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 have been carefully considered but are moot due to a new grounds of rejection, as explained below.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-5, 10 and 17 have been cancelled
Claims 23-26 are new
Claim 14 is objected to
Claim 6-9, 11-13, 15-16 and 18-26 are rejected.
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.
Claims 6-9, 11, and 14-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burke et al. (U.S. 5899472) in view of Van Rooyen et al. (U.S. 20210155228).
In re claim 6, Burke teaches a computer-implemented method for controlling a fluid-based suspension system (fig. 11; roll control system 400; [Col. 7, ln 43-Col. 8, ln 8]) of a vehicle, the fluid-based suspension system comprising:
a first fluid suspension device (fig. 11; actuator 412; [Col. 7, ln 43-Col. 8, ln 8]) provided on a first side of the vehicle (left side as shown in fig. 11) and
providing suspension between an axle (wheel axles 22; [Col. 2, ln 40-Col. 3, ln 5]) and a frame of the vehicle (vehicle body 20; [Col. 2, ln 40-Col. 3, ln 5]),
the first fluid suspension device comprising
a first cylinder (housing 416; [Col. 7, ln 43-Col. 8, ln 8]),
a movable first piston (piston 422; [Col. 7, ln 43-Col. 8, ln 8]), and
a first piston rod (rod 424; [Col. 7, ln 43-Col. 8, ln 8]) attached to the first piston,
the movable first piston dividing an internal space of the first cylinder into a first piston rod side chamber and a first piston side chamber (as shown in fig. 11);
a second fluid suspension device (fig. 11; actuator 414; [Col. 7, ln 43-Col. 8, ln 8]) provided on a second side of the vehicle (right side as shown in fig. 11) and
providing suspension between the axle (wheel axles 26; [Col. 2, ln 40-Col. 3, ln 5]) and the frame (vehicle body 20; [Col. 2, ln 40-Col. 3, ln 5]),
the second fluid suspension device comprising
a second cylinder (housing 416; [Col. 7, ln 43-Col. 8, ln 8]),
a movable second piston (piston 422; [Col. 7, ln 43-Col. 8, ln 8]), and
a second piston rod (rod 424; [Col. 7, ln 43-Col. 8, ln 8]) attached to the second piston,
the movable second piston dividing an internal space of the second cylinder into a second piston rod side chamber and a second piston side chamber (as shown in fig. 11);
a fluid connection system (fig. 11; fluid pressure control means 58; [Col. 3, ln 40-ln 62]) comprising
a valve arrangement (solenoid valve 64; [Col. 3, ln 40-ln 62]) configured to selectively set the fluid-based suspension system to one of
a first operating mode and
a second operating mode (fig. 11); wherein,
in the first operating mode (when valve 64 is moved to or in the closed position, as shown in fig. 11),
the fluid connection system is arranged
to fluidly connect the first piston rod side chamber to the second piston side chamber in a first cross-connection (as shown in fig. 11) and
to fluidly connect the first piston side chamber to the second piston rod side chamber in a second cross-connection (as shown in fig. 11),
the first and second cross-connections being fluidly isolated from one another (as shown in fig. 11); and
in the second operating mode (when valve 64 is moved to or in the open position, as shown in fig. 11),
the fluid connection system is arranged to fluidly connect all of
the first piston rod side chamber (as indicated in fig. 11),
the first piston side chamber (as indicated in fig. 11),
the second piston rod side chamber (as indicated in fig. 11), and
the second piston side chamber to one another (as indicated in fig. 11),
the method comprising:
determining, by processing circuitry of a computer system (electronic control unit; [Col. 3, ln 62-Col. 4, ln 8]), whether a predetermined activation condition for activating the second operating mode is fulfilled (When the solenoid valve 64 is commanded by the electronic control unit to be open (when the electronic control unit determines that ride comfort should be improved); [Col. 3, ln 62-65]);
in response to determining that the activation condition is fulfilled, activating, by the processing circuitry, the second operating mode (as explained above).
Burke lacks
detecting, by the processing circuitry, that a dumping condition applies, in which the vehicle is dumping or is preparing to dump a payload carried by a tiltable body of the vehicle, wherein
the activation condition is considered fulfilled when the dumping condition applies.
Van Rooyen teaches an analogous method and further teaches wherein
detecting, by the processing circuitry, that a dumping condition applies, in which the vehicle is dumping or is preparing to dump a payload carried by a tiltable body of the vehicle (as suggested in [0033]), wherein
the activation condition is considered fulfilled when the dumping condition applies (as suggested in [0033]).
Thus it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Burke, to incorporate detecting, by the processing circuitry, that a dumping condition applies, in which the vehicle is dumping or is preparing to dump a payload carried by a tiltable body of the vehicle, wherein the activation condition is considered fulfilled when the dumping condition applies, as clearly suggested and taught by Van Rooyen, in order to avoid potential damage ([0033]) or for safety reasons, such as vehicle status indicator(s) indicate the vehicle is set to an operational mode (e.g. reverse), a door is open or a driver/passenger is present in the vehicle 100, and the like ([0033]).
In re claim 7, Burke and Van Rooyen teach the method according to claim 6, and Burke further teaches wherein
the fluid-based suspension system is initially operated in the first operating mode (as shown in fig. 11; note: valve 64 is shown in closed position), and wherein
the method comprises:
in response to determining that the activation condition is not fulfilled, continuing to operate, by the processing circuitry, the fluid-based suspension system in the first operating mode (When the solenoid valve 64 is commanded by the electronic control unit to be closed (when the electronic control unit determines that roll stiffness is required)… when the solenoid valve 64 is closed (for example, during cornering), the vehicle experiences a heave motion, the roll control system 10 is operational as shown in FIG. 4, with the solenoid valve 64 in a closed position… Additional sensors (not shown) on the vehicle may also be used to control the operation of the solenoid valve 64 to close the solenoid valve even when the vehicle is travelling in a straight line. This would provide roll stiffness for straight line motion of the vehicle.; [Col. 4, ln 9-46]).
In re claim 8, Burke and Van Rooyen teach the method according to claim 6, and Burke further teaches
during operation of the fluid-based suspension system in the second operating mode, detecting, by the processing circuitry, that a predetermined deactivation condition is fulfilled (The operation of the solenoid valve 64 is controlled by an electronic control unit (not shown) which, by use of suitable sensors (not shown), determines the correct demand based on vehicle operating conditions, such as the vehicle travelling in a straight line or round a corner. Generally, if the vehicle is travelling in a straight line, the solenoid valve 64 is actuated to an open position to fluidly connect passages 60 and 62, and hence fluidly connect passages 54 and 56; [Col. 3, ln 50-61]); and
in response to detecting that the deactivation condition is fulfilled, controlling, by the processing circuitry, the fluid-based suspension system to assume the first operating mode (The operation of the solenoid valve 64 is controlled by an electronic control unit (not shown) which, by use of suitable sensors (not shown), determines the correct demand based on vehicle operating conditions, such as the vehicle travelling in a straight line or round a corner…If the vehicle is cornering, the solenoid valve 64 is actuated to a closed position to fluidly isolate the passages 60 and 62, and hence fluidly isolate the passages 54 and 56; [Col. 3, ln 50-61]).
In re claim 9, Burke and Van Rooyen teach the method according to claim 8, and Van Rooyen further teaches wherein
the deactivation condition is considered fulfilled when a vehicle speed of the vehicle increases above a speed threshold (in one embodiment, a selected transition to ramp mode or dump mode may be prohibited or delayed in sensor values indicate velocity above a threshold, location values indicate obstacles or potential damage may be possible, vehicle status indicator(s) indicate the vehicle is set to an operational mode (e.g., reverse), a door is open or a driver/passenger is present in the vehicle 100, and the like. The validation rules may be specified as default, such as a door ajar sensor prohibited transition to dump mode; [0033]).
In re claim 11, Burke and Van Rooyen teach the method according to claim 8, and Van Rooyen further teaches wherein
the deactivation condition is considered fulfilled when a dumping condition no longer applies (in one embodiment, a selected transition to ramp mode or dump mode may be prohibited or delayed in sensor values indicate velocity above a threshold, location values indicate obstacles or potential damage may be possible, vehicle status indicator(s) indicate the vehicle is set to an operational mode (e.g., reverse); [0033]; Here, the transition to ramp mode or dump mode may be prohibited or delayed if the vehicle is in an operational mode, which indicates that a dumping condition no longer applies.; note: the term “in” in “prohibited or delayed in sensor” seems to be a typographical error and should be read “if”).
In re claim 14, Burke and Van Rooyen teach the method according to claim 6, but lack wherein
a switch between the first and second operating modes is only performed when a distance between the frame and the axle at the first fluid suspension device does not differ from a distance between the frame and the axle at the second fluid suspension device by more than a predetermined distance threshold.
However, the recitation of “wherein a switch between the first and second operating modes is only performed when a distance between the frame and the axle at the first fluid suspension device does not differ from a distance between the frame and the axle at the second fluid suspension device by more than a predetermined distance threshold” as represented in claim 14 is a contingent limitation that requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.
However, a switch between the first and second operating modes is only performed when a distance between the frame and the axle at the first fluid suspension device does not differ from a distance between the frame and the axle at the second fluid suspension device by more than a predetermined distance threshold, indicates that when a distance between the frame and the axle at the first fluid suspension device differs from a distance between the frame and the axle at the second fluid suspension device by more than a predetermined distance threshold, that a switch between the first and second operating modes is not performed. This being the case, claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds as explained in claim 6 above.
See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. In Schulhauser, both method claims and system claims recited the same contingent step. When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed" (quotation omitted). Schulhauser at 10; MPEP 2111.04
In re claim 15, Burke and Van Rooyen teach the method according to claim 6, and Burke further teaches wherein
a switch from the first operating mode to the second operating mode is only performed when a first fluid pressure in the first cross-connection does not differ from a second fluid pressure in the second cross-connection by more than a predetermined pressure threshold (as indicated in fig 11 and suggested in [Col. 3, ln 40-62]; note: as shown in fig. 11, the fluid accumulators 66, 68 serve to limit the pressure in fluidly connected passages 56, 54 by a predetermined pressure threshold, as determined via. the spring bias (or via any other suitable arrangement), as suggested via. [Col. 3, ln 40-62], and thus the switching of valve 64 from a closed position to an open position (and vice versa) is only performed when the pressure in 54, 56 does not differ by more than a predetermined threshold).
In re claim 16, Burke and Van Rooyen teach the computer system and Burke further teaches processing circuitry (fig. 13; via. controller 88) configured to perform the method according to claim 6 (as explained above in claim 6).
In re claim 18, Burke and Van Rooyen teach a vehicle (as explained above) and Burke further teaches the computer system (as indicated in fig. 11 and fig. 13) according to claim 16 (as explained above).
In re claim 19, Burke and Van Rooyen teach the vehicle according to claim 18, and Burke further teaches
a first axle and a second axle (as indicated in fig. 13; front or rear wheel axles [abstract]), wherein
the fluid-based suspension system (as explained in claim 6 above) is a first fluid-based suspension system arranged to provide suspension between the frame of the vehicle and the first axle (as explained in claim 6 above), and
Burke lacks wherein the vehicle further comprises
a second fluid-based suspension system arranged to
provide suspension between the frame and the second axle,
the second fluid-based suspension system being a cross-connected fluid-based suspension system.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the vehicle further comprising a second fluid-based suspension system arranged to provide suspension between the frame and the second axle, the second fluid-based suspension system being a cross-connected fluid-based suspension system, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device (in this case, duplication of a fluid-based suspension system, to have a second fluid-based suspension system) involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
In re claim 20, Burke and Van Rooyen teach the vehicle according to claim 19, and Van Rooyen further teaches
a tiltable body, the tiltable body being mounted to the frame such that it is tiltable about a pivot axis located closer to the second axle than to the first axle of the vehicle (In a third mode, generally referred to as ramp mode, the controller 116 can look to modify the suspension system 110 to a lower value for the portion of the controllable portions 114 corresponding to the rear of the vehicle while raising to a higher value the remaining portion of the controllable portions 114 corresponding to the front of the vehicle; [0037]).
In re claim 21, Burke and Van Rooyen teach a computer program product (as explained above) and Burke further teaches a program code for performing, when executed by the processing circuitry (fig. 13, computer code is necessarily present within controller 88), the method of claim 6 (as explained above in claim 6).
In re claim 22, Burke and Van Rooyen teach a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and Burke further teaches instructions (as explained above), which when executed by the processing circuitry (fig. 13, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising computer code/instructions is necessarily present within controller 88), cause the processing circuitry to perform the method of claim 6 (as explained above in claim 6).
In re claim 23, Burke and Van Rooyen teach the method according to claim 6, and Burke further teaches wherein
the first and second piston rods are both attached to one of
the axle and
the frame (as shown in fig. 11), and wherein
the first and second cylinders are both attached to another one of
the axle (as shown in fig. 11) and
the frame.
In re claim 24, Burke and Van Rooyen teach the method according to claim 6, and Burke lacks wherein
the first and second piston rods are both attached to the axle, and wherein
the first and second cylinders are both attached to the frame.
However, Burke teaches wherein
the first and second piston rods are both attached to one of
the axle and
the frame (as shown in fig. 11, and explained in claim 23), and wherein
the first and second cylinders are both attached to another one of
the axle (as shown in fig. 11, and explained in claim 23) and
the frame.
The limitations of the first and second piston rods are both attached to the axle, and wherein the first and second cylinders are both attached to the frame is substantially similar to that as presented in fig. 11 of Burke, with the exception that the hydraulic actuators (412, 414) are installed backwards.
This being the case, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to install the actuators of Burke backwards, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device (such as the hydraulic actuators) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
In re claim 25, Burke and Van Rooyen teach the method according to claim 6, and Burke further teaches wherein
the valve arrangement comprises a single valve (as shown in fig. 11).
In re claim 26, Burke and Van Rooyen teach the method according to claim 25, and Burke further teaches wherein
the single valve is a valve having four connections and two positions (as shown in fig. 11),
the valve being movable between
a first position (valve 64 in closed position, as shown in fig. 11) in which the fluid-based suspension system is set to the first operating mode and
a second position (valve 64 in open position, as indicated in fig. 11) in which the fluid-based suspension system is set to the second operating mode.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burke et al. (U.S. 5899472) in view of Van Rooyen et al. (U.S. 20210155228) and in further view of Jinno et al. (U.S. 20160258118).
In re claim 12, Burke and Van Rooyen teach the method according to claim 6, and Van Rooyen further teaches
during operation of the fluid-based suspension system in the second operating mode, detecting, by the processing circuitry, that
the tiltable body is in a tilted position (as explained above), and
in response thereto controlling, by the processing circuitry, the fluid-based suspension system to reduce a distance between the axle and the frame before the tiltable body reaches a folded position in which it rests on the frame (as explained above; i.e. ramp mode).
Burke lacks
detecting, by the processing circuitry,
that the payload has been dumped.
Jinno teaches an analogous dump truck (fig. 2) and further teaches
detecting, by the processing circuitry, that the payload has been dumped (fig. 5; step S3, load amount = empty or loaded)
Thus it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Burke, to incorporate detecting that the payload has been dumped, as clearly suggested and taught by Jinno, in order to improve the accuracy of determination of the road surface condition ([0019]).
In re claim 13, see claim 12 above.
Conclusion
The prior art of Burke and Van Rooyen fails to show or reasonably teach in combination a vehicle method having the recited elements, as required by claim 14, including wherein a switch between the first and second operating modes is only performed when a distance between the frame and the axle at the first fluid suspension device does not differ from a distance between the frame and the axle at the second fluid suspension device by more than a predetermined distance threshold.
The prior art made of O’Donnell (U.S. 20210191413) teaches a vehicle method (abstract. Fig. 1) and further teaches that the distance h between the frame 104 to the ground surface under normal ground conditions reduces (due to machine sinking) to a distance h′ that is less than the distance h. The controller 202 monitoring the distance between the machine frame 104 to the ground, which determination can be made relative to one or more locations around the machine 100, can compare the height h with a desired or predetermined distance such that, when the height h′ differs from the height h by more than a predetermined threshold, the controller 202 may first determine whether the machine is in a special work mode and, if not, deduce that a sinking condition is present ([0022]).
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 JOHN D BAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5692. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5625. 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.
/JOHN D BAILEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/KURT PHILIP LIETHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights