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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
1. Claims 12-24 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2.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.
3. Claim(s) 11 and 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WURM et al. (DE 102019008663) in view of Leone et al. (US 10202106)
Regarding claims 11, 26 and 27, WURM discloses a noise suppression device for a motor vehicle (Paragraph: 0001: WURM discusses an active noise suppression system in a vehicle), comprising: a number of accelerometers for detecting vibrations that may be generated by wheels of the motor vehicle which are movable on a road surface (Paragraphs: 0009, 0017, 0039 and 0048: WURM discusses how the acceleration sensors (i.e. accelerometers) detect vibrations introduced by a road surface when the vehicle standing on the fully assembled vehicle wheels and is therefore touching a surface; and how the acceleration sensors are arranged in a chassis of the vehicle and detect mechanical acceleration signals of the vehicle, including vibrations introduced by the road surface) and which may produce a noise in an interior of the motor vehicle (Paragraphs: 0016, 0022 and 0034: the acoustic sensor detects audible rolling noises of the vehicle in the vehicle interior); an evaluation device configured to determine acoustic signals from the detected vibrations that are suitable for at least partly suppressing the noise when emitted in the interior of the motor vehicle (Paragraphs: 0022 and 0034: WURM discusses how a high-quality noise suppression function is the presence of a signal correlation between the sound signal detected in the vehicle interior and the acceleration signal detected by means of the acceleration sensors; and a technical basis for an effective noise suppression function detected by the acoustic sensors in the vehicle interior and the acceleration signals detected by the acceleration sensors);
WURM discloses the invention set forth above but does not specifically point out “a number of accelerometers is less than or equal to a total number of vehicle axles of the motor vehicle”
Leone however discloses a number of accelerometers is less than or equal to a total number of vehicle axles of the motor vehicle (Col.2 lines 20-33 and Col.3 lines 42-58: Leone discusses how a vehicle generally has two axles, one connected to the front wheels and one connected to the rear wheels, and the trail has one or more axles; and how a vehicle includes one or more accelerometers, i.e. it would have been obvious the vehicle to have two accelerometers which is equal to a total number of axles in a vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of WURM, and modify a system wherein a number of accelerometers is less than or equal to a total number of vehicle axles of the motor vehicle, as taught by Leone, thus generating an axle profile based on a speed of the vehicle and timing of the signals; and control the stability of the vehicles, as discussed by Leone.
4. Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WURM et al. (DE 102019008663) in view of Leone et al. (US 10202106) and further in view of Tanaka et al. (US 5322319)
Considering claim 25, WURM in view of Leone fail to disclose claim 25. Tanaka however discloses the device as claimed in claim 25, further comprising a height sensor configured to detect vibrations (abstract lines 1-10: Tanaka discusses how a vehicle height sensor detecting a vibration input to the vehicle body).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of WURM and Leone, and modify a system wherein a height sensor configured to detect vibrations, as taught by Tanaka, thus the system allowing to control so that the vehicle runs on a smooth road with a greatly improved comfortable ride, as discussed by Tanaka.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 07/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue that the prior arts of the record (Leone’s et al.) reference to a vehicle having two axes implies that two accelerometers are disclosed-one for each axles of the vehicles. The assertion is incorrect since Leone makes it clear that one accelerometer will generate data each time an axle of the vehicle and trailer pass over a pump. For Leone, the significant of the vehicle having two axles is that if the accelerometer detects three peaks, that mean the trailer are connected.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As the applicants admitted on the argument and the prior arts of the record (Leone et a.) disclose “a vehicle having two axles implies that two accelerometers are disclosed-one for each axles of the vehicles” (Leone: Col.2 lines 20-33 and Col.3 lines 42-58). Thus, Leone teaches how a number of accelerometers is less than or equal to the total number of vehicle axles of the motor vehicle, as indicated on the argued claims. Therefore, the prior arts of the record disclosed the argued claims limitations.
Applicants also argue that the entire purpose of the accelerometer of Leone is to determine whether a trailer is connected. On the other hand, the entire purpose of the four accelerometers of Wurm is to detect vibrations and generate a road noise profile. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not turn to the trailer detection system of Leone to determine how many accelerometers can be used to perform the road noise suppression of Wurm.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior arts of the record (Wurm et al.) discloses how the device ensures effective detection of vibrations into body of the motor vehicle; and for realizing noise suppression of a motor vehicle. Leone et al. also discloses how the vehicle has an electronic stability control unit to detect signals indicative of axles traversing a bump (i.e. allowing to detect a road noise form a bump) with an accelerometer (Leone: Col.1 lines 46-47 and Col.2 lines 24-28). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to Combine Wurm with Leone et al. to perform the road noise suppression. Therefore, the prior arts of the record disclosed the argued claims limitations.
Applicants further argue that there is nothing in Leone that suggests that the accelerometer used to detect traversal of an axle over a bump is capable of detecting vibrations generated by wheels passing over a road surface, sufficient to detect road noise vibrations "which may produce a noise in an interior of the motor vehicle"
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior arts of the record (Wurm et al.) discloses how the acceleration sensors (i.e. accelerometers) detect vibrations introduced by a road surface when the vehicle standing on the fully assembled vehicle wheels and is therefore touching a surface; and how the acceleration sensors are arranged in a chassis of the vehicle and detect mechanical acceleration signals of the vehicle, including vibrations introduced by the road surface (WURM: Paragraphs: 0009, 0017, 0039 and 0048). The teaching of Leone et al. also discloses how the vehicle has an electronic stability control unit to detect signals indicative of axles traversing a bump with an accelerometer (i.e. allowing to detect a road noise form a bump) (Leone: Col.1 lines 46-47 and Col.2 lines 20-33). Therefore, the prior arts of the record disclosed the argued claims limitations.
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 YOSEF K LAEKEMARIAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5149. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:30 M-F.
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, Duc Nguyen can be reached at (571) 272-7503. 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.
YOSEF K. LAEKEMARIAM
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2651
/YOSEF K LAEKEMARIAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691
Prosecution Insights