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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the filing of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/969,909, on December 5, 2024. Claims 1-8 and 13-16 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on German Patent Application No. DE102023212217, filed on December 5, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on December 5, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFT 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8 and 13-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-8 and 13-16 include reference numbers which should be removed.
Claim 5 recites “the one wheel stroke” and “the plurality of wheel stroke,” both of which lack antecedent basis.
Claim 7 is objected to for the recitation of “The device according to Claims 1…” as only one claim is indicated. It appears that this passage should recite “The device according to Claim 1…”
Claim 8 recites “the wheel stroke,” which lack antecedent basis.
Claim 13 is objected to for failing to include a punctuation at the end of line 17.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an evaluation unit” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. In looking at the Specification, “an evaluation unit” comprises a computer having analog-digital converters, as indicated in para 0043 of the Written Description.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by PCT Patent Application No. WO2018/033321, to Stratmann et al. (hereinafter Stratmann). For the purpose of examination a machine translation is utilized for the rejection, which is attached herewith.
As per claim 1, and similarly with respect to claim 13, Stratmann discloses a device for determining the height level in a vehicle (e.g. see p. 1, lines 3-8, wherein a device for determining a height of a vehicle is provided) having a chassis (3) with a plurality of vehicle wheels (10, 11, 12, 13) which stand or roll on a ground surface (26), a vehicle body (2) carried on the chassis (3), which body is connected by vehicle springs (20) to unsprung components of the chassis (3), which include the vehicle wheels (10, 11, 12, 13), which are articulated to the vehicle body (2) by suspension control arms (16) (e.g. see Fig. 1 and p. 6, lines 9-15, wherein a vehicle is provided including a wheel suspension 1 (i.e. chassis) and plurality of wheels 3, the vehicle further including a vehicle body 5 carried on an auxiliary frame 6 and including chassis arm 4 (i.e. suspension control arm) which provides articulation between the wheels and vehicle body), the device comprising: a plurality of sensor arrangements (27, 37, 38, 39, 40) of which at least one body sensor arrangement (27) is provided on the vehicle body (2) (e.g. see Fig. 1, and p. 6, line 32, to p. 7, line 7, wherein a reference sensor 20 is mounted to the vehicle body) and one or more chassis sensor arrangements are provided on the unsprung components of the chassis (3) and/or on the suspension control arms (e.g. see Fig. 1, and p. 6, line 32, to p. 7, line 7, wherein an acceleration sensor 18 is mounted on the chassis arm 4 (i.e. unsprung component), wherein each sensor arrangement comprises at least one or more acceleration sensors (28, 29, 30; 34, 35, 36) by means of which translational accelerations in different spatial directions (x, y, z) can be determined and acceleration signals (Sx, Sy, Sz; Fx, Fy, Fz) that characterize the accelerations can be generated (e.g. see p. 3, lines 24-30, wherein the reference sensor and acceleration sensor comprises a three-axial acceleration sensor which would generate corresponding signals); and an evaluation unit (42) connected to the plurality of sensor arrangements (27, 37,38, 39, 40) (e.g. see wherein the vehicle further includes an evaluation device 19 connected to acceleration sensor and reference sensor); wherein the body sensor arrangement 27 comprises at least one rotation sensor by means of which rotation movements about different rotation axes can be determined and body rotation movement signals (Syz, Szx, Szy) that characterize the rotation movements can be generated (e.g. see p.3, line 31, to p. 4, line 2, wherein the reference sensor determine yaw, pitch and roll), wherein by means of the evaluation unit (42), one or more wheel strokes (h) of the vehicle wheels can be determined from the acceleration signals (Sx, Sy, Sz; Fx, Fy, Fz) and the body rotation movement signals (Syz, Szx, Szy) (e.g. see Figs. 2-3, and p. 6, line 32, to p. 7, line 7, wherein the acceleration sensor, reference sensor 20 and evaluation device comprise a height measurement device 21).
As per claim 2, Stratmann discloses the features of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the at least one rotation movement sensor of the body sensor arrangement has a form of a rotation rate sensor, by means of which the rotation movements can be determined in the form of angular velocities (e.g. see p. 4, lines 27-31, wherein the vehicle body further includes a rotation rate sensor).
As per claim 3, Stratmann discloses the features of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the body sensor arrangement (27) is configured to detect six kinematic degrees of freedom (e.g. see p. 3, line 31, to p. 4, line 2, wherein the longitudinal acceleration, lateral acceleration, high acceleration, yaw, pitch and roll of the vehicle body is determined).
As per claim 4, Stratmann discloses the features of claim 1, and further discloses wherein each of the one or more chassis sensor arrangements (34) is designed to detect at least three kinematic degrees of freedom (e.g. see p. 3, line 31, to p. 4, line 2, wherein the longitudinal acceleration, lateral acceleration, high acceleration, yaw, pitch and roll of the vehicle body is determined).
As per claim 5, and similarly with respect to claim 14, Stratmann discloses the features of claim 1 and 13, respectively, and further discloses comprising: a plurality of vehicle axles (8, 9) each of which comprises two of the vehicle wheels (e.g. see p.4, line 39, to p. 5, line 13, wherein the vehicle includes multiple axles); and at least one height level sensor (41) on one of the vehicle axles (8) and connected to the evaluation unit (42), by means of which a height level of the one vehicle axle (8) can be determined and at least one height level signal (Ser) that characterizes the height level can be generated (e.g. see Figs. 1-2 and rejection of claim 1), wherein by means of the evaluation unit (42) the one wheel stroke or at least one of the plurality of wheel strokes of the vehicle wheels can be verified with reference to the height level signal (Ser) (e.g. see Fig. 2 and p. 6, lines 25-31, wherein a height of the vehicle body with respect to a vehicle wheel is ascertained (i.e. verified)).
As per claim 6, and similarly with respect to claim 15, Stratmann discloses the features of claim 1 and 13, respectively, and further discloses wherein by means of the evaluation unit (42), from the signals generated by the sensor arrangement (27, 37, 38, 39, 40) a pitch angle (8) of the vehicle can be determined (e.g. see p.3, line 31, to p. 4, line 2, wherein the reference sensor determine yaw, pitch and roll).
As per claim 7, and similarly with respect to claim 16, Stratmann discloses the features of claim 1 and 13, respectively, and further discloses wherein by means of the evaluation unit (42), from the signals generated by the sensor arrangements (27, 37, 38, 39, 40) a roll angle (t) of the vehicle can be determined (e.g. see p.3, line 31, to p. 4, line 2, wherein the reference sensor determine yaw, pitch and roll).
As per claim 8, Stratmann discloses the features of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the evaluation unit (42) comprises at least one estimator, by means of which the wheel stroke or wheel strokes (h) of the vehicle wheels can be determined by estimation (e.g. see Fig. 2 and p. 6, lines 25-31, wherein a height of the vehicle body with respect to a vehicle wheel is ascertained (i.e. estimated)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James M. McPherson whose telephone number is (313) 446-6543. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM - 5PM Mon-Fri Eastern Alt Fri. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Flynn can be reached on 571 272-9855. 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.
/JAMES M MCPHERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663B