Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications filed on 3/30/2026. No other claims have been amended, added, or canceled. Accordingly, claims 1- 7 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s representative argues, in substance, that neither Koenig nor Okuyama teach and/or disclose: a location based automatic vehicle suspension adjustment.
In response to applicant’s argument, initially, the examiner would like to point out that it appears that the applicants are arguing against the references individually. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As was specifically stated in the non-final office action mailed 12/29/2025, Koenig was only used to disclose determining a location of the vehicle and that the vehicle had a front and rear suspension system. Whereas Okuyama was used to disclose automatically adjusting the vehicle suspension system thus the combination of Koenig and Okuyama still teaches the features for which it was cited.
Additionally, the examiner contends that applicant’s representative employs broad language and as such the examiner reserves the right to interpret the claims broadly. As such the examiner contends that the explicit language of the instantly contested claim(s) limitation does not require the location of the vehicle to be determined using a GPS—as applicant’s representative argues in pages 5-6 of the instant remarks; instead, the claim simply states “based on the location of the vehicle automatically adjusting…a suspension system of the vehicle”. With this in mind the examiner asserts that Okuyama’s disclosure of adjusting vehicular attitude, i.e., the suspension system, based on the location, as in whether the vehicle is located on smooth straight road versus a curved undulated road, reads on this limitation. For further clarification refer to rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Koenig et al. (hereinafter Koenig, US. 8994494 B2) in view of Okuyama et al. (hereinafter Okuyama, 5037128).
As per claim 1, Koenig discloses: a method of controlling a vehicle, the method comprising the steps of:
determining a location of the vehicle (see Koenig at least fig. 1- 29 and in particular fig. 3, 22; navigation module [180], GPS).
Koenig further discloses a vehicle having a front and rear suspension system (see Koenig at least 26-29) and allowing for operation of the vehicle with different settings/parameters (see Koenig at least 18; limiting/adjusting settings on the vehicle to represent different driving modes—novice, cruise and expert modes) and syncing GPS data with collected data of the vehicle (see Koenig at least 3, 22).
However, Koenig does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the vehicle automatically adjusting with an electronic controller a suspension system of the vehicle.
Nevertheless, Okuyama—who is in the same field of endeavor—discloses the vehicle automatically adjusting with an electronic controller a suspension system of the vehicle (see Okuyama at least fig. 1- 6 and in particular fig. 1-2 and Summary; suspension system disposed between a vehicular body).
One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the given invention, would have been motivated to combine Okuyama’s controlling of the suspension system with those of Koenig’s in order to provide for a better user experience (i.e., by providing an active suspension system which provides stability and riding comfort on straight and/or undulated road surfaces).
Motivation to combine Koenig and Okuyama not only comes from knowledge well known in the art but also from Okuyama (see Okuyama at last Summary).
Both Koenig and Okuyama disclose claim 2: further comprising the steps of: receiving by the electronic controller an input to adjust the suspension system of the vehicle through a human machine interface of the vehicle; and adjusting the suspension system with the electronic controller based on the received input (see Koenig at least 3, 22 & 26-29 and see Okuyama at least fig. 1- 6 and in particular fig. 1-2 and Summary).
Motivation to combine Koenig and Okuyama, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Koenig and Okuyama disclose claim 3: wherein the suspension includes at least one electrically controlled shock having at least one adjustable damping characteristic, and wherein the step of based on the location of the vehicle automatically adjusting with an electronic controller a suspension system of the vehicle includes the step of automatically adjusting the at least one damping characteristic of the at least one electrically controlled shock (see Koenig at least 3, 22 & 26-29 and see Okuyama at least fig. 1- 6 and in particular fig. 1-2 and Summary).
Motivation to combine Koenig and Okuyama, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Koenig and Okuyama disclose claim 4: wherein the step of automatically adjusting the at least one damping characteristic of the at least one electrically controlled shock includes the step of providing an adjustment to a compression damping of the at least one electrically controlled shock (see Koenig at least 3, 22 & 26-29 and see Okuyama at least fig. 1- 6 and in particular fig. 1-2 and Summary).
Motivation to combine Koenig and Okuyama, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Koenig and Okuyama disclose claim 5: wherein the step of automatically adjusting the at least one damping characteristic of the at least one electrically controlled shock includes the step of providing an adjustment to a rebound damping of the at least one electrically controlled shock (see Koenig at least 3, 22 & 26-29 and see Okuyama at least fig. 1- 6 and in particular fig. 1-2 and Summary).
Motivation to combine Koenig and Okuyama, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Koenig and Okuyama disclose claim 6: wherein the step of automatically adjusting the at least one damping characteristic of the at least one electrically controlled shock includes the step of providing an adjustment to a compression damping of the at least one electrically controlled shock and an adjustment to a rebound damping of the at least one electrically controlled shock (see Koenig at least 3, 22 & 26-29 and see Okuyama at least fig. 1- 6 and in particular fig. 1-2 and Summary).
Motivation to combine Koenig and Okuyama, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
Both Koenig and Okuyama disclose claim 7: wherein the suspension includes a front electrically controlled shock having at least one adjustable front shock damping characteristic and a rear electrically controlled shock having at least one adjustable rear shock damping characteristic, and wherein the step of based on the location of the vehicle automatically adjusting with an electronic controller a suspension system of the vehicle includes the step of automatically adjusting the at least one front shock damping characteristic of the front electrically controlled shock independent of the at least one rear shock damping characteristic of the rear electrically controlled shock (see Koenig at least 3, 22 & 26-29 and see Okuyama at least fig. 1- 6 and in particular fig. 1-2 and Summary).
Motivation to combine Koenig and Okuyama, in the instant claim, is the same as that in claim 1 above.
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 MACEEH ANWARI whose telephone number is 571-272-7591. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00 PM ES.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Ortiz can be reached on 571-272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MACEEH ANWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights