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 .
Examiner’s Note
Regarding claims 2, 5, 10, and 13, it appears that claim 5 may be unintentionally dependent on claim 1. Claim 13, containing parallel limitations to claim 5, is dependent on claim 10, containing parallel limitations to claim 2. Therefore, it appears that the limitations of claim 5 are supposed to expound on the limitations of claim 2 rather than being a loosely connected recitation of vehicle control. Examiner recommends amending the dependency of claim 5 if claim 5 is indeed intended to be dependent on claim 2.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the examiner may require and is requiring descriptive text labels. Specifically, the unlabeled rectangular box(es) shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels (see Figures 4 and 5). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 5, and 8 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 line 2 and claim 3 line 2 read “the drive axle” but this is differently worded than the axle in claim 1 therefore making it confusing if this limitation has antecedent basis to the axle of claim 1. Assuming antecedent basis to claim 1’s axle, this should read “the axle” to improve clarity.
Claim 8 line 1 recites “an automotive vehicle comprising”, but there is already antecedent basis for this limitation in claim 1 and the vehicle has already been detailed as comprising various components and therefore should read “the automotive vehicle further comprising” to improve clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 9 recite the limitation "the angular velocity" in lines 9 and 8 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Examiner notes that “the frequency domain” in claims 1 and 9 is considered as having antecedent to the first and second sensor signals as the time domain and the frequency domain are inherent mathematical domains data can be comprised in only requiring well known mathematical conversion between the two.
Claim(s) 2-8 and 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claims 1 and 9 and failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 10, and 12 recite the limitation "the vertical height" in lines 2, 2, 2, 6-7, and 2 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 2 and 10 recite the limitation "the amplitude" in lines 2 and 2 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim 10 and failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claims 3 and 11 recite the limitation "the actual vertical height" in lines 2 and 2 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim(s) 4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claims 3 and 11 and failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claims 5 and 13 recite the limitation "the air volume" in lines 1 and 1-2 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the command signal" in 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1, 3-9, 11-12, and 14-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following limitation:
convert, in the frequency domain, both the one or more first signals and second signals received into respective first and second frequency values;
compare the first frequency values representing the converted possible vibrations onboard the automotive vehicle with the second frequency values representing the converted angular velocity values of the rotating driveshaft; and
diagnose the presence of detected vibrations caused by the driveshaft when at least one of the first frequency values is a harmonic of a corresponding one frequency of the second frequency values.
The limitation recited above, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. The limitation further covers performance of the limitation utilizing mathematical calculations but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a controller, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind or with math. For example, a person can, in their mind or with pen and paper, perform a Fourier Transform of received sensor data (a) wherein frequencies resultant of the transform can then be compared between the two groups of sensor data (b) to determine if there is at least one set of harmonic frequencies between the two groups of sensor data (c). This entire method only requires use of the well-known Fourier Transform, a mathematical calculation, and a simple numerical comparison. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation utilizing mathematical calculations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the controller is/are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using (a) generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The limitation(s) of transmitting sensor data to the controller are insignificant extra pre-solution activities of mere data gathering. Mere data gathering cannot form an inventive concept.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the controller is recited at a high level of generality as detailed above. A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. The limitation of transmitted sensor data to the controller is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) indicated that the function of receiving and sending data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function. If the data is instead transmitted through storage and retrieval from memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 indicated that the function of storing and retrieving data from memory is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 3-8, 11-12, and 14-15 do(es) not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible.
Claims 3, 6-7, 11, and 14-15 are directed towards additional sensors utilized in insignificant extra pre-solution activities of transmitting sensor data to the controller.
Claims 4-5 and 12 are directed towards generally linked real vehicle control. Since the vehicle control within these claims is not a meaningful implementation of the abstract idea (i.e. the claim limitations can be performed without performance of the claimed abstract idea), they act as mere recitations to apply the abstract idea utilizing vehicle control and do not incorporate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 8 recites a generically claimed vehicle. The vehicle is/are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using (a) generic vehicle. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic vehicle cannot provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claim(s) 2 and 10-11 recite(s) further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. These claims recite the limitation of “adjusting the vertical height… when the amplitude of the at least one frequency… is higher than a preset threshold.” This limitation is real vehicle control that meaningfully incorporates the abstract idea into a practical application beyond general linking. Examiner recommends amending the independent claims to incorporate the limitations of claim 2 and 10 to overcome the 101 rejection of record.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trudeau et al. US 20030023357 A1 (hereinafter Trudeau) in view of Calkins et al. US 20030088346 A1 (hereinafter Calkins).
Regarding claims 1 and 9,
Trudeau teaches
A system for detecting vibrations in an automotive vehicle (Abstract “vehicle”) which comprises at least a chassis (¶ 0021 “truck frame”), a driveline system which includes a rotating driveshaft (¶ 0018 “driveshaft”) and an axle (¶ 0021 “axles”), and a suspension system which includes at least one suspension air bellows (¶ 0009 “the suspension includes air ride suspension elements”), the detecting system at least comprising, suitable to be mounted on board of the automotive vehicle:
a controller (Abstract discloses a control unit monitoring vibration and vehicle parameters).
at least one sensor (¶ 0026 “accelerometer”) which transmits to the controller one or more first signals indicative of vibrations possibly present onboard the automotive vehicle (¶ 0026 discloses the accelerometer detects vibrations wherein measurements are fed into the control unit); and
at least one speed sensor (¶ 0027 discloses measured speed suggesting a speed sensor) which transmits to the controller one or more second signals indicative of values of the vehicle’s components (¶ 0027 discloses that the control unit monitors other operating parameters of the vehicle components).
Trudeau does not teach
at least one speed sensor which transmits to the analyzer one or more second signals indicative of values of the angular velocity of the rotating driveshaft;
converting, in the frequency domain, both the one or more first signals and second signals received into respective first and second frequency values;
comparing the first frequency values representing the converted possible vibrations onboard the automotive vehicle with the second frequency values representing the converted angular velocity values of the rotating driveshaft; and
diagnosing the presence of detected vibrations caused by the driveshaft when at least one of the first frequency values is a harmonic of a corresponding one frequency of the second frequency values.
Calkins teaches
A system for detecting vibrations in an automotive vehicle (Abstract “vehicle”) which comprises at least a chassis (inherent in a vehicle) and a driveline system which includes a rotating driveshaft (Abstract “driveshaft”) and an axle (inherent in a vehicle with a driveshaft), the detecting system at least comprising, suitable to be mounted on board of the automotive vehicle:
an analyzer (Figure 2 “Analyzer” 52);
at least one sensor (¶ 0037 “accelerometer”) which transmits to the analyzer one or more first signals indicative of vibrations possibly present onboard the automotive vehicle (Figure 2 shows the vibration signal is obtained from accelerometers 54a and 54b); and
at least one speed sensor (¶ 0052 discloses obtaining driveshaft RPM suggesting existence of a sensor for obtaining this) which transmits to the analyzer one or more second signals indicative of values of the angular velocity of the rotating driveshaft (Figure 2 shows speed data, including driveshaft speed, are obtained from the vehicle);
wherein the analyzer is configured to:
convert, in the frequency domain, both the one or more first signals and second signals received into respective first (¶ 0066 “performing a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) algorithm to convert data to the frequency domain”) and second frequency values (¶ 0066; see also ¶ 0052 wherein driveshaft speed is originally obtained in a frequency of RPM so conversion has already been completed);
compare the first frequency values representing the converted possible vibrations onboard the automotive vehicle with the second frequency values representing the converted angular velocity values of the rotating driveshaft (¶ 0061 “The analyzer also compares the frequencies of these components with the characteristic frequencies associated with the vehicle's rotating components”); and
diagnose the presence of detected vibrations caused by the driveshaft when at least one of the first frequency values is a harmonic of a corresponding one frequency of the second frequency values (¶ 0062 discloses matching a vibration frequency with a component frequency to diagnose a component causing vibrations).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Trudeau to incorporate the teachings of Calkin such that the monitored sensor data of Trudeau can be all converted into frequency data and compared with driveshaft rotation frequency to determine matching vibrations with the driveshaft as taught by Calkin utilizing the controller of Trudeau instead of the analyzer of Calkin to perform the analysis functions. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to narrow down the cause of vibration in a short amount of time as taught by Calkin (¶ 0014).
Regarding claims 2 and 10, the modified Trudeau reference teaches all of claims 1 and 9 as detailed above.
Trudeau further teaches that
the controller is further configured to generate a command signal for adjusting the vertical height between the chassis and the drive axle (¶ 0009 discloses raising/lowering the ride height when there is an abnormal vibration detected; see also Figure 4) when the amplitude of the at least one frequency is higher than a preset threshold (¶ 0041 “the control unit 20 determines whether the measured vibration exceeds preset vibration limits”; ¶ 0026 discloses vibration measurement may include amplitude suggesting, in combination with ¶ 0041, a comparison of vibration amplitude with a threshold).
Trudeau does not teach that
the at least one frequency is a harmonic of a corresponding one frequency of the second frequency values.
Calkins further teaches that
the at least one frequency is a harmonic of a corresponding one frequency of the second frequency values (¶ 0062).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Trudeau to incorporate the further teachings of Calkins such that a frequency matching can be performed and once a frequency match is detected according to Calkins, the amplitude of said frequency can be compared to a threshold to determine if abnormality requires suspension adjustment according to Trudeau. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to narrow down the cause of vibration in a short amount of time as taught by Calkin (¶ 0014).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, the modified Trudeau reference teaches all of claims 1 and 9 as detailed above.
Trudeau further teaches
a level sensor (¶ 0021 “height sensor(s)”) which provides the controller with signals indicative of the actual vertical height between the chassis and the drive axle (¶ 0021 “the height sensor(s) 52 to detect changes in height of the truck frame 110 relative to the axles 82”).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, the modified Trudeau reference teaches all of claims 3 and 11 as detailed above.
Trudeau further teaches that
the controller is configured to generate a command signal for adjusting the vertical height to a desired value (¶ 0038 “the suspension is adjusted so that ride height is set at a first ride height set point 1002”) based on the signals indicative of the actual vertical height between the chassis and the drive axle provided by the level sensor (¶ 0028 disclose height sensors are used to determine that height adjustment to a prescribed ride height was successful).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, the modified Trudeau reference teaches all of claims 1 and 10 as detailed above.
Trudeau further teaches that
the controller is configured to cause automatically varying of the air volume contained in the at least one suspension air bellows to adjust the vertical height (¶ 0009 discloses inflating or deflating the suspension elements to raise or lower ride height).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, the modified Trudeau reference teaches all of claims 1 and 9 as detailed above. The method steps of claims 7 and 15 repeat the steps provided in claims 1 and 9 above in context of the newly detailed sensor and therefore the same grounds of rejection apply. Only the details of the sensor will be further discussed.
Trudeau further teaches that
the at least one sensor comprises an accelerometer (¶ 0026 “accelerometer”) which is attached to the chassis (¶ 0026 “the sensor 60 may be mounted to… the frame 110”) and transmits to the controller one or more first signals indicative of possible vibrations of the chassis (¶ 0026 discloses accelerometer vibration measurements are fed into the control unit).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Trudeau reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Trudeau further teaches
an automotive vehicle comprising the system for detecting vibrations (Figure 1).
Claim(s) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trudeau as modified by Calkins as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Röhner et al. US 4678203 (hereinafter Röhner).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, the modified Trudeau reference teaches all of claims 1 and 9 as detailed above. The method steps of claims 6 and 14 repeat the steps provided in claims 1 and 9 above in context of the newly detailed sensor and therefore the same grounds of rejection apply. Only the details of the sensor will be further discussed.
Trudeau does not teach that
the at least one sensor comprises at least one pressure sensor which transmits to the controller one or more first signals indicative of pressure values detected in the at least one suspension air bellows.
Röhner teaches that
the at least one sensor comprises at least one pressure sensor (col. 1 line 48 to col. 2 line 14 discloses various pressure sensors used for detecting vibration induced pressure variations) which transmits to the controller one or more first signals indicative of pressure values detected in the at least one suspension air bellows (col. 1 lines 48-62 discloses detection of pressure in an air spring wherein a control device responds to the obtained pressure variation).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Trudeau to incorporate the teachings of Röhner such that the combination of Trudeau with Calkins can further, or in alternative, determine vibrations utilizing one of the disclosed pressure sensors of Röhner in addition to or in substitution of the accelerometers of Trudeau and Calkins wherein the pressure sensor data of Röhner can be processed according to the method of Calkins. If the pressure sensor of Röhner is used in substitution of the accelerometers of Trudeau and Calkins, since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function, but in the very combination itself, that is in the substitution itself. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result of detecting vehicle vibrations renders the claim obvious. If the pressure sensor of Röhner is used in addition to the accelerometers of Trudeau and Calkins, then this modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to provide good isolation of high-frequency vibrations and good damping of low-frequency vibrations substantially independently of variations in supply pressure and spring-supported mass as disclosed in Röhner (col. 3 lines 45-54).
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Anderson et al. US 20150224845 A1 discloses a pressure sensor for an air spring wherein the pressure sensor is utilizing in a process for damping vibrations.
Kakizaki et al. US 4984819 A discloses detecting vibrations utilizing a fluid pressure in a shock absorber.
Kobayashi et al. JP 2022161276 A (a translated copy has been provided by the examiner) teaches comparing unsprung and tortional resonance frequencies wherein, based on the difference, the unsprung frequency can be adjusted to prevent vibrations.
Sano et al. US 20200364952 A1 discloses obtaining driveshaft RPM utilizing a rotational speed sensor, obtaining the oil pressure in a suspension cylinder with a pressure sensor, and utilizing this data to detect abnormal vibrations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashley Tiffany Schoech whose telephone number is (571)272-2937. The examiner can normally be reached 4:45 am - 3:15 pm PT Monday - Thursday.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/A.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669