DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
Claims 14-21 have been examined in this application. Claims 14-19 and 21 are original. Claim 20 is amended. Claims 1-13 and 22-24 are cancelled.
This is the First Action On the Merits (FAOM). The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Office Action Formatting
The following is an explanation of the formatting used in the instant Office Action:
• [0001] – Indicates a paragraph number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001, 0010] – Indicates multiple paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 and 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001-0010] – Indicates a range of paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 through 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1 – Indicates a column number and a line number (in example: column 1, line 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1, 2:1 – Indicates multiple column and line numbers (in example, column 1, line 1 and column 2, line 2) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-10 – Indicates a range of lines within one column (in example: all lines spanning, and including, lines 1 and 10 in column 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-2:1 – Indicates a range of lines spanning several columns (in example: column 1, line 1 to column 2, line 1 and including all intervening lines) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• p. 1, ln. 1 – Indicates a page and line number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• ¶1 – The paragraph symbol is used solely to refer to Applicant's own specification (further example: p. 1, ¶1 indicates first paragraph of page 1); and
• BRI – the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/25/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Duplicate Claims - Warning
Applicant is advised that should Claims 15 and 16 be found allowable, Claims 18 and 19 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being substantial duplicates thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 14, 17, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Patent U.S. 5,948,027 A (Oliver Jr. et al.).
Regarding Claim 14, Oliver Jr. et al. discloses a method (see Figure 2) for controlling a controllable suspension system of a vehicle (see Figure 2, and 3:48-52, controlling anti-roll bars) having a front axle and a rear axle (see 4:20-25), the method comprising:
determining a desired yaw rate of the vehicle (see Figure 2, and 3:40-42, step 54);
measuring an actual yaw rate of the vehicle (see Figure 2, and 3:42-43, step 56);
comparing the desired yaw rate and the measured yaw rate (see Figure 2, and 3:43-44, step 58);
upon determining that the desired yaw rate exceeds the measured yaw rate (see Figure 2, and 3:48-51, actual yaw rate less than desired yaw rate in step 60), adjusting the suspension system to increase an effective roll parameter of the rear axle relative to an effective roll parameter of the front axle (see 3:48-51, increase percentage of anti-roll moment (an effective roll parameter) to the rear anti-roll bar, and see 2:50-60, apportioning percentage between front and rear).
Regarding Claim 17, Oliver Jr. et al. discloses a method (see Figure 2) for controlling a controllable suspension system of a vehicle (see Figure 2, and 3:48-52, controlling anti-roll bars) having a front axle and a rear axle (see 4:20-25), the method comprising:
determining a desired yaw rate of the vehicle (see Figure 2, and 3:40-42, step 54);
measuring an actual yaw rate of the vehicle (see Figure 2, and 3:42-43, step 56);
comparing the desired yaw rate and the measured yaw rate (see Figure 2, and 3:43-44, step 58);
upon determining that the measured yaw rate exceeds the desired yaw rate (see Figure 2, and 3:49-51, step 61, actual yaw rate greater than desired yaw rate), adjusting the suspension system to increase an effective roll parameter of the front axle relative to a roll parameter of the rear axle (see 3:49-51, increasing percentage of anti-roll moment to front anti-roll bar, and see 2:50-60, apportioning percentage between front and rear).
Regarding Claim 20, Oliver Jr. et al. discloses a method of controlling an actuator (see 2:63 – 3:35, any of solenoid or valve or hydraulic cylinder being actuator) of an active suspension system of a vehicle (see 2:61-63 active roll control system), the method comprising:
based at least in part on a measured yaw rate of the vehicle (see Figure 2, based on step 56), determining a command for the actuator (see Figure 2, determine increase to front or rear command in step 60 or 61, and see 4:19-26, using controller commands);
outputting the command to the actuator (see 3:30-35 micro-controller operates solenoid); and
in response to the actuator receiving the command, producing a force with the actuator of the active suspension system (see 3:33-35, force of solenoid on valve, or alternatively force of cylinder 16,18 on stabilizer).
Regarding Claim 21, Oliver Jr. et al. discloses the method of claim 20, wherein producing the force with the actuator comprises:
applying, with the actuator, the force to a first portion of the vehicle (see 3:33-35, valve or cylinder or stabilizer being portion of the vehicle).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 15, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patent U.S. 5,948,027 A (Oliver Jr. et al.) in view of Patent U.S. 5,707,117 A (Hu et al.).
Regarding Claim 15, Oliver Jr. et al. discloses the method further comprising:
measuring a rate of change of a steering wheel angle (see 3:14 input of steering wheel rate and steering wheel angle);
measuring an operating speed of the vehicle (see 3:39, step 50).
Oliver Jr. et al. further discloses desired yaw rate based on road wheel angle and vehicle speed (see Figure 2, step 54, and 3:35-4:11).
Oliver Jr. et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 14, further comprising:
wherein the desired yaw rate of the vehicle is determined based at least in part on the measured rate of change of the steering wheel angle and the measured operating speed of the vehicle.
However, Hu et al. teaches a technique to determine a desired yaw rate of a vehicle (see 3:20),
wherein the desired yaw rate of the vehicle is determined based at least in part on the measured rate of change of the steering wheel angle and the measured operating speed of the vehicle (see 3:20-25, “desired yaw rate, determined as a function of steering wheel angle and rate of change in steering wheel angle and as a function of vehicle speed”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the calculation of desired yaw rate of Oliver Jr. et al. to use the function as taught by Hu et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, as Hu et al. teaches a different way to accomplish the same result of calculating desired yaw rate. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would make such a modification with the motivation of enhancing the method to further take into account transient conditions (i.e. characterized by the change in steering wheel angle as opposed to only an instantaneous angle).
Regarding Claim 16, Oliver Jr. et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 15, wherein determining the desired yaw rate comprises:
accessing a model that defines desired yaw rate as a function of rate of change of the steering wheel angle and operating speed of the vehicle.
However, Hu et al. teaches the technique as above, wherein determining the desired yaw rate comprises:
accessing a model that defines desired yaw rate as a function of rate of change of the steering wheel angle and operating speed of the vehicle (see 3:20-25, desired yaw rate is a function of rate of change in steering wheel angle and vehicle speed, i.e. function being a mathematical representation (model) of the vehicle used for the determination).
The motivation to combine Oliver Jr. et al. and Hu et al. was provided above in the rejection of Claim 15.
Regarding Claims 18 and 19: all limitations as recited have been analyzed with respect to Claims 15 and 16, respectively. Claims 18 and 19 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond Claims 15 and 16, therefore, the claims are rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul Allen whose telephone number is (571) 272-4383. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9am to 5pm, Eastern.
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.
/P.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669