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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 5/13/26 has been entered.
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) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Igrashi (US PG Pub No. 2016/0272211) in view of Hyun et al (US PG Pub No. 2021/0094534)
Regarding claim 1, Igarashi teaches An apparatus for controlling a vehicle, the apparatus comprising: a sensor configured to acquire information about a road; and
a processor configured to
determine whether the vehicle passes over a speed bump based on the information about the road, and (paragraph 30 50a in pitch vibration damping control calculated based on wheel force and torque paragraph 32 external force is a bump)
control a pitch motion and a bounce motion made as the vehicle passes through the speed bump, by determining a motor torque when the vehicle passes through the speed bump. (paragraph 206 and 207 paragraph 32; drive torque adjusted 80 pitch/bounce is suppressed).
Regarding claim 2, Igarashi teaches wherein the processor is configured to produce a vibration motion equation by transforming a motion equation corresponding to the pitch motion and the bounce motion made as the vehicle passes through the speed bump, to be in a modal coordinate system. (paragraph 32 displacements; dz/dt, dtheta/dt model paragraph 37 reduce state variables in the bounce direction and pitch direction to zero using theory of optimum regulator is determined).
Igrashi does not explicitly teach however Hyun teaches wherein the processor is configured to determine the motor torque based on whether a motor is provided in both a front wheel and a rear wheel of the vehicle, when the vehicle passes over the speed bump. (paragraph 71 torque for controlling vehicle both front and rear wheels. Paragraph 73 +5Nm to front and +5Nm to rear wheels paragraph 80).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Igrashi based on the teachings of Hyun to teach wherein the processor is configured to determine the motor torque based on whether a motor is provided in both a front wheel and a rear wheel of the vehicle, when the vehicle passes over the speed bump. The motivation would be to improve ride comfort (Hyun abstract)
Regarding claim 3, Igarashi teaches wherein the processor is configured to calculate i) a first modal speed corresponding to a pitch angular speed (equation 1b paragraph 38) and ii) a second modal speed corresponding to a bounce speed, using the motion vibration equation. (equation 1a paragraph 38).
Regarding claim 4, Igarashi teaches wherein the pitch angular speed is calculated based on a pitch angle made through the pitch motion. (equation 1b paragraph 38).
Regarding claim 5, Igarashi teaches wherein the bounce speed is calculated based on a displacement in a vertical direction that is made through the bounce motion (Equation 1a paragarph 38).
Regarding claim 6, Igarashi teaches wherein the processor is configured to calculate i) first modal force corresponding to the first modal speed and ii) second modal force corresponding to the second modal speed, based on the vibration motion equation. (paragraph 43; C4 state feedback Equation 1a and 1b; driver requested torque; induces pitch, pitch/bounce vibration in vehicle body suppressed; natural frequency eliminated)
Regarding claim 7, Igarashi teaches wherein the processor is configured to:
determine a first motor torque based on the first modal force; and
determine a second motor torque based on the second modal force. (paragraph 43 and 45 Tw wheel torque)
Regarding claim 8, Igarashi teaches wherein the processor is configured to control a motor provided in a front wheel based on the first motor torque, when the vehicle passes through the speed bump. (paragraph 43 and 45 wheel torque).
Regarding claim 9, Igarashi teaches wherein the processor is configured to control a motor provided in a rear wheel based on the second motor torque, when the vehicle passes through the speed bump. (paragraph 43 and 45 wheel torque).
Regarding claims 10-18, see the rejection to claims 1-9 as the limitations are substantially similar
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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 GEORGE C. JIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9898. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM.
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.
/GEORGE C JIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights