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 .
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on September 23, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined below.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 14, and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 12128726 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claimed are a broader recitation of the patented invention of the parent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed to a computer program product without explicitly defining the computer program product as non-transitory.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Furuta, US 20210379953 A1, hereinafter referred to as Furuta.
As to claim 1, Furuta discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising:
determining, by a controller operatively coupled to a processor, movement of a front damper of a vehicle, an amount of time between a first time when the movement of the front damper occurs and a second time when a rear damper of the vehicle will experience a condition which caused the movement of the front damper, and a front damping coefficient of the front damper (Front wheel displacement – See at least ¶150; Time between front movement and time when rear will experience condition that caused movement of first – See at least Fig. 4);
determining, by the controller, a rear damping coefficient of the rear damper configured to prevent rear suspension impact with an end stop caused by rear suspension compression or rebound based on the movement of the front damper, the amount of time, and the front damping coefficient (Final target force for rear wheel based on front wheel and time – See at least ¶10-15 and Fig. 4; Damping coefficients used in disclosed suspension control – See at least ¶133; Target control force for when wheel passes position at which disturbance occurs – See at least ¶143; Examiner notes the purpose of a suspension is to prevent bottoming out, or collisions between a vehicle body and wheel/hub structure.);
controlling, by the controller, a damper adjustment of the rear damper based on the rear damping coefficient (Control force sent to actuator – See at least¶143; Determined force includes coefficient – See at least Equation 6 ¶141.).
Independent claims 8, and 15 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, because the claims recite nearly identical subject matter but for minor differences due to the claims being directed to different statutory categories.
As to claims 7, and 14, Furuta discloses preventing, by the controller, a full compression or rebound of the rear damper, wherein the preventing is facilitated using the rear damping coefficient (Control force sent to actuator – See at least¶143; Determined force includes coefficient – See at least Equation 6 ¶141; Examiner notes the purpose of a suspension is to prevent bottoming out, or collisions between a vehicle body and wheel/hub structure.)..
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 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuta, US 20210379953 A1, in view of Ogawa et al., US 5555500 A, hereinafter referred to as Furuta, and Ogawa, respectively.
As to claims 2, 9, and 16, Furuta fails to explicitly disclose determining, by the controller, a temperature of a fluid inside the rear damper, and wherein the controller determines the rear damping coefficient based further on the temperature of the fluid inside the rear damper. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Furuta and include the feature of determining, by the controller, a temperature of a fluid inside the rear damper, and wherein the controller determines the rear damping coefficient based further on the temperature of the fluid inside the rear damper, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Ogawa teaches it is well-known and routine in the vehicle suspension control arts to control damping characteristics in consideration of damper fluid temperature (See at least Abstract of Ogawa).
As to claims 3, 10, and 17, Furuta fails to explicitly disclose determining, by the controller, a temperature of the rear damper, and wherein the controller determines the rear damping coefficient based further on the temperature of the rear damper. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Furuta and include the feature of determining, by the controller, a temperature of the rear damper, and wherein the controller determines the rear damping coefficient based further on the temperature of the rear damper, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Ogawa teaches it is well-known and routine in the vehicle suspension control arts to control damping characteristics in consideration of damper fluid temperature (See at least Abstract of Ogawa).
The combination of Furuta and Ogawa fails to explicitly performing the above for gas dampers. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Furuta and include the feature of applying the above control to gas dampers, with a reasonable expectation of success, because a person of ordinary skill the art would readily and unquestionably recognize gas and oil dampers are obvious variants given the ubiquity of both gas and fluid shock absorbing components like the suspension components of Furuta and Ogawa.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuta, US 20210379953 A1, in view of Sohn, US 20170197485 A1, hereinafter referred to as Furuta, and Sohn, respectively.
As to claims 5, 12, and 19, Furuta fails to explicitly disclose the controller determines the rear damping coefficient based further on at least one of a body corner velocity of the vehicle or a body corner acceleration of the vehicle. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Furuta and include the feature of the controller determines the rear damping coefficient based further on at least one of a body corner velocity of the vehicle or a body corner acceleration of the vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Sohn teaches it is well-known and routine in the vehicle suspension control arts to control damping characteristics in consideration of rolling vehicle dynamics (See at least Abstract of Sohn).
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuta, US 20210379953 A1, in view of Fujita, US 20070124051 A1, hereinafter referred to as Furuta, and Fujita, respectively.
As to claims 6, 13, and 20, Furuta fails to explicitly disclose the controller determines the rear damping coefficient based on a process that prioritizes vehicle occupant comfort higher than vehicle stability, and further comprising: in response to detecting that a safety-related system of the vehicle has activated, modifying, by the controller, the process to determine the rear damping coefficient based on prioritizing the vehicle stability higher than the vehicle occupant comfort. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Furuta and include the feature of the controller determines the rear damping coefficient based on a process that prioritizes vehicle occupant comfort higher than vehicle stability, and further comprising: in response to detecting that a safety-related system of the vehicle has activated, modifying, by the controller, the process to determine the rear damping coefficient based on prioritizing the vehicle stability higher than the vehicle occupant comfort, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Fujita teaches it is well-known and routine in the vehicle suspension control arts to control damping characteristics in consideration of emergency situations that requires stiffer, i.e., less comfortable, suspension characteristics (See at least ¶11 and 15 of Fujita)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 11, and 18 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lail Kleinman whose telephone number is (571)272-6286. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at (571)272-1516. 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.
/LAIL A KLEINMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668