternative. Therefore it is unclear what the relative movement is with respect to. For instance, claim 1 could include within its scope a component configured to “detect relative movements of the spring element” with no indication of what said movement is relative to. The Examiner recommends removing the word relative.
Regarding claims 4 and 5: Claim 4 should depend from claim 3 to have antecedent basis for “the magnetic field sensor,” furthermore it should be recited as “at least one magnetic field sensor” to agree with the terminology in claim 3. This is also true of claim 5.
Regarding claim 10: Claim 10 recites that “the control unit is embedded in the component” however “component” is the generic term used to describe the entire invention. Therefore it is unclear what it means for the control unit to be embedded in the invention. This only appears to require that the control unit be a part of the vibration control component which it already is according to claim 1.
Regarding claims 2-14: These claims are rejected as indefinite for depending from an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Regarding claim 10: It is unclear (see 112b rejection above) what it means for the control unit to be embedded in the component, therefore the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification is that the control unit is simply part of the “component.” Therefore claim 10 does not further limit the subject matter of claim 1, and it is in improper dependent form.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1 and a2) as being anticipated by KAWACHI (JP 2005257451). Please note that a machine translation of KAWACHI has been included with this office action. All references to text in KAWACHI are to the attached machine translation.
Regarding claim 1: As best understood, KAWACHI discloses: A vibration control component (This designation is a statement of intended purpose. Because the invention of KAWACHI has all of the following structure, it can be used for vibration control purposes.), comprising at least one bearing element (27 in FIG. 3), one spring element (25) and one sensor device (23, 24, and the control unit [15 in FIG. 2] described in para. 21-22), wherein the sensor device comprises at least one sensor (24) and at least one control unit (15 in FIG. 2; para. 21-22) and wherein the sensor device is formed to detect relative movements of the spring element and/or the bearing element (para. 20).
Regarding claim 2: As best understood, KAWACHI discloses: the sensor device has a magnetic measuring principle (Hall element 24 in FIG. 3; para 20).
Regarding claim 3: As best understood, KAWACHI discloses: the sensor device comprises at least one magnetic field source (23 in FIG. 3) and at least one magnetic field sensor (24 in FIG. 3), which are arranged at a distance from one another in the component (FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 4: As best understood, KAWACHI discloses: the magnetic field sensor (24 in FIG. 3) is formed as a Hall sensor (para. 19-20).
Regarding claim 5: As best understood, KAWACHI discloses: the magnetic field sensor (24 in FIG. 3) is associated with the spring element (25) or the bearing element (FIG. 3 shows the Hall element 24 on the spring 25.).
Regarding claim 6: As best understood, KAWACHI discloses: the magnetic field sensor (24 in FIG. 3) is embedded in the spring element (FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 9: As best understood, KAWACHI discloses: the control unit comprises a memory device (It is inherent in the operation of the control unit 15 as described in para. 21-22 that the control unit has some memory because it has to receive signals from four sensors, process the data, and create the appropriate output. The values at each step have to be stored in memory in order to be used in the subsequent step.).
Regarding claim 10: As best understood, KAWACHI discloses: the control unit (15 in FIG. 2) is embedded in the component (Installed in main body 14 in car C in FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 11: As best understood, KAWACHI discloses: the control unit (15 in FIG. 2) functions as an evaluation unit (para. 21-22).
Regarding claim 12: As best understood, KAWACHI discloses: the control unit (15 in FIG. 2) comprises a microcontroller (A control unit installed on a car as this one is, is a microcontroller.).
Regarding claim 14: As best understood, KAWACHI discloses: An arrangement comprising a plurality of vibration control components (four units 11A-D in FIG. 1; para. 18) according to claim 1 (The rejection of claim 1 has been discussed above.) and at least one central unit (control unit 15 in FIG. 2; para. 21-22) which stores and/or processes the measurement data recorded by the sensors of the vibration control components (para. 21-22).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAWACHI in view of SCHWEMMER et al. (US 5396973).
Regarding claim 7: As best understood, KAWACHI does not disclose a temperature, humidity, or acceleration sensor.
SCHWEMMER however does teach acceleration and temperature sensors (col. 4 lines 30-37) on his invention that use a Hall effect sensor (col. 4 lines 30-37) to measure displacement (col. 6 lines 35-55) on their suspension assembly (abstract) that can include springs (col. 11 lines 17-29).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use the temperature sensor of SCHWEMMER in the suspension assembly of KAWACHI because temperature affects the performance of suspension components (col. 8 lines 16-35 of SCHWEMMER), therefore if it is measured it can be compensated for, such as when suspension components become stiffer in colder weather (col. 8 lines 16-35 of SCHWEMMER).
Claim(s) 8 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAWACHI in view of SAUTIER et al. (US 20150369328).
Regarding claims 8 and 13: As best understood, KAWACHI does not disclose a radio module.
SAUTIER however does teach a radio module (wireless data transmitter 80 in FIG. 1; para. 69) on their suspension component (abstract) that uses a Hall effect sensor (para. 57) to measure the relative position of the two components (para. 61) as well as a temperature sensor (abstract). SAUTIER also teaches that the invention can be used on a train (para. 3, 80), thus meeting the limitations of claim 13.
One skilled in the art at the time the application is effectively filed would be motivated to use the wireless data transmission of SAUTIER to transmit the data from the sensors of KAWACHI to the control unit of KAWACHI because it reduces the wires that need to be installed in the vehicle, thus saving labor costs.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Several references have been added to the Notice of References Cited for teaching suspension elements, often with springs, that have displacement sensors, which operate by a magnetic measuring principle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)270-7601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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, Laura M Sweeney can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/NATHANIEL J KOLB/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights