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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 31 December 2024 is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-20 are 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.
For claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 17 and 20, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because of the use of the term “means”. The boundaries of these claim limitations are ambiguous; therefore, the claims are indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
For claim 3, Applicant recites “directly into the actuator settings”. It cannot be determined how to interpret the term “directly”. To expedite prosecution, this term will not be given significant patentable weight.
For claims 17 and 18, Applicant defines the limitation "the actuators are realized by applying…". It cannot be determined with certainty how the term “realized” should be interpreted. To expedite prosecution, the term will be interpreted to mean “activated”.
Also in claim 17, the term “larger” is relative and has no definition or context in the claim or specification to assist with determining the boundaries of the term.
Further in the claim, it cannot be determined with certainty if the term “a vehicle” is intended to define a second “vehicle” or is intended to refer back to “an operating vehicle” or to the “the vehicle” of claim 1. Claim 17 creates an improper antecedent basis issue. Relatedly, further confusion arises based on the term “operating”, as it creates antecedent bases issues between “the vehicle” of claim 1 and “a vehicle” of claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, “the material”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims not specifically mentioned in this section are subsequently rejected based on their dependence from a rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
As it was noted in the previous section, the term “directly” is not being given significant patentable weight. Accordingly, there is no substantial difference from the similar limitation defined in claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-12, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0224845) in view of Onimaru (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0273019).
For claim 1, Anderson teaches an electronic system for controlling vibrations and/or inertial forces occurring at a plurality of areas of interest within an operating vehicle, the electronic system comprising circuitry configured to: receive input data comprising sensor data from one or more environment sensors and/or one or more internal sensors (see paras. 0919, 0920); convert, by means of model, the input data into actuator settings (see paras. 0842, 1048); transmit the actuator settings to one or more actuators to control vibrations and/or inertial forces occurring at each of the plurality of areas of interest within the vehicle (see paras. 0919, 1048, 1291, 1481).
Anderson does not explicitly disclose the utilization of machine learning. However in a related Invention, Onimaru teaches the utilization of machine learning to determine the environmental conditions encountered by a vehicle (see paras. 0033, 0065). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Anderson with the teaching of Onimaru based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve a road surface profile representing the unevenness of the road surface on which a vehicle has traveled is detected based on the acceleration in the lateral direction (lateral to the traveling direction) measured by an acceleration sensor installed in the vehicle (see para. 0003).
With reference to claim 2, Anderson further discloses wherein the input data further comprises external data received via a communication interface (see para. 0471).
Regarding claim 3, Anderson further discloses wherein the circuitry is configured to convert, by means of the machine learning system, the sensor data directly into the actuator settings (see para. 0919).
Pertaining to claim 6, Anderson further teaches wherein the plurality of areas of interest are located at least at one of: a seat, a backrest, a headrest, a footrest, or a dashboard of the vehicle (see para. 0997).
Referring to claim 7, Anderson further teaches wherein the received sensor data include road condition data of a road in front of the vehicle, obtained by one or more of: an RGB camera, an infrared camera, a RADAR sensor, a LiDAR sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, and a microphone (see paras. 0384, 0558).
With regards to claim 8, Anderson further discloses wherein the road condition data include an impulse response of a strip of the road (see paras. 0049, 0471).
For claim 9, Anderson further teaches wherein the impulse response is an average of a plurality of impulse responses obtained from other vehicles by means of vehicle-to-infrastructure communication or vehicle-to-vehicle communication (see para. 0471).
With reference to claim 10, Anderson further discloses wherein the external data comprises map data (see para. 0471).
Regarding claim 11, Anderson further discloses wherein the received sensor data comprises odometry data and/or a weight distribution within the vehicle (see paras. 01435, 0354).
Pertaining to claim 12, Anderson further teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to perform sensor fusion on the sensor data (see para. 1401).
For claim 15, Anderson does not explicitly disclose determining the residual vibration. However, determining residual vibrations distributions in flexible systems is well known to a person of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to include a residual vibration distribution because it is well known that vibrations will gradually fade and based on the motivation to improve ride dynamics by utilizing predictive and reactive sensor data from a number of sources (including redundant sources, which may be combined and used to provide greater accuracy to the overall system) (see para. 0920).
Referring to claim 16, Anderson further teaches wherein the actuators are piezoelectric elements (see para. 1859).
With regards to claim 17, Anderson further teaches wherein the actuators are realized by applying moving seats, or larger parts of a vehicle, or a chassis of the vehicle (see para. 0061, 0059, 0296).
For claim 18, Anderson further discloses wherein the actuators are realized by applying adjusting the stiffness of the material of equipment of the vehicle (see paras. 0868, 0911).
Regarding claim 20, the claim defines the same elements and subject matter as those recited in claim 1. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected based on the citations and reasoning outlined above for claim 1.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0224845) and Onimaru, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0273019), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Allaei (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0106500).
For claim 4, Anderson does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitations. A teaching from Allaei discloses wherein the circuitry is configured to convert, by means of the machine learning system, the sensor data into a vibration distribution of vibrations occurring at each of the plurality of areas of interest within the vehicle (see para. 0036). It would have been obvious to convert, by means of the machine learning system, the sensor data into a vibration distribution of vibrations occurring at each of the plurality of areas of interest within the vehicle in order to mathematically represent the expected vibrations to be induced into the system based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve a method of controlling vibrational energy in a system which is proactively designed into the system, and which takes account of total energy distribution throughout the system (see para. 0010).
Pertaining to claim 5, Anderson further discloses wherein the circuitry is further configured to determine actuator settings. Allaei teaches that actuator settings based on based on a vibration distribution (see para. 0036).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0224845) and Onimaru, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0273019), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sridharan, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0205745).
Pertaining to claim 13, Anderson does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitation. A teaching from Sridharan discloses that machine learning may include deep neural networks. It would have been obvious to modify Anderson with the teaching of Sridharan based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve communication optimizations for distributed machine learning (see para. 0001).
With regards to claim 14, Sridharan further teaches that machine learning may include reinforcement learning (see para. 0211).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0224845) and Onimaru, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0273019), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hansen, et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0320720).
Regarding claim 19, Anderson does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitation. A teaching from Hansen discloses the actuator settings control the actuators by applying an inverse-in-phase time-varying signal so as to reduce vibrations (see para. 0076). It would have been obvious to modify Anderson with the teaching of Hansen based on a reasonable expectation of success and the motivation to improve data determination that moves below a resonant frequency to counteract expected vibrations which would change in time reflective of the needs of the system in order to better counteract the vibration overall (see para. 0076).
Conclusion
Examiner would like to point out that any reference/citation to specific figures, columns and lines should not be considered limiting in any way. The entire cited reference, as well as any secondary teaching reference(s), are to be included in considerations of relevant disclosure relating to the claimed invention. Applicant is herein considered to have implicit knowledge of all cited teachings of the prior art of record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D TISSOT whose telephone number is (571)270-3439. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/ADAM D TISSOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights