DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 10-11, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (US Pub No 2019/0047347) in view of Hirao et al. (US Pub No 2022/0388485).
In regard to claim 1,
Yamamoto discloses a control device for controlling a suspension in a vehicle (see the Abstract and Fig 1), the control device comprising:
a memory (“limiter value calculation table” 27 as part of ECU 13, see Fig 9 and Paragraph 0079: “with reference to the limiter value calculation table 27 in which the number of control calculation cycles (corresponding to the damping force variation period) is stored in advance so as to correspond to the stroke speed SS, the ECU 13 calculates the current variation rate (current gradient) CCL per unit time, which corresponds to the present stroke speed SS, and outputs the same to the limiter processing unit 26”); and
a processor (ECU 13, Fig 1) configured to control a damping force provided through the suspension in the vehicle (see Paragraph 0026: “ECU 13, which performs damping force variable control based on the acceleration detection signal AC and the stroke amount detection signal ST”) using information stored in the memory (see Paragraph 0079, also noted immediately above),
wherein the processor is further configured to:
identify a current state of the vehicle using sensor data of a sensor unit of the vehicle (see Paragraph 0026: “acceleration sensor 11, which detects the acceleration of a vehicle (acceleration at the time of vibration), in which the control system 10 is mounted, and outputs an acceleration detection signal AC”; also see Paragraph 0049: “which is the damping force required for the damping force variable damper 16, based on the acceleration detection signal AC output from the acceleration sensor 11”);
perform a first process of obtaining a current damping force for a damper of the suspension according to the identified current state (see step S14 in Fig 2, “calculate present damping force”; also see Paragraph 0037: “the ECU 13 calculates a damping force set in the damping force variable damper 16 at the present time, that is, a present damping force TDFnow (step S14)”);
identify an output range for an output of an actuator of the damper (in step S15 of Fig 2, “calculate current gradient”, the gradient of the current, to potentially be applied to change damping, considered to be an “output range” as broadly claimed), which changes according to a damper speed (see Paragraph 0073: “the stroke speed estimation unit 22, which estimates and outputs the stroke speed SS from the stroke speed corresponding signal ST output by the stroke sensor 12, a limiter value calculation table 27, which calculates and outputs the current variation rate (current gradient) CCL per unit time based on the target current CC and the stroke speed SS, and the limiter processing unit 26, which determines whether or not the difference between the actual current LCCnow and the target current value CC exceeds the current variation amount for each calculation cycle, which is calculated from the calculated current variation rate CCL per unit time, and based on the determined result, outputs, as the instruction current value LCC”; also see Paragraphs 0049 and 0052); and
perform a second process (generally comprising steps S11 and S16 of Fig 2) of determining a target damping force for each damper in consideration of the identified output range.
Firstly, Examiner notes that the claims do not require that the second process of calculating the target damping force be performed before calculating the current damping force.
Further, Examiner notes that while the target damping force is initially calculated in step S11 of Fig 2; it is not until AFTER the current gradient (considered to be the “output range”, see above) is calculated in step S15 that the processor determines, in step S16, either to use the calculated target damping force or not, based on the output range information from step S15. Therefore, the limitation “perform a second process of determining a target damping force… in consideration of the identified output range”, as generally claimed, is considered to be met.
Yamamoto only fails to disclose that the device controls “each damper” of “each suspension” in the vehicle. In other words, Yamamoto simply discusses a suspension of a vehicle as a whole.
However, it is known in the art to configure vehicle suspension systems such that dampers are controlled independently as separate suspensions.
For example, see Hirao, which discloses adjusting “damping force variable dampers” independently (Paragraph 0028) in order to provide consistent vehicle motion to increase steering stability (from Paragraph 0028: “Thus, in this embodiment, the forces of the force generation devices (damping force variable dampers 6 and 9) are independently adjusted in response to the moment control. More specifically, in this embodiment, suspension control commands are increased or reduced independently for the four wheels in accordance with a value through FF control corresponding to the control commands of the moment control and the GV control. Accordingly, the promotion or the suppression of the roll caused by the moment control is canceled to provide a consistent vehicle motion, thereby being capable of increasing steering stability.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to configure the device of Yamamoto such that it controls any present dampers as independent suspensions to increase steering stability, as is known in the art, as demonstrated by Hirao.
In regard to claim 2, Yamamoto modified supra discloses the device of claim 1.
As modified (in view of Hirao), the device of Yamamoto would be control, separately, each suspension (and each respective damper) in the vehicle of Yamamoto.
As such, Yamamoto modified supra discloses further, in the second process (generally comprising steps S11 and S16 of Fig 2, as set forth above), the processor determines the current damping force for a particular damper as the target damping force for the particular damper, in response to a determination that the current damping force for the particular damper is in the output range for the particular damper (step S16 leading to step S17, when difference between the actual current and the target current do not exceed the allowed variation).
In regard to claim 10,
Yamamoto discloses a control method, performed in a suspension system to control a damping force provided through the suspension in a vehicle (see the Title, Abstract, Fig 1, and the flowchart of Fig 2), the control method comprising:
identifying a current state of the vehicle using sensor data of a sensor unit (with at least 11, Fig 1) of the vehicle (see Paragraph 0026: “acceleration sensor 11, which detects the acceleration of a vehicle (acceleration at the time of vibration), in which the control system 10 is mounted, and outputs an acceleration detection signal AC”; also see Paragraph 0049: “which is the damping force required for the damping force variable damper 16, based on the acceleration detection signal AC output from the acceleration sensor 11”);
performing a first process of obtaining a current damping force for a damper of the suspension according to the identified current state (see step S14 in Fig 2, “calculate present damping force”; also see Paragraph 0037: “the ECU 13 calculates a damping force set in the damping force variable damper 16 at the present time, that is, a present damping force TDFnow (step S14)”);
identifying an output range for an output of an actuator of a damper (in step S15 of Fig 2, “calculate current gradient”, the gradient of the current, to potentially be applied to change damping, considered to be an “output range” as broadly claimed), which changes according to a damper speed (see Paragraph 0073: “the stroke speed estimation unit 22, which estimates and outputs the stroke speed SS from the stroke speed corresponding signal ST output by the stroke sensor 12, a limiter value calculation table 27, which calculates and outputs the current variation rate (current gradient) CCL per unit time based on the target current CC and the stroke speed SS, and the limiter processing unit 26, which determines whether or not the difference between the actual current LCCnow and the target current value CC exceeds the current variation amount for each calculation cycle, which is calculated from the calculated current variation rate CCL per unit time, and based on the determined result, outputs, as the instruction current value LCC”; also see Paragraphs 0049 and 0052); and
performing a second process (generally comprising steps S11 and S16 of Fig 2) of determining a target damping force for the damper in consideration of the identified output range.
Firstly, Examiner notes that the claims do not require that the second process of calculating the target damping force be performed before calculating the current damping force.
Further, Examiner notes that while the target damping force is initially calculated in step S11 of Fig 2; it is not until AFTER the current gradient (considered to be the “output range”, see above) is calculated in step S15 that the processor determines, in step S16, either to use the calculated target damping force or not, based on the output range information from step S15. Therefore, the limitation “performing a second process of determining a target damping force… in consideration of the identified output range”, as generally claimed, is considered to be met.
Yamamoto only fails to disclose that the method applies to “each suspension” in the vehicle. In other words, Yamamoto simply discusses a suspension of a vehicle as a whole.
However, it is known in the art to configure vehicle suspension systems such that dampers are controlled independently as separate suspensions.
For example, see Hirao, which discloses adjusting “damping force variable dampers” independently (Paragraph 0028) in order to provide consistent vehicle motion to increase steering stability (from Paragraph 0028: “Thus, in this embodiment, the forces of the force generation devices (damping force variable dampers 6 and 9) are independently adjusted in response to the moment control. More specifically, in this embodiment, suspension control commands are increased or reduced independently for the four wheels in accordance with a value through FF control corresponding to the control commands of the moment control and the GV control. Accordingly, the promotion or the suppression of the roll caused by the moment control is canceled to provide a consistent vehicle motion, thereby being capable of increasing steering stability.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to configure the method of Yamamoto such that it controls any present dampers as independent suspensions to increase steering stability, as is known in the art, as demonstrated by Hirao.
In regard to claim 11, Yamamoto modified supra discloses the device of claim 1.
As modified (in view of Hirao), the device of Yamamoto would be control, separately, each suspension (and each respective damper) in the vehicle of Yamamoto.
As such, Yamamoto modified supra discloses further wherein the performing of the second process (generally comprising steps S11 and S16 of Fig 2, as set forth above) comprises: determining the current damping force for a particular damper as the target damping force for the particular damper, in response to a determination that the current damping force for the particular damper is in the output range for the particular damper (step S16 leading to step S17, when difference between the actual current and the target current do not exceed the allowed variation).
In regard to claim 19,
Yamamoto discloses a vehicle including a suspension system (see Fig 1), wherein the suspension system includes:
a sensor unit (with at least 11, Fig 1) configured to sense sensor data for identifying a current state of the vehicle (see Paragraph 0026: “acceleration sensor 11, which detects the acceleration of a vehicle (acceleration at the time of vibration), in which the control system 10 is mounted, and outputs an acceleration detection signal AC”; also see Paragraph 0049: “which is the damping force required for the damping force variable damper 16, based on the acceleration detection signal AC output from the acceleration sensor 11”); and
a controller (ECU 13) configured to control a damping force provided through the suspension according to the current state of the vehicle, which is identified using the sensor data of the sensor unit (see Paragraph 0026: “ECU 13, which performs damping force variable control based on the acceleration detection signal AC and the stroke amount detection signal ST” and also from Paragraph 0026: “acceleration sensor 11, which detects the acceleration of a vehicle (acceleration at the time of vibration), in which the control system 10 is mounted, and outputs an acceleration detection signal AC”),
the controller is configured to:
perform a first process of obtaining a current damping force for a damper of the suspension according to the current state (see step S14 in Fig 2, “calculate present damping force”; also see Paragraph 0037: “the ECU 13 calculates a damping force set in the damping force variable damper 16 at the present time, that is, a present damping force TDFnow (step S14)”);
identify an output range for an output of an actuator of the damper (in step S15 of Fig 2, “calculate current gradient”, the gradient of the current, to potentially be applied to change damping, considered to be an “output range” as broadly claimed), which changes according to a damper speed (see Paragraph 0073: “the stroke speed estimation unit 22, which estimates and outputs the stroke speed SS from the stroke speed corresponding signal ST output by the stroke sensor 12, a limiter value calculation table 27, which calculates and outputs the current variation rate (current gradient) CCL per unit time based on the target current CC and the stroke speed SS, and the limiter processing unit 26, which determines whether or not the difference between the actual current LCCnow and the target current value CC exceeds the current variation amount for each calculation cycle, which is calculated from the calculated current variation rate CCL per unit time, and based on the determined result, outputs, as the instruction current value LCC”; also see Paragraphs 0049 and 0052); and
perform a second process (generally comprising steps S11 and S16 of Fig 2) of determining a target damping force for each damper in consideration of the identified output range.
Firstly, Examiner notes that the claims do not require that the second process of calculating the target damping force be performed before calculating the current damping force.
Further, Examiner notes that while the target damping force is initially calculated in step S11 of Fig 2; it is not until AFTER the current gradient (considered to be the “output range”, see above) is calculated in step S15 that the processor determines, in step S16, either to use the calculated target damping force or not, based on the output range information from step S15. Therefore, the limitation “perform a second process of determining a target damping force… in consideration of the identified output range”, as generally claimed, is considered to be met.
Yamamoto only fails to disclose that the controller of the vehicle controls “each damper” of “each suspension” in the vehicle. In other words, Yamamoto simply discusses a suspension of a vehicle as a whole.
However, it is known in the art to configure vehicle suspension systems such that dampers are controlled independently as separate suspensions.
For example, see Hirao, which discloses adjusting “damping force variable dampers” independently (Paragraph 0028) in order to provide consistent vehicle motion to increase steering stability (from Paragraph 0028: “Thus, in this embodiment, the forces of the force generation devices (damping force variable dampers 6 and 9) are independently adjusted in response to the moment control. More specifically, in this embodiment, suspension control commands are increased or reduced independently for the four wheels in accordance with a value through FF control corresponding to the control commands of the moment control and the GV control. Accordingly, the promotion or the suppression of the roll caused by the moment control is canceled to provide a consistent vehicle motion, thereby being capable of increasing steering stability.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to configure the vehicle of Yamamoto such that the controller thereof controls any present dampers as independent suspensions to increase steering stability, as is known in the art, as demonstrated by Hirao.
In regard to claim 20,
Yamamoto modified supra discloses the vehicle of claim 1.
Yamamoto does not positively disclose the vehicle further comprising an integrated control system configured to control the suspension, driving, steering, and braking in an integrated manner, wherein the suspension system is included in the integrated control system.
However, Examiner takes Official Notice that it is ubiquitously known throughout the art to fit vehicles with control systems with elements that manage suspension, driving, steering, and braking in an integrated manner and that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the vehicle of Yamamoto thus.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-9 and 12-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but appear they would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regard to claim 3 (from which claim 4 depends), Examiner notes the limitations (emphasis added): “wherein, in the second process, the processor determines the current damping force for a particular damper as the target damping force for the particular damper, in response to determinations that: the current damping force for the particular damper is out of the output range for the particular damper; and that there is no margin in an output of an actuator of a counterpart damper for the particular damper”.
In regard to claim 5 (from which claims 6-9 depend), Examiner noted the limitations (emphasis added): “wherein, in the second process, the processor determines the target damping force for a particular damper by correcting the current damping force for the particular damper, in response to determination that: the current damping force for the particular damper is out of the output range for the particular damper; and that there is a margin in an output of an actuator of a counterpart damper for the particular damper.”.
In regard to claim 12 (from which claim 13 depends), Examiner notes the limitations (emphasis added): “wherein the performing of the second process comprises: determining the current damping force for a particular damper as the target damping force for the particular damper, in response to determinations that the current damping force for the particular damper is out of the output range for the particular damper, and that there is no margin in an output of an actuator of a counterpart damper for the particular damper”.
In regard to claim 14 (from which claims 15-18 depend), Examiner notes the limitations (emphasis added): wherein the performing of the second process comprises: determining the target damping force for a particular damper by correcting the current damping force for the particular damper, in response to determinations that the current damping force for the particular damper is out of the output range for the particular damper, and that there is a margin in an output of an actuator of a counterpart damper for the particular damper.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB M AMICK whose telephone number is (571)272-5790. The examiner can normally be reached Core Hours 10-6 M-F (First Fridays Off).
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.
/JACOB M AMICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747