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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6/3/2026, have been fully considered and the examiner’s responses are given below.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are withdrawn.
The amended independent claims recite a practical application of controlling acceleration of the AV based on the driving constraint data.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are not withdrawn.
The amended limitations of the independent claims are taught by Berntorp (Paragraph 0062, 0068-0069, 0125) “avoid violating the constraints of the vehicle… vehicle commands, such as steering, brake, and throttle”. It is noted that the acceleration can be lateral or longitudinal acceleration such as steering, braking, or throttle accelerating.
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 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 1-3, 11-14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berntorp (US 20220234570 A1, cited in a previous office action) in view of Hao (CN 108394406 A, cited in a previous office action).
Claim 1
Berntorp teaches:
A method comprising (Berntorp - Paragraph 0001, 0069)
identifying suspension stiffness data (Berntorp - Paragraphs 0069, 0071-0073) “a spring constant and a damping coefficient modeling suspension dynamics of the vehicle can be estimated based only on a model of the vehicle roll dynamics”; It is obvious that the suspension stiffness data corresponds to distal ends of an axle because Berntorp teaches roll dynamics
of an autonomous vehicle (AV) (Berntorp - Paragraph 0061) “The vehicle can be entirely human-operated, semi-autonomous, or fully autonomous”
and causing, based on the driving constraint data, performance of a corrective action associated with the AV during the traveling of the at least a portion of a route (Berntorp - Paragraph 0062, 0068-0069, 0125) “The control command 241 can be modified steering command modifying the drivers' 210 reference input to avoid violating the constraints of the vehicle, or it can be the braking commands of the individual tires”
the causing of the performance of the corrective action comprises controlling acceleration of the AV based on the driving constraint data (Berntorp - Paragraph 0062, 0068-0069, 0125) “avoid violating the constraints of the vehicle… vehicle commands, such as steering, brake, and throttle”
Berntorp does not teach:
Suspension deflection data, or determining driving constraint data based on suspension deflection data and suspension stiffness data.
However, Hao teaches:
and suspension deflection data associated with corresponding distal ends of one or more axles (Hao - Paragraphs 0037-0039) “on the front, back, left and right of spring position sensor, measuring the front, back, left and right of the real spring length”
determining, based on the suspension deflection data and the suspension stiffness data, driving constraint data for traveling at least a portion of a route (Hao - Paragraphs 0039-0045) “performing active braking”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Berntorp with identifying suspension deflection data and determining driving constraint data of Hao with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Berntorp and Hao or both in the field of vehicle control using suspensions. One would have been motivated to combine as this improves safety of the vehicle from rollovers (Hao – Paragraph 0057).
Claim 2
The combination of Berntorp and Hao teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as seen above.
Berntorp further teaches:
the AV (Berntorp - Paragraph 0061) “The vehicle can be entirely human-operated, semi-autonomous, or fully autonomous”
Berntorp does not teach:
Suspension deflection data associated with distal ends of axles and associated with performing vehicle acceleration or deceleration.
However, Hao teaches:
the suspension deflection data is associated with the corresponding distal ends of the one or more axles prior to traveling the at least a portion of a route (Hao - Paragraphs 0037-0043, Fig. 1) “on the front, back, left and right of spring position sensor, measuring the front, back, left and right of the real spring length”
and at least a portion of the suspension deflection data is associated with performing one or more predefined maneuvers associated with at least one of acceleration or deceleration (Hao - Paragraphs 0037-0043, Fig. 1) “the vehicle departure side turning”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Berntorp with identifying suspension deflection data and determining driving constraint data of Hao with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Berntorp and Hao or both in the field of vehicle control using suspensions. One would have been motivated to combine as this improves safety of the vehicle from rollovers (Hao – Paragraph 0057).
Claim 3
The combination of Berntorp and Hao teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as seen above.
Berntorp does not teach:
The suspension stiffness data is associated with suspension springs or air pressure bladders.
However, Hao teaches:
wherein at least one of: the suspension stiffness data is associated with suspension springs or air pressure bladders; or the suspension deflection data is associated with at least one of displacement of springs at each of the corresponding distal ends of the one or more axles or distance of each of the corresponding distal ends of the one or more axles to a lower surface (Hao - Paragraph 0039, 0050) “the stiffness coefficient of the spring and spring extension quantity (real length of the spring-spring length)”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Berntorp with suspension stiffness data associated with suspension springs of Hao with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Berntorp and Hao or both in the field of vehicle control using suspensions. One would have been motivated to combine as this improves safety of the vehicle from rollovers (Hao – Paragraph 0057).
Claim 11
The combination of Berntorp and Hao teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 as seen above.
Berntorp further teaches:
wherein the one or more predefined maneuvers further comprise turning (Berntorp - Paragraphs 0061-0064) “from a driver of the vehicle generating a reference steering command and/or braking/throttle command to the vehicle. E.g., the vehicle can receive external inputs 210 from an autonomous-driving system of the vehicle generating a reference steering command”
Claim 12
Berntorp teaches:
A system comprising: a memory device; and a processing device, coupled to the memory device, wherein the processing device is to (Berntorp - Paragraph 0068) “The vehicle-dynamics control system 199 includes at least one processor 270 for executing instructions of the vehicle-dynamics control system 199 stored in a memory 280”
All the other limitations have been examined with respect to claim 1. Please see the rejection above.
Claims 13-14
All the limitations have been examined with respect to claims 2-3. Please see the rejection above.
Claim 17
Berntorp teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to (Berntorp - Paragraph 0068) “The vehicle-dynamics control system 199 includes at least one processor 270 for executing instructions of the vehicle-dynamics control system 199 stored in a memory 280”
All the other limitations have been examined with respect to claim 1. Please see the rejection above.
Claims 18-19
All the limitations have been examined with respect to claims 2-3. Please see the rejection above.
Claims 4-6, 15-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berntorp and Hao, as applied to claims 1, 12, and 17 above, and further in view of Coombs (US 20240034116 A1, cited in a previous office action).
Claim 4
The combination of Berntorp and Hao teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 as seen above.
Berntorp further teaches:
wherein the determining of the driving constraint data comprises (Berntorp - Paragraphs 0101-0106) “F.sub.z is the vertical load. Wheel liftoff, hence imminent rollover, happens when the LTR becomes higher than 1 or lower than −1. Hence, in one embodiment the rollover avoidance constraint”
the AV (Berntorp - Paragraph 0061) “The vehicle can be entirely human-operated, semi-autonomous, or fully autonomous”
and wherein the mass distribution data is associated with a response of the AV to the one or more predefined maneuvers (Berntorp - Paragraphs 0101-0106) “a steering profile generated by a human operator of the vehicle, or it can be an automatic steering or braking profile”
and determining, based on the mass distribution data, the driving constraint data for traveling the at least a portion of a route (Berntorp - Paragraphs 0101-0106) “F.sub.z is the vertical load. Wheel liftoff, hence imminent rollover, happens when the LTR becomes higher than 1 or lower than −1. Hence, in one embodiment the rollover avoidance constraint”
Berntorp does not teach:
Determining mass distribution data based on the suspension deflection data and the suspension stiffness data.
However, Coombs teaches:
determining, based on the suspension deflection data and the suspension stiffness data prior to the traveling of the at least a portion of a route, mass distribution data (Coombs - Paragraphs 0066-0072) “determining an arrangement of the load (which may be different from or identical to the first arrangement) that results in a load distribution that does not exceed the maximum weight borne by each axle”
wherein the mass distribution data is associated with a first load proximate a first distal end of a first axle and a second load proximate a second distal end of the first axle (Coombs - Paragraph 0077) “The actuation points are preferably the physical locations on the vehicle at which the fluid suspension elements (e.g., fluid springs) apply force to the axles and chassis of the vehicle to provide suspension of the vehicle, but may be otherwise suitably defined”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Berntorp with determining mass distribution data based on the suspension deflection data and the suspension stiffness data of Coombs with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Berntorp and Coombs are both in the field of vehicle control using suspensions. One would have been motivated to combine as this improves braking/traction performances and tire life (Coombs – Paragraphs 0092-0093).
Claim 5
The combination of Berntorp, Hao, and Coombs teaches all of the limitations of claim 4 as seen above.
Berntorp further teaches:
wherein the mass distribution data comprises one or more of (Berntorp - Paragraphs 0101-0106) “The load transfer ratio measures how much of the vertical load of the vehicle is concentrated on one of the vehicle sides”
a vertical center of gravity (COG) of the AV; a lateral center of gravity (COG) of the AV and a longitudinal COG of the AV; a ratio of the first load to the second load; one or more of moment of inertia data of the AV or roll stiffness data of the AV; or a first mass value associated with the first distal end of the first axle, a second mass value associated with the second distal end of the first axle, a third mass value associated with a third distal end of a second axle, and a fourth mass value associated with a fourth distal end of the second axle (Berntorp - Paragraphs 0051, 0060, Claim 2, Fig. 1C) “the vehicle roll dynamics model include the spring constant”
Claim 6
The combination of Berntorp, Hao, and Coombs teaches all of the limitations of claim 4 as seen above.
Berntorp does not teach:
Suspension deflection data from a plurality of sensors located on distal ends of axles, the sensors comprising suspension deflection sensors or laser sensors.
However, Hao teaches:
wherein the suspension deflection data is identified based on (Hao - Paragraphs 0037-0039, Fig. 1) “on the front, back, left and right of spring position sensor, measuring the front, back, left and right of the real spring length”
sensor data from a plurality of sensors, each sensor being proximate a respective distal end of a corresponding axle of the one or more axles (Hao - Paragraphs 0037-0039, Fig. 1) “on the front, back, left and right of spring position sensor, measuring the front, back, left and right of the real spring length”
the plurality of sensors comprising one or more of: suspension deflection sensors; or laser sensors aimed at the AV or ground (Hao - Paragraphs 0037-0039, Fig. 1) “receiving the suspension displacement by the displacement sensor”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Berntorp with suspension deflection data and suspension deflection sensors Hao with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Berntorp and Hao or both in the field of vehicle control using suspensions. One would have been motivated to combine as this improves safety of the vehicle from rollovers (Hao – Paragraph 0057).
Claim 15
Berntorp teaches:
wherein to determine the driving constraint data, the processing device is to (Berntorp - Paragraphs 0101-0106) “F.sub.z is the vertical load. Wheel liftoff, hence imminent rollover, happens when the LTR becomes higher than 1 or lower than −1. Hence, in one embodiment the rollover avoidance constraint”
All of the other limitations have been examined with respect to claims 4. Please see the rejection above.
Claim 16
All of the limitations have been examined with respect to claim 5. Please see the rejection above.
Claim 20
Berntorp teaches:
wherein to determine the driving constraint data, the processing device is to (Berntorp - Paragraphs 0101-0106) “F.sub.z is the vertical load. Wheel liftoff, hence imminent rollover, happens when the LTR becomes higher than 1 or lower than −1. Hence, in one embodiment the rollover avoidance constraint”
All of the other limitations have been examined with respect to claims 4. Please see the rejection above.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berntorp and Hao, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Terada (JP 2004198176 A, cited in a previous office action).
Claim 7
The combination of Berntorp and Hao teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as seen above.
Berntorp further teaches:
the AV (Berntorp - Paragraph 0061) “The vehicle can be entirely human-operated, semi-autonomous, or fully autonomous”
Berntorp does not teach:
Identifying suspension deflection data.
However, Hao teaches:
wherein the suspension deflection data is identified based on (Hao - Paragraphs 0037-0039, Fig. 1) “on the front, back, left and right of spring position sensor, measuring the front, back, left and right of the real spring length”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Berntorp with suspension deflection data of Hao with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Berntorp and Hao or both in the field of vehicle control using suspensions. One would have been motivated to combine as this improves safety of the vehicle from rollovers (Hao – Paragraph 0057).
Berntorp does not teach:
Sensor data responsive to driving onto one or more scales.
However, Terada teaches:
sensor data responsive to driving onto one or more scales (Terada - Paragraph 0037-0038) “the load data output by the sensor unit 10 corresponding to the tire load data”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Berntorp with sensor data responsive to driving onto one or more scales of Terada with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Berntorp and Terada are both in the field of vehicle weight measurement and control. One would have been motivated to combine as this achieves simple weight calibration and improving the safety of vehicles (Terada – Paragraph 0017).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berntorp, Hao, and Coombs as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Esnault (US 20190160892 A1, cited in a previous office action).
Claim 8
The combination of Berntorp, Hao, and Coombs teaches all of the limitations of claim 4 as seen above.Berntorp further teaches:
the AV (Berntorp - Paragraph 0061) “The vehicle can be entirely human-operated, semi-autonomous, or fully autonomous”
Berntorp does not teach:
the suspension deflection data is identified based on sensor data comprising one or more of: a first subset received responsive to the AV being disposed on a level surface and a second subset received responsive to the AV being disposed on a non-level surface; pressure data and displacement data at the corresponding distal ends of the one or more axles, the sensor data being associated with corresponding bladders being pressurized to level the AV; oscillation of suspension springs of the AV; Eigen frequency of the AV; frequency of oscillation of the AV; or frequency of motion of the AV.
However, Esnault teaches:
the suspension deflection data is identified based on sensor data comprising one or more of: a first subset received responsive to the AV being disposed on a level surface and a second subset received responsive to the AV being disposed on a non-level surface; pressure data and displacement data at the corresponding distal ends of the one or more axles, the sensor data being associated with corresponding bladders being pressurized to level the AV; oscillation of suspension springs of the AV; Eigen frequency of the AV; frequency of oscillation of the AV; or frequency of motion of the AV (Esnault - Paragraph 0092) “the oscillating amplitude of the shock absorber”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Berntorp with sensor data comprising the oscillation frequency of Esnault with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that both Berntorp and Esnault are in the field of vehicle suspension control. One would have been motivated to combine as this improves stability and safety of the vehicle (Esnault – Paragraph 0010).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berntorp, Hao, and Coombs as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Sandrasekaran (US 20220402482 A1, cited in a previous office action).
Claim 9
The combination of Berntorp, Hao, and Coombs teaches all of the limitations of claim 4 as seen above.Berntorp further teaches:
wherein the causing of the performance of the corrective action is responsive to one or more of (Berntorp - Paragraph 0062, 0068-0069) “The control command 241 can be modified steering command modifying the drivers' 210 reference input to avoid violating the constraints of the vehicle, or it can be the braking commands of the individual tires”
the AV (Berntorp - Paragraph 0061) “The vehicle can be entirely human-operated, semi-autonomous, or fully autonomous”
Berntorp does not teach:
determining a change in load of the AV based on the mass distribution data; identifying a malfunctioning component of the AV based on the mass distribution data; diagnosing chassis properties of the AV based on the mass distribution data; or rejecting the load based on the mass distribution data.
However, Sandrasekaran teaches:
determining a change in load of the AV based on the mass distribution data; identifying a malfunctioning component of the AV based on the mass distribution data; diagnosing chassis properties of the AV based on the mass distribution data; or rejecting the load based on the mass distribution data (Sandrasekaran - Paragraphs 0040-0042) “performs an emergency procedure in case a significant shift in load distribution is detected”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Berntorp with determining a change in load of Sandrasekaran with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Berntorp and Sandrasekaran are both in the field of vehicle control based on suspensions. One would have been motivated to combine as this improves vehicle safety and stability from rollovers (Sandrasekaran – Paragraph 0007).
Claim 10
The combination of Berntorp, Hao, and Coombs teaches all of the limitations of claim 4 as seen above.Berntorp further teaches:
the AV (Berntorp - Paragraph 0061) “The vehicle can be entirely human-operated, semi-autonomous, or fully autonomous”
Berntorp does not teach:
The mass distribution data is of a trailer.
However, Sandrasekaran teaches:
the mass distribution data is of a trailer (Sandrasekaran - Paragraphs 0035, 0046) “The truck 100 and the semi-trailer vehicle 200 also comprises respective control units 110 arranged to obtain load data from the load sensors”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Berntorp with determining the mass distribution data of a trailer of Sandrasekaran with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Berntorp and Sandrasekaran are both in the field of vehicle control based on suspensions. One would have been motivated to combine as this improves vehicle safety and stability from rollovers (Sandrasekaran – Paragraph 0007).
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 extension fee 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 Matthew Ho whose telephone number is (571) 272-1388. The examiner can
normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 9:00-5:30 EST.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691. 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 are available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (tollfree). 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.
/MATTHEW HO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights