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 Status
Claims 1-16 are pending in the application and have been examined.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9, and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Taniguchi (US 5,072,392) hereinafter Taniguchi.
Claim 1:
Taniguchi discloses a control system for an air spring of a suspension system of a vehicle, the control system comprising one or more controllers, [Fig. 1; col. 3, line 64 to col. 4, line 2] the control system configured to: when the air spring is operating in a high stiffness state during vehicle motion, receive a signal indicative of a rate of change of acceleration of the vehicle; [Fig. 2, Box 101-102; col. 4, lines 51-66; col. 6, lines 1-18] determine if a spring state hold condition is satisfied in dependence on the rate of change of acceleration; and [Fig. 2, Box 103; col. 4, line 67 to col. 5, line 6] if the spring state hold condition is determined to be satisfied, output a hold control signal to cause the air spring to remain operating in the high stiffness state. [col. 5, lines 6-9]
Claim 9:
Taniguchi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Taniguchi also disclose wherein the signal indicative of the rate of change of acceleration comprises at least one signal part, the at least one signal part indicative of one of: a rate of change of lateral acceleration of the vehicle; and a rate of change of longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle; wherein the control system is configured to, if the spring state hold condition is determined to be satisfied with respect to any the signal parts, output a hold control signal to cause the air spring to remain operating in the high stiffness state. [Claim 1]
It should be noted "indicative of (rate of change) of acceleration" and "indicative of acceleration" can be interpreted as the same thing since jerk and acceleration are just derivatives/integrals of each other and "indicative of" is a broad statement.
Claim 12:
Taniguchi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Taniguchi also disclose an air spring and the control system [col. 3, line 64 to col. 4, line 2].
Claim 13:
Taniguchi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Taniguchi also disclose a vehicle. [Claim 1]
Claim 14:
Taniguchi discloses a method of operating a control system for an air spring of a vehicle, the method comprising: when the air spring is operating in a high stiffness state during vehicle motion, receiving a signal indicative of a rate of change of acceleration of the vehicle; [Fig. 2, Box 101-102; col. 4, lines 51-66; col. 6, lines 1-18] determining if a spring state hold condition is satisfied in dependence on the rate of change of acceleration; and [Fig. 2, Box 103; col. 4, line 67 to col. 5, line 6] if the spring state hold condition is determined to be satisfied, outputting a hold control signal to cause the air spring to remain operating in the high stiffness state. [col. 5, lines 6-9]
Claim 15:
Taniguchi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 14.
Taniguchi also disclose computer software which, when executed on a processor of a control system, is arranged to cause the processor to perform the method [Fig. 1; a person having ordinary skill would recognize that a control unit has a processor].
Claim 16:
Taniguchi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 12.
Taniguchi also disclose a vehicle. [Claim 1]
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniguchi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Watson et al. (US 2003/0182042 A1) hereinafter Watson.
Claim 2:
Taniguchi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Taniguchi doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the spring state hold condition is satisfied when a magnitude of an adjusted acceleration is above a hold threshold, wherein the adjusted acceleration is determined in dependence upon the rate of change of acceleration.
However, Watson does disclose wherein the spring state hold condition is satisfied when a magnitude of an adjusted acceleration is above a hold threshold, wherein the adjusted acceleration is determined in dependence upon the rate of change of acceleration.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the control system of Taniguchi with the filter of Watson to process the acceleration signal for use by the controller.
Claim 3:
Taniguchi and Watson, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 2.
Taniguchi doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the control system is further configured to, when the air spring is operating in the high stiffness state during vehicle motion, receive a signal indicative of an acceleration of the vehicle, the adjusted acceleration being determined also in dependence upon the acceleration.
However, Watson does disclose wherein the control system is further configured to, when the air spring is operating in the high stiffness state during vehicle motion, receive a signal indicative of an acceleration of the vehicle, the adjusted acceleration being determined also in dependence upon the acceleration. [¶29]
Claim 5:
Taniguchi and Watson, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 3.
Taniguchi also discloses wherein the signal indicative of acceleration comprises at least one signal part, the at least one signal part indicative of one of: a lateral acceleration of the vehicle; and a longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle; wherein the control system is configured to, if the spring state hold condition is determined to be satisfied with respect to any of the at least one signal part, output the hold control signal to cause the air spring to remain operating in the high stiffness state. [Claim 1]
Claim(s) 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniguchi and Watson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yasui et al. (US 2005/0179221 A1) hereinafter Yasui.
Claim 6:
Taniguchi and Watson, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 3.
Taniguchi doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the signal indicative of acceleration is based upon an estimated acceleration of the vehicle.
However, Yasui does disclose wherein the signal indicative of acceleration is based upon an estimated acceleration of the vehicle. [¶49]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the control system of Taniguchi and Watson with the estimated acceleration signal calculation of Yasui to determine needed variables based on calculations reducing the need for additional sensors.
Claim 7:
Taniguchi, Watson, and Yasui as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 6.
Taniguchi doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the signal indicative of acceleration is based upon an input relating to one or more of: a steering angle of the vehicle obtained from a user steering wheel input; and an acceleration of the vehicle obtained from one or more drive pedal inputs.
However, Yasui does disclose wherein the signal indicative of acceleration is based upon an input relating to one or more of: a steering angle of the vehicle obtained from a user steering wheel input; and an acceleration of the vehicle obtained from one or more drive pedal inputs. [¶49]
Claim(s) 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniguchi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yasui et al. (US 2005/0179221 A1) hereinafter Yasui.
Claim 10:
Taniguchi, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Taniguchi doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the signal indicative of the rate of change of acceleration is based upon an estimated rate of change of acceleration of the vehicle.
However, Yasui does disclose wherein the signal indicative of the rate of change of acceleration is based upon an estimated rate of change of acceleration of the vehicle. [¶49]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the control system of Taniguchi with the estimated acceleration signal calculation of Yasui to determine needed variables based on calculations reducing the need for additional sensors.
Claim 11:
Taniguchi and Yasui, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all the limitations of claim 10.
Taniguchi doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the signal indicative of the rate of change of acceleration is based upon an input relating to one or more of: a steering angle of the vehicle obtained from a user steering wheel input; and an acceleration of the vehicle obtained from one or more drive pedal inputs.
However, Yasui does disclose wherein the signal indicative of the rate of change of acceleration is based upon an input relating to one or more of: a steering angle of the vehicle obtained from a user steering wheel input; and an acceleration of the vehicle obtained from one or more drive pedal inputs. [¶49]
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 8 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not anticipate or render obvious, “wherein the magnitude of the adjusted acceleration decays at a slower rate than a corresponding magnitude of the acceleration,” as disclosed in claim 4 or, “wherein the magnitude of the adjusted acceleration determined in dependence upon the rate of change of acceleration decays at a slower rate than a corresponding magnitude of the adjusted acceleration determined in dependence upon the acceleration,” as disclosed in claim 8
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KURT P LIETHEN whose telephone number is (313)446-6596. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 8 AM - 4 PM.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571)272-1196. 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.
KURT P. LIETHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/KURT PHILIP LIETHEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747