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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recites “an suspension” in line 2. The examiner believes that a more grammatically correct recitation or the limitation would be “a suspension”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Muragishi et al. (U.S. 20100204881).
In re claim 13, Muragishi teaches a noise reduction method for an automobile suspension, comprising:
a vibration detection step of detecting vibration transmitted from a suspension damper to a top mount portion using a vibration detection unit (fig. 1, fig. 10; Reference symbol 43 denotes a vibration sensor (acceleration sensor) provided in a predetermined position of a passenger seat 44 or the automobile body frame 41; [0058]) and transmitting a measurement value to a control unit (fig. 1, fig. 10; the stabilizing controller 60 receives input of a signal of a relative velocity between the body of the linear actuator 31 fixed on the automobile body 41 and the auxiliary mass 32 that reciprocates, and feeds it back to a driving command; [0059]);
an anti-phase vibration calculation step of calculating a target anti-phase vibration value based on the vibration measurement value in the control unit (the vibrations at the seat 44 are detected and command values for vibrations to be suppressed and for vibrations to be generated are found based on the frequency of the engine 40 and the vibrations at the seat 44, and a control signal in which these command values are superimposed, is output to the linear actuator 31; [0097] and as indicated in claim 15); and
an anti-phase vibration generation (fig. 1, fig. 10; At this time, the stabilizing controller 60 receives input of a signal of a relative velocity between the body of the linear actuator 31 fixed on the automobile body 41 and the auxiliary mass 32 that reciprocates, and feeds it back to a driving command. As a result a damping force is generated for the linear actuator 31 to reduce the sensitivity with respect to disturbance vibrations that the automobile body frame 41 receives due to uneven road surfaces. As a result, the influence of disturbance vibrations can be reduced; [0059]) and excitation step of generating anti-phase vibration in an anti-phase vibration generation unit (fig. 10; there is described an operation for suppressing only vibrations that should be suppressed among the vibrations that occur in the automobile body frame 41, while generating vibrations to be applied superimposably; [0095]) to be applied to the top mount portion (as suggested via. fig. 10; note: linear actuator 31 is shown mounted on a top portion of the body frame 41) under the control of the control unit (as indicated above).
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 1-2, 7-9 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muragishi et al. (U.S. 20100204881) in view of Anderson et al. (U.S. 20150224845).
In re claim 1, Muragishi teaches a noise reduction system for an automobile suspension (fig. 1, fig. 10; [abstract]), comprising:
a vibration detection unit (fig. 1, fig. 10; Reference symbol 43 denotes a vibration sensor (acceleration sensor) provided in a predetermined position of a passenger seat 44 or the automobile body frame 41; [0058]) ;
an anti-phase vibration generator (fig. 1, fig. 10; At this time, the stabilizing controller 60 receives input of a signal of a relative velocity between the body of the linear actuator 31 fixed on the automobile body 41 and the auxiliary mass 32 that reciprocates, and feeds it back to a driving command. As a result a damping force is generated for the linear actuator 31 to reduce the sensitivity with respect to disturbance vibrations that the automobile body frame 41 receives due to uneven road surfaces. As a result, the influence of disturbance vibrations can be reduced; [0059]) that is mounted on a top mount portion of a vehicle body (as suggested via. fig. 10; note: linear actuator 31 is shown mounted on a top portion of the body frame 41) on which the suspension damper is mounted and generates anti-phase vibration in an opposite phase to vibration generated when the damper operates (fig. 10; there is described an operation for suppressing only vibrations that should be suppressed among the vibrations that occur in the automobile body frame 41, while generating vibrations to be applied superimposably.; [0095]) to be applied to the top mount portion; and
a control unit (fig. 10; control section 52; [0096]) that receives a measurement value detected by the vibration detection unit (as indicated in fig. 10; the frequency of the engine 40 that vibrates the automobile body frame 41 and the vibrations at the seat 44 are detected and command values for vibrations to be suppressed and for vibrations to be generated are found based on the frequency of the engine 40 and the vibrations at the seat 44, and a control signal in which these command values are superimposed, is output to the linear actuator 31; [0097]; Here, according to the superposition principle, for the body/frame vibrations to be actively suppressed, then vibrations from the linear actuator have to be out of phase with the body/frame vibrations, as is known in the art and suggested by Muragishi. Further, maximum suppression/dampening/cancellation occurs when the vibrations are 180 degrees out of phase, whereas when the vibrations from are in phase, then the amplitudes add, and the resulting vibrations increase in amplitude), calculates a target anti-phase vibration (as indicated in fig. 10 and [0096-0097] and further explained above), and controls the anti-phase vibration generator (as indicated in fig. 10 and [0096-0097]).
Muragishi lacks
a vibration detection unit that is mounted on a suspension damper;
Anderson teaches an analogous active vehicle suspension system having
a vibration detection unit (fig. 1-20; accelerometer 1-1328… An accelerometer, rotary position sensor, and/or pressure sensors may be contained within the active suspension housing and may be combined and adapted with the vehicle sensors to sense a wheel and/or body event. These signals may be used for control of the active suspension actuator; [0972]) that is mounted on a suspension damper (as indicated in fig. 1-20 and [0972]).
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 Muragishi, to incorporate mounting the vibration detecting unit on a suspension damper, as clearly suggested and taught by Anderson, since it is generally well known in the art to mount body/chassis sensors, such as vibration sensors and accelerometers at or near the strut towers/suspension dampers (which are connected to the chassis at the strut towers) and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention (in this case moving a sensor location from one sprung mass location (the seat) to another sprung mass location, such as the top portion of a suspension damper (i.e. a strut connected to the strut tower)) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
In re claim 2, Muragishi as modified by Anderson teach the noise reduction system of claim 1, and Anderson further teaches wherein
the vibration detection unit (accelerometer 1-1328) is mounted on a rod of the damper (as indicated in fig. 1-20 and [0972]).
In re claim 7, Muragishi as modified by Anderson teach the noise reduction system of claim 1, and Muragishi further teaches wherein
the anti-phase vibration generator (linear actuator 31; [0059]) is a voice coil type (it is possible to use a linear actuator such as voice coil motor; [0098]).
In re claim 8, Muragishi as modified by Anderson teach the noise reduction system of claim 1, Muragishi as modified by Anderson necessarily results in wherein
the anti-phase vibration generator (linear actuator 31; [0059]) of Muragishi is provided in an upper portion of the top mount portion at a position spaced apart from a fastening portion where the damper and the top mount portion are fastened toward an interior of a vehicle (as shown in fig. 1-20 of Anderson).
In re claim 9, Muragishi as modified by Anderson teach the noise reduction system of claim 1, and Muragishi further teaches wherein
the anti-phase vibration generator (linear actuator 31; [0059]) generates anti-phase vibration in a direction parallel to an operating direction of the damper (note: linear actuators operate in a linear fashion, and thus the anti-phase vibration necessarily occurs in a direction parallel to an operating direction of the damper).
In re claim 18, see claims 8-9 and 13 above.
In re claim 19, see claims 9 and 18 above.
In re claim 20, see claims 8 and 13 above.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muragishi et al. (U.S. 20100204881) in view of Anderson et al. (U.S. 20150224845) and in view of Kobayashi et al. (U.S. 5386372).
In re claim 10, Muragishi as modified by Anderson teach the noise reduction system of claim 1, and Anderson further teaches wherein
the control unit is a digital signal processor (DSP) (The processor is typically a microcontroller, FPGA, DSP, or other embedded processor solution, capable of executing software implementing suspension protocols; [1441]) using a variable step size least mean squares (VSS-LMS) algorithm.
Muragishi lacks
using a variable step size least mean squares (VSS-LMS) algorithm.
Kobayashi teaches an analogous vibration/noise control system for a vehicle (abstract), also using the least mean squares method (as explained below) and further teaches
using a variable step size least mean squares (VSS-LMS) algorithm (The adaptive algorithm processor 508 is responsive to the error signal .epsilon. to renew a correction amount to a desired value by the use of a so-called step-size parameter .mu. (a parameter which controls an amount of correction to be made whenever the error signal .epsilon. is supplied to the adaptive control circuit 503), to thereby establish causality such that the error signal .epsilon. becomes the minimum value. More specifically, the LMS processor 508 calculates to form the optimum control signal such that the mean square error value {E(e.sup.2)} of the error signal .epsilon. will become the minimum value. Thus, the transfer characteristics of the control signal which is inverse in phase to the reference signal x is changed so as to reduce vibrations and noises; [Col. 2, ln 3-27]; Here, the step size .mu. is varied as the processor uses the LMS algorithm, as further indicated in [Col. 25, ln 3-37]).
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 Muragishi, to incorporate using a variable step size least mean squares (VSS-LMS) algorithm, as clearly suggested and taught by Kobayashi, in order to provide a vibration/noise control system for a vehicle, which is capable of properly performing very accurate adaptive control of periodic or semi-periodic vibrations and noises occurring from vibration/noise sources in the vehicle at an improved converging speed, and at the same time capable of coping with incessantly changing vibrations and noises ([Col. 4, ln. 63-Col. 5, ln 2])
Claims 11-12, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muragishi et al. (U.S. 20100204881) in view of Anderson et al. (U.S. 20150224845) and in view of Nakao et al. (U.S. 5651072).
In re claim 11, Muragishi as modified by Anderson teach the noise reduction system of claim 1, but lack
a noise detection unit that detects interior noise of an automobile and transmits a detection signal to the control unit.
Nakao teaches
a noise detection unit that detects interior noise of an automobile and transmits a detection signal to the control unit (fig. 1; Each of the microphones 7-1 to 7-L detects noise in the cabin and outputs a noise signal to a controller 8. The controller 8 causes the speaker 3 to output control sound in the cabin on the basis of the noise signals, thereby damping the noise in the cabin; [Col. 4, ln 33-47]; note: in [Col. 4, ln 33-42] Nakao states that microphones can be vibration sensors).
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 Muragishi, to incorporate a noise detection unit that detects interior noise of an automobile and transmits a detection signal to the control unit, as clearly suggested and taught by Nakao, in order to effectively damp various vibrations generated in the vehicle body ([Col. 1, ln 36-37]).
In re claim 12, Muragishi as modified by Anderson and Nakao teach the noise reduction system of claim 11, and Nakao further teaches wherein
the control unit corrects the anti-phase vibration according to the noise detected by the noise detection unit (The structure of the control sound signal generator 15 will be described with reference to FIG. 3, hereinbelow. Reference numeral 20 denotes a digital filter which is provided for each of the microphones 7-1 to 7-L and is modeled on the transmission function H (H1 to HL) of the path where the speaker 3 outputs control sound under the control of a control sound signal A output from the control sound signal generator 15, noise in the cabin is changed by the control sound, the change in noise is detected by the corresponding microphone and the noise signal S is input into the control sound signal generator 15. [Col. 5, ln 5-15]; noise in the cabin of a vehicle is damped by a control sound output from a speaker. The vibration damping system of this embodiment has a plurality of vibration sensors (microphones) and the sensitivity ratios of the vibration sensors are changed by changing the sensitivity of a predetermined vibration sensor; [Col. 4, ln 25-32]).
In re claim 14, see claims 11 and 13 above.
In re claim 15, Muragishi as modified by Anderson and Nakao teach the noise reduction method of claim 14, and Nakao further teaches
a noise comparison step of comparing the measured noise value transmitted to the control unit and a target noise value (Each of the microphones 7-1 to 7-L detects noise in the cabin and outputs a noise signal to a controller 8. The controller 8 causes the speaker 3 to output control sound in the cabin on the basis of the noise signals, thereby damping the noise in the cabin; [Col. 4, ln 43-47]; Here, the microphones detect noise in the cabin and output a noise signal to a controller, and this output is the measured noise value. The controller then causes the speaker to output a control sound based upon the noise signals. Here, it is implied that the level of the sound output by the speaker(s) is based upon a target noise value, such as a gain value).
In re claim 16, Muragishi as modified by Anderson and Nakao teach the noise reduction method of claim 15, and Muragishi further teaches
an anti-phase vibration correction step of correcting a target anti-phase vibration value when the measured noise value is determined to be greater than the target noise value in the noise comparison step (The difference value between the actual command signal and the output of the ideal actuator inverse characteristic section 67 is fed back as a correction value of the command signal, and thereby the actual actuator can behave as the ideal actuator. The current control section 65, based on the current detected by the current detection section 631 and the command signal output from the ideal actuator inverse characteristic section 67, derives an optimum driving amount (control amount) of the linear actuator so that the optimum spring characteristic and damping characteristic for the excitation section 30 to damp the vibration of the automobile body frame 41 can be obtained; [0117]).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muragishi et al. (U.S. 20100204881) in view of Anderson et al. (U.S. 20150224845) and in further view of Starke et al. (U.S. 20170153170).
In re claim 3, Muragishi as modified by Anderson teach the noise reduction system of claim 2, but lack wherein
the vibration detection unit includes:
a sensor jig that is detachably screwed to the rod; and
a vibration sensor provided in the sensor jig.
Starke teaches an analogous vibration/acceleration sensing device (fig. 7a-7b) and further teaches
the vibration detection unit includes:
a sensor jig (as shown in fig. 7a-7b) that is detachably screwed to the rod (connection portion 206 is in the form of a thread for connection to a load cell and/or to an acceleration device; [0088]); and
a vibration sensor provided in the sensor jig (an acceleration device; [0088]; note: the acceleration device is typically an accelerometer; further note: the sensor jig/test arrangement of Stark is referred to as a “Split-Hopkinson pressure bar as indicated in [0119], however, this sort of arrangement is also known as a kolsky bar, where a rod tends to be used with a strain gauge/accelerometer being used as a sensor).
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 Muragishi, to incorporate a known technique of setting up a sensor measurement device/jig, wherein the vibration detection unit includes: a sensor jig that is detachably screwed to the rod; and a vibration sensor provided in the sensor jig, as clearly suggested and taught by Starke, since this technique/sensor device setup is generally well known in the art to removably mount sensors, such as vibration sensors and accelerometers at or near the desired location, to obtain relatively “clean” sensor data.
In re claim 4, Muragishi as modified by Anderson and Starke teach the noise reduction system of claim 3, and Starke further teaches wherein
the vibration sensor is a piezoelectric sensor (a force signal 302 which is measured by a piezoelectric sensor are shown. Although the force signal has slight vibrations, the vibrations are within an extent which is suitable for test evaluation; [0111]).
In re claim 5, Muragishi as modified by Anderson and Starke teach the noise reduction system of claim 4, but lack explicitly stating wherein
the piezoelectric sensor is a thin film piezoelectric sensor.
However, a thin film piezoelectric sensor is considered to be generally included within the broad group of piezoelectric sensors, as is considered to be generally included with the broad category of piezoelectric sensors as taught by Starke in ([0111]) and explained in claim 4 above.
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muragishi et al. (U.S. 20100204881) in view of Anderson et al. (U.S. 20150224845) in view of Starke et al. (U.S. 20170153170) and in further view of Schubert (U.S. 20010044685).
In re claim 6, Muragishi as modified by Anderson and Starke teach the noise reduction system of claim 3, but lack wherein
the vibration detection unit is screwed to an end portion of the rod exposed upwardly of the top mount portion.
Schubert teaches an analogous vibration/acceleration sensing device (fig. 3-5; [abstract]) and further teaches
the vibration detection unit is screwed to an end portion of the rod exposed upwardly of the top mount portion (as shown in fig. 3-5; Bolt/sleeve 110 includes a tapped hole 120 coaxial to piston 72 to receive a threaded post 122 of movement sensor 84, thereby securely mounting sensor 84 to piston 72; [0047]; note: fig. 3, indicated that the sensor 84 is connected to the rod end, and not the piston end as indicated in [0047]; note: [0047] further states that Sensor 84 preferably includes an accelerometer).
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 Muragishi, to incorporate a known technique of securely attaching a sensor to a rod of a shock absorber, as clearly suggested and taught by Schubert, since this technique/sensor device setup is generally well known in the art to removably mount sensors, such as vibration sensors and accelerometers at or near the desired location, to obtain relatively “clean” sensor data.
In re claim 17, see claims 6 and 13 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D BAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5692. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5625. 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.
/JOHN D BAILEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LOGAN M KRAFT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747