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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-19 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on the merits.
An information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 31 March 2025 and reviewed by the Examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the adjustable panhard rod” appears to be a typographical error and should be “the adjustable panhard bar” for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 should be amended to recite “a chassis of a vehicle” in line 8 since such limitation is not previously recited. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10 should be amended to recite “the sensor data from the second wind sensor” for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 14 should be amended to recite “wherein the pair of elastic connector elements are a pair of air bellows” for grammatical correctness. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2 and 11-15 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.
Claim 2 is indefinite because of the recited limitation “a difference between the first force value acting on the first lateral side of the vehicle cab and the second force value acting on the second lateral side of the vehicle cab”. How is this difference supposed to be different than the previously recited “a difference between the first force value and the second force value” referred back to as “the [determined] difference”?
Claims 11 and 13 are indefinite because of the recited limitation “wherein the vehicle cab is suspended to the vehicle frame” (claim 11) and “wherein the vehicle cab is suspended to the chassis” (claim 13). It is unclear, to the Examiner, what Applicant means by “suspended to”? Is it instead meant to be “suspended on”, “suspended from”, etc.?
Claim 11 recites “the vehicle frame”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for such limitation in the claim. Did Applicant instead mean to recite “the chassis”?
Claim 11 is indefinite because of the recited limitation “a pivotable connection joint”. It is unclear, to the Examiner, whether Applicant is referring back to the same pivotable connection joint previously recited or not.
Claim 13 is indefinite because of the recited limitation “a translative motion of the vehicle”. It is unclear, to the Examiner, what Applicant means by “translative” motion? Such term (e.g. translative) is not well known and is also not clarified or explained in Applicant’s specification.
Claims 12, 14 and 15 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 18 is directed to a computer program product which can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 18 could be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art to encompass transitory forms of signal transmission.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 6-13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR101470252B1 – translation attached) in view of Saroha (US20220135148A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a computer system comprising processing circuitry (see at least page 3; “controller”, “control unit”, etc.) configured to: receive sensor data during propulsion of a vehicle, the sensor data comprising a first force value representing a first wind force acting on a first lateral side of a vehicle cab, and a second force value representing a second wind force acting on a second lateral side of the vehicle cab (see at least Figure 6(b), page 2 and page 4; “lateral wind condition”, “lateral wind during the running of the vehicle”, “pressure sensors ... pressure on the right side of the vehicle ... pressure on the left side of the vehicle”); determine a difference between the first force value and the second force value (see at least page 2 and page 3; “pressure difference”); and control an actuator to perform a corrective action, in response to the determined difference between the first and second force values to reduce a wind force resistance of the vehicle cab caused by the first and second wind forces (see at least page 2 and page 3; “senses the lateral wind condition during running ... and rotates ... left and right so that the air resistance due to the lateral wind can be minimized”).
Kim fails to disclose the corrective action to reduce the wind force resistance being to adjust a length of an adjustable panhard bar connected between the vehicle cab and a chassis of the vehicle to rotate the vehicle cab, around a geometric axis of the vehicle. However, Saroha teaches the corrective action to reduce the wind force resistance being to adjust a length of an adjustable panhard bar connected between the vehicle cab and a chassis of the vehicle to rotate the vehicle cab, around a geometric axis of the vehicle (see at least Figure 4, Figure 5, [0017], [0028] and claim 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Kim to incorporate the teachings of Saroha which teaches the corrective action to reduce the wind force resistance being to adjust a length of an adjustable panhard bar connected between the vehicle cab and a chassis of the vehicle to rotate the vehicle cab, around a geometric axis of the vehicle since they are directed to reducing wind resistance effects for vehicle(s) and incorporation of the teachings of Saroha would eliminate the need for an external component such as the spoiler and thereby increase efficiency and applicability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 2, Kim as modified by Saroha discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: determine a resulting wind direction acting on the vehicle cab, the resulting wind direction being a difference between the first force value acting on the first lateral side of the vehicle cab and the second force value acting on the second lateral side of the vehicle cab (see at least Kim pages 2-4; “direction”); and control the actuator to adjust the length of the adjustable panhard bar such that the vehicle cab is rotated in a direction towards the resulting wind direction (see at least Kim pages 2-4; “direction”, see claim 1 in regards to the corrective action being adjusting the length of the adjustable panhard bar such that the vehicle cab is rotated in view of Saroha).
Regarding claim 3, Kim as modified by Saroha discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to control the actuator to adjust the length of the adjustable panhard bar proportionally to the difference between the first and second force values (see at least Kim pages 3 and 4; “increase the amount of rotation ... as the calculated pressure difference becomes larger”, see claim 1 in regards to the corrective action being adjusting the length of the adjustable panhard bar in view of Saroha).
Regarding claim 4, Kim as modified by Saroha discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to control the actuator to adjust the length of the adjustable panhard rod when the difference between the first and second force values exceeds a predetermined threshold force value (see at least Kim pages 2 and 4; “pressure difference is greater than ... a predetermined value ... rotates ...”, see claim 1 in regards to the corrective action being adjusting the length of the adjustable panhard bar/rod in view of Saroha).
Regarding claim 6, Kim as modified by Saroha discloses wherein the sensor data is received from a first wind sensor arranged on the first lateral side of the vehicle cab and from a second wind sensor arranged on the second lateral side of the vehicle cab (see at least Kim pages 2 and 4; “pressure sensors ... right side of the vehicle ... left side of the vehicle”; examiner notes the spoiler (30) of Kim is being taken as an extender to the cab).
Regarding claim 7, Kim as modified by Saroha discloses wherein the first sensor is arranged on a first vehicle cab extender and the second sensor is arranged on a second vehicle cab extender, the first and second vehicle cab extenders are positioned at a rear end of the vehicle cab at a respective first and second lateral side (see at least Kim Figure 3, pages 2 and 4; “pressure sensors ... right side of the vehicle ... left side of the vehicle”; examiner notes the spoiler (30) of Kim is being taken as an extender to the cab).
Regarding claim 8, Kim as modified by Saroha discloses a vehicle comprising the computer system of claim 1 (see at least Kim Figure 3 and page 3; see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 is commensurate in scope with claim 1. See rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 10, Kim discloses a controllable cab adjustment system for a vehicle (see at least page 3; “controller”, “control unit”, etc.), the controllable cab adjustment system comprising: an actuator connected to a corrective action device and arranged to perform the corrective action (see at least page 2 and page 3; “controller .... device ... control unit ...”, “senses the lateral wind condition during running ... and rotates ... left and right so that the air resistance due to the lateral wind can be minimized”, “motor”); a first wind sensor and a second wind sensor (see at least Figure 3, page 2 and page 4; “pressure sensors”); and processing circuitry coupled to the actuator and to the first and second wind sensors (see at least page 2 and page 3; “controller .... device ... control unit ...”), the processing circuitry being configured to: receive sensor data from the first and second wind sensors during propulsion of the vehicle, the sensor data from the first wind sensor comprising a first force value representing a first wind force acting on a first lateral side of the vehicle cab, and the data from the second wind sensor comprising a second force value representing a second wind force acting on a second lateral side of the vehicle cab (see at least Figure 6(b), page 2 and page 4; “lateral wind condition”, “lateral wind during the running of the vehicle”, “pressure sensors ... pressure on the right side of the vehicle ... pressure on the left side of the vehicle”); determine a difference between the first and second force values (see at least page 2 and page 3; “pressure difference”); and control the actuator to perform the corrective action in response to the determined difference between the first and second force values to reduce a wind force resistance of the vehicle cab caused by the first and second wind forces (see at least page 2 and page 3; “senses the lateral wind condition during running ... and rotates ... left and right so that the air resistance due to the lateral wind can be minimized”).
Kim fails to disclose the controllable cab adjustment system further comprising: an adjustable panhard bar connectable between a chassis of the vehicle and a vehicle cab; the adjustable panhard bar being the corrective action device and the corrective action being to controllably adjust a length of the adjustable panhard bar; a pivotable connection joint configured to rotate the vehicle cab relative to the chassis around a geometric axis of the vehicle; and the corrective action to reduce the wind force resistance being to adjust the length of the panhard bar to rotate the vehicle cab at the pivotable connection joint. However, Saroha teaches the controllable cab adjustment system further comprising: an adjustable panhard bar connectable between a chassis of the vehicle and a vehicle cab; the adjustable panhard bar being the corrective action device and the corrective action being to controllably adjust a length of the adjustable panhard bar; a pivotable connection joint configured to rotate the vehicle cab relative to the chassis around a geometric axis of the vehicle; and the corrective action to reduce the wind force resistance being to adjust the length of the panhard bar to rotate the vehicle cab at the pivotable connection joint (see at least Figure 4, Figure 5, [0006], [0015]-[0017], [0022]-[0028] and claim 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Kim to incorporate the teachings of Saroha which teaches the controllable cab adjustment system further comprising: an adjustable panhard bar connectable between a chassis of the vehicle and a vehicle cab; the adjustable panhard bar being the corrective action device and the corrective action being to controllably adjust a length of the adjustable panhard bar; a pivotable connection joint configured to rotate the vehicle cab relative to the chassis around a geometric axis of the vehicle; and the corrective action to reduce the wind force resistance being to adjust the length of the panhard bar to rotate the vehicle cab at the pivotable connection joint since they are directed to reducing wind resistance effects for vehicle(s) and incorporation of the teachings of Saroha would eliminate the need for an external component such as the spoiler and thereby increase efficiency and applicability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 11, Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the vehicle cab is suspended to the vehicle frame at a pivotable connection joint allowing the vehicle cab to rotate. However, Saroha teaches wherein the vehicle cab is suspended to the vehicle frame at a pivotable connection joint allowing the vehicle cab to rotate (see at least Figure 4, Figure 5, [0006], [0015]-[0017] and [0022]-[0025]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Kim to incorporate the teachings of Saroha which teaches wherein the vehicle cab is suspended to the vehicle frame at a pivotable connection joint allowing the vehicle cab to rotate since they are directed to reducing wind resistance effects for vehicle(s) and incorporation of the teachings of Saroha would eliminate the need for an external component such as the spoiler and thereby increase efficiency and applicability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 12, Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the pivotable connection joint is positioned at a front end of the vehicle cab. However, Saroha teaches wherein the pivotable connection joint is positioned at a front end of the vehicle cab (see at least Figure 4, Figure 5, [0015]-[0017] and [0022]-[0025]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Kim to incorporate the teachings of Saroha which teaches wherein the pivotable connection joint is positioned at a front end of the vehicle cab since they are directed to reducing wind resistance effects for vehicle(s) and incorporation of the teachings of Saroha would eliminate the need for an external component such as the spoiler and thereby increase efficiency and applicability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 13, Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the vehicle cab is suspended to the chassis by a pair of elastic connector elements allowing a translative motion of the vehicle cab relative to the chassis. However, Saroha teaches wherein the vehicle cab is suspended to the chassis by a pair of elastic connector elements allowing a translative motion of the vehicle cab relative to the chassis (see at least Figure 4, Figure 5, [0015]-[0017] and [0022]-[0025]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Kim to incorporate the teachings of Saroha which teaches wherein the vehicle cab is suspended to the chassis by a pair of elastic connector elements allowing a translative motion of the vehicle cab relative to the chassis since they are directed to reducing wind resistance effects for vehicle(s) and incorporation of the teachings of Saroha would eliminate the need for an external component such as the spoiler and thereby increase efficiency and applicability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 15, Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the pair of elastic connector elements is positioned at a rear end of the vehicle cab. However, Saroha teaches wherein the pair of elastic connector elements is positioned at a rear end of the vehicle cab (see at least Figure 4, Figure 5, [0015]-[0017] and [0022]-[0025]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Kim to incorporate the teachings of Saroha which teaches wherein the pair of elastic connector elements is positioned at a rear end of the vehicle cab since they are directed to reducing wind resistance effects for vehicle(s) and incorporation of the teachings of Saroha would eliminate the need for an external component such as the spoiler and thereby increase efficiency and applicability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 16, Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the panhard bar is arranged at a rear end of the vehicle cab. However, Saroha teaches wherein the panhard bar is arranged at a rear end of the vehicle cab (see at least Figure 4, Figure 5, [0015]-[0017] and [0022]-[0025]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Kim to incorporate the teachings of Saroha which teaches wherein the panhard bar is arranged at a rear end of the vehicle cab since they are directed to reducing wind resistance effects for vehicle(s) and incorporation of the teachings of Saroha would eliminate the need for an external component such as the spoiler and thereby increase efficiency and applicability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 17, Kim as modified by Saroha discloses wherein the actuator is an electric motor (see at least Kim page 2; “motor”).
Regarding claim 18, Kim as modified by Saroha discloses a computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by the processing circuitry, the method of claim 9 (see at least Kim pages 1 and 3, see above for rejection of claims 1/9).
Regarding claim 19, Kim as modified by Saroha discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform the method of claim 9 (see at least Kim pages 1 and 3, see above for rejection of claims 1/9).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR101470252B1 – translation attached) in view of Saroha (US20220135148A1) in further view of Cuturic (WO2013022388A1).
Regarding claim 5, see claim 1 above in regards to the processing circuitry being configured to control the actuator to adjust the length of the adjustable panhard bar as the corrective action to reduce the wind force resistance (see claim 1 above).
Kim as modified by Saroha does not explicitly disclose for the corrective action to reduce the wind force resistance to be performed when the vehicle is propelled at a vehicle speed above a predetermined threshold speed limit. However, Cuturic teaches for the corrective action to reduce the wind force resistance to be performed when the vehicle is propelled at a vehicle speed above a predetermined threshold speed limit (see at least lines 30-34 on page 10; “vehicle 12 at a high speed ... above the predetermined value ... move ... such that wind resistance is lowered”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Kim as modified by Saroha to incorporate the teachings of Cuturic which teaches for the corrective action to reduce the wind force resistance to be performed when the vehicle is propelled at a vehicle speed above a predetermined threshold speed limit since they are directed to reducing wind resistance effects for vehicle(s) and incorporation of the teachings of Cuturic would increase efficiency of the overall system by only performing the corrective action when deemed necessary.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR101470252B1 – translation attached) in view of Saroha (US20220135148A1) in further view of Boka (US20230242132A1).
Regarding claim 14, Kim as modified by Saroha fails to explicitly disclose wherein the pair of elastic connector elements being a pair of air bellows. However, Boka teaches wherein the pair of elastic connector elements being a pair of air bellows (see at least [0015]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Kim as modified by Saroha to incorporate the teachings of Boka which teaches wherein the pair of elastic connector elements being a pair of air bellows since they are directed to vehicle cab and chassis and incorporation of the teachings of Boka would increase flexibility of the overall system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAHAR MOTAZEDI whose telephone number is (571)272-0661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10a.m. - 6p.m..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/SAHAR MOTAZEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights