DETAILED ACTION
Claims 11-19 received on 02/24/2025 are considered in this office action. Claims 11-19 are pending for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/14/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Interpretation
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) are:
Claims 11 and 14-18: weight coefficient calculation unit (generic placeholder) configured to (function)
Claims 11 and 17-18: vertical motion calculation unit (generic placeholder) configured to (function)
Claims 11 and 17-18: pitch motion calculation unit (generic placeholder) configured to (function)
Claims 11 and 17-18: actual target damping force calculation unit (generic placeholder) configured to (function)
Claims 11 and 17-18: target damping coefficient calculation unit (generic placeholder) configured to (function)
Claims 11-12: correction unit (generic placeholder) configured to (function)
Claim 11: control signal output unit (generic placeholder) configured to (function)
Claim 12: posture change detection unit (generic placeholder) configured to (function)
Claims 13 and 18: roll motion calculation unit (generic placeholder) configured to (function)
Because this/these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Regarding the units mentioned above (a)-(i), they are interpreted to cover the corresponding structure of controller, processor or electronic control unit (ECU) and equivalents thereof as supported by FIG. 2-3 and a portions of paragraphs of the specification reproduced below:
[0170] 1: vehicle behavior control device, 2: vehicle body, 3: wheel, 5: suspension device, 7: damping-force adjustable shock absorber (variable damper), 8: damping force variable actuator, 9: CAN, 11, 31, 41: controller (control device)
[0016] As illustrated in Fig. 3, the controller 11 includes a state estimation unit 12, a GSP calculation unit 13, and a BLQ controller 20.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirao et al. (US20190255903A1, hereinafter ‘903), in view of Hirao (US20160159189A1, hereinafter ‘189).
‘903 and ‘189 are cited in the IDS received on 08/14/2025.
Regarding claim 11, ‘903 teaches a control device for a damping-force adjustable shock absorber which is provided to a vehicle and which allows adjustment of a damping force to be generated (para. [0006]: “damping force adjustable shock absorber […] control device configured to control the damping characteristic”; para. [0002]: “adjust a characteristic of the damping force to be exerted by the control damper with use of a controller”), the control device (FIG. 2 controller 11) comprising:
a weight coefficient calculation unit configured to calculate, when an actual target damping force is to be calculated based on a calculated value of a vehicle behavior calculation unit, a weight coefficient for causing the actual target damping force to approach a value close to a target damping force obtained in advance (FIG. 2 GSP Calculation Portion 20; para. [0038]-[0039]: “a gain scheduling parameter calculation portion 20 (hereinafter referred to as the GSP calculation portion 20) calculates the parameters gsp and gspr”, wherein “gsp” corresponds to weight coefficient);
a vertical motion calculation unit configured to obtain a motion state of the vehicle in a vertical direction (para. [0065]: “vertical force calculation portion 32A […] which calculates a vertical force on the vehicle body 1 (the vertical resultant force Fcg at the center of gravity)”; para. [0067]: “This filter portion 32C forms a sprung speed estimation unit, which estimates the sprung speed Vcg of the vehicle body 1 from the acceleration (the sprung acceleration Acg) calculated by the sprung acceleration calculation portion 32B”);
a pitch motion calculation unit configured to obtain a motion state of the vehicle in a pitch direction (FIG. 9; para. [0069]-[0072]: “the pitch rate calculation portion 33 includes a pitch moment calculation portion 33A, a pitch angular acceleration calculation portion 33B […] pitch moment calculation portion 33A calculates a pitch moment Mpitch […] pitch angular acceleration calculation portion 33B calculates a pitch angular acceleration αpitch […] calculates a pitch rate AVpitch”);
an actual target damping force calculation unit configured to calculate the actual target damping force based on the weight coefficient calculated by the weight coefficient calculation unit and a calculation result of the vertical motion calculation unit and a calculation result of the pitch motion calculation unit (FIGs. 2-3 ; para. [0037]: “vertical BLQ 16 calculates a target damping coefficient C0 of the damper 7 for reducing the vertical vibration and the roll vibration based on the estimated state amount x output from the state estimation portion 13”; para. [0038]: “These gains are assigned in a map to which scheduling parameters gsp and gspr (hereinafter referred to as the parameters gsp and gspr) are inputs, and the parameters gsp and gspr are continuously scheduled. Due to this configuration, the vertical BLQ 16 and the roll BLQ 15 achieve a logic in which the gain can be adjusted”; para. [0077]: “respective sprung speeds VFL, VFR, VRL, and VRR of the wheels from the sprung speed Vcg at the center of gravity, the pitch rate AVpitch, and the roll rate AVroll with use of the following equation, an equation 3 based”, wherein vertical BLQ 16 consideres a calculation result of the vertical motion calculation unit and a calculation result of the pitch motion calculation unit);
a target damping coefficient calculation unit configured to calculate a target damping coefficient based on a calculated value of the actual target damping force calculation unit (FIG. 2; para. [0052]: “The damping coefficient calculation portion 16D calculates a damping coefficient instruction (target damping coefficients C0FR and C0FL) by multiplying the damping force with the dead zone added therein that is calculated by the dead zone processing portion 16C by an inverse matrix of x* (the relative speed).”);
a correction unit configured to calculate a corrected damping coefficient obtained by reducing an upper limit of the target damping coefficient in a region in which a relative speed between a sprung part and an unsprung part of the vehicle is lower than a predetermined value (FIG. 2; para. [0046]: “As illustrated in FIG. 2, a minimum value selection portion 23 compares the maximum damping coefficient Cmax output from the damping coefficient limit portion 22 and the target damping coefficient C0 output from the vertical BLQ 16. The minimum value selection portion 23 selects a smaller one of the maximum damping coefficient Cmax and the target damping coefficient C0 to limit the value of the target damping coefficient C0 to the maximum damping coefficient Cmax or smaller, and outputs it toward the damping coefficient map 17 as the corrected damping coefficient Ca”); and
a control signal output unit configured to output a control signal corresponding to the corrected damping coefficient to the damping-force adjustable shock absorber (FIG. 2; para. [0053]: “Then, the damping coefficient map 17 identifies the instruction current i for adjusting the damping force characteristic of the damper 7 based on the corrected damping coefficient Ca from the minimum value selection portion 23 and the relative speed x*, and outputs this instruction current i to the actuator 7A of the damper 7”),
wherein the correction unit is configured to set the corrected damping coefficient such that the damping force increases in accordance with an increase in the relative speed, (FIG. 4; FIG. 5; para. [0041]: “A damping coefficient limit portion 22 switches a limit value of the damping coefficient based on values of the relative speed x*”),
wherein the correction unit has a maximum damping coefficient corresponding to the relative speed, and is configured to correct the target damping coefficient to the maximum damping coefficient when the target damping coefficient exceeds the maximum damping coefficient (para. [0041]: “For realizing this function, the damping coefficient limit portion 22 calculates the limit value (a maximum damping coefficient Cmax) of the damping coefficient based on the relative speed x* and the roll rate.”; para. [0046]: “The minimum value selection portion 23 selects a smaller one of the maximum damping coefficient Cmax and the target damping coefficient C0 to limit the value of the target damping coefficient C0 to the maximum damping coefficient Cmax or smaller, and outputs it toward the damping coefficient map 17 as the corrected damping coefficient Ca”), and
wherein the weight coefficient calculation unit is configured to change the weight coefficient in accordance with a state of a road surface (FIG. 2 Road surface determination portion; para. [0039]-[0040]: “calculates the parameters gsp and gspr according to a state of the road surface based on the vehicle speed acquired from the CAN 12 and a result of a determination about the road surface by a road surface determination portion 21 […] More specifically, the road surface determination portion 21 determines a “wavy road”, a “bad road”, an “ordinary road”, and the like based on an amplitude, a frequency, and the like of the vehicle height. The road surface determination portion 21 outputs the result of the determination about the road surface toward the GSP calculation portion 20”), but fails to specifically teach a gradient of the damping force with respect to the relative speed is small when the relative speed is lower than the predetermined value, and the gradient of the damping force with respect to the relative speed is large when the relative speed is higher than the predetermined value.
However, in the same field of endeavor, ‘189 teaches the correction unit is configured to set the corrected damping coefficient such that the damping force increases in accordance with an increase in the relative speed, a gradient of the damping force with respect to the relative speed is small when the relative speed is lower than the predetermined value, and the gradient of the damping force with respect to the relative speed is large when the relative speed is higher than the predetermined value (FIG. 4; para. [0044]-[0046]: “The maximum damping coefficient map 18 includes a characteristic line 18A that indicates a relationship between the relative speed V2 and a maximum damping coefficient Cmax, and outputs the maximum damping coefficient Cmax based on the relative speed V2. […] When the relative speed V2 has a value close to the threshold value Vt, the maximum damping coefficient Cmax may be set to a value between the low speed set value C1 and the high speed set value C2, like a linear region in a region corresponding to the relative speed V2>Vt illustrated in FIG. 4”, wherein FIG. 4 shows a gradient of the damping force with respect to the relative speed is small when the relative speed is lower than the predetermined value, and the gradient of the damping force with respect to the relative speed is large when the relative speed is higher than the predetermined value).
‘903 and ‘189 are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of controlling a damping-force adjustable shock absorber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ‘903 to incorporate the teachings of ‘189 by setting a corrected damping coefficient such that the damping force increases in accordance with an increase in the relative speed, a gradient of the damping force with respect to the relative speed is small when the relative speed is lower than the predetermined value, and the gradient of the damping force with respect to the relative speed is large when the relative speed is higher than the predetermined value. Doing so would solve the issue of instruction being requested even for a region in which the shock absorber cannot control, the control instruction suddenly changes when a stroke of the shock absorber reverses between an extension stroke and a compression stroke (‘189, para. [0004]), thus preventing the jerk.
Regarding claim 12, ‘903 in view of ‘189 teaches the control device according to claim 11. ‘189 further teaches further comprising a posture change detection unit configured to detect a posture change in a vehicle body (para. [0071]: “an orientation change detection section (attitude change detection section) that detects a change in the orientation (attitude) of the vehicle body 1.”), wherein the correction unit is configured to reduce a correction amount when the correction unit determines, based on a detection result of the posture change detection unit, that the posture change occurs (para. [0126]: “one embodiment of the present invention further includes the orientation change detection device configured to detect a change in the orientation of the vehicle body, and the correction section is configured to reduce a correction amount when determining that an orientation change occurs based on a detection result of the orientation change detection device”).
Regarding claim 13, ‘903 in view of ‘189 teaches the control device according to claim 11. ‘903 further teaches further comprising a roll motion calculation unit configured to obtain a motion state of the vehicle in a roll direction (FIG. 2 ROLL BLQ 15; para. [0074]: “The roll moment calculation portion 34A calculates a roll moment Mpitch based on the following equation, an equation 2 from the respective resultant forces FFL, FFR, FRL, and FRR of the wheels”).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘903, in view of ‘189, and further in view of HALL (US11285773B1).
Regarding claim 14, ‘903 in view of ‘189 teaches the control device according to claim 11. ‘903 further teaches enhancing accuracy in state estimation in accordance with a weight of a vehicle body (para. [0090]: “FIG. 11 illustrates a block diagram of the above-described mass estimation. The sprung mass calculation portion 36 serves to estimate the mass of the vehicle body 1.”; para. [0108]-[0109]: “the sprung mass calculation portion 36, which acquires the mass mb of the vehicle body 1 from the displacement calculated from the vehicle height sensor 10 […]the sprung acceleration Acg can be calculated by dividing the vertical resultant force Fcg calculated by the vertical force calculation portion 32A by the mass mb calculated by the sprung mass calculation portion 36. Therefore, even when the number of passengers or a load weight is changed, the sprung acceleration Acg can be calculated with use of the sprung mass mb estimated from, for example, the displacement calculated from the vehicle height sensor 10, so that the influence due to the change in the sprung mass mb can be directly taken into consideration. This results in improvement of the estimation accuracy when the weight is changed, and therefore can improve the ride comfort”), but fails to specifically teach the weight coefficient calculation unit is configured to change the weight coefficient in accordance with a weight of a vehicle body.
However, in the same field of endeavor, HALL teaches wherein the weight coefficient calculation unit is configured to change the weight coefficient in accordance with a weight of a vehicle body (col 30s-31 lines 52-3: “The stiffness of the suspension system 140 may be changed according to the road conditions using, for example, gain scheduling. The suspension system 140 and, in particular, the primary actuator 246 may be controlled according to a suspension control logic that, for example, controls output of the primary actuator 246 (e.g., torque and/or direction) according to the suspension system sensors 352d (e.g., force, position, and/or motion) of the primary actuator 246. For those road conditions for which increased stiffness is desired, the gain may be increased, such that the output of the primary actuator 246 (e.g., the torque) achieves a higher stiffness. Other inputs for gain scheduling may include, for example, speed of the vehicle 100 and/or weight of the vehicle 100 (e.g., which may vary according to occupants thereof). The stiffness of the suspension system 140 may be changed in other manners, for example, by changing target parameters of the suspension control logic (e.g., travel and/or force transfer of the primary actuator 246)”).
Hall is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor of active suspension which comprises of changing damping of an active damper. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ‘903 in view of ‘189 to incorporate the teachings of Hall by adjusting weight coefficient based on weight of vehicle. Doing so would enhance user experience by enhancing ride comfort by accounting for factors which affect road conditions (Hall, col 4 lines 40-50), such as weight of vehicle.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘903, in view of ‘189, and further in view of Hirao et. al (US 20230100858 A1, hereinafter ‘858).
‘858 is used as the English translation for WO2021187161A1.
‘858 and WO2021187161A1 are cited in the IDS received on 08/14/2025.
Regarding claim 15, ‘903 in view of ‘189 teaches the control device according to claim 11, but fails to specifically teach wherein the weight coefficient calculation unit is configured to change the weight coefficient in accordance with a selected damping force mode.
However, in the same field of endeavor ‘858 teaches wherein the weight coefficient calculation unit is configured to change the weight coefficient in accordance with a selected damping force mode (para. [0031]: “As illustrated in FIG. 3, the weight coefficient calculation map 14 includes a first map 14A and a second map 14B. The first map 14A is a mode SW-GSP map indicating the relationship between the mode output from the mode switch 17 and a gain scheduling parameter (GSP). The first map 14A calculates the GSP according to the mode selected by the mode switch 17. For example, the GSP is calculated to be 0.9 in the “Sport” mode. The GSP is calculated to be 0.44 in the “Normal” mode. The GSP is calculated to be 0.1 in the “Comfort” mode”).
‘858 is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor of controlling a damping-force adjustable shock absorber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ‘903 in view of ‘189 to incorporate the teachings of ‘858 by adjusting weight coefficient based on selected drive mode. Doing so would enhance user experience during driving by controling of the damping force of a suspension is required to react so as to change the weight of the evaluation function and the damping force characteristic according to the preference of a driver (‘858, para. [0004]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘903, in view of ‘189, and further in view of HALL, and further in view of IZAWA (US20080009992A1).
Regarding claim 16, ‘903 in view of ‘189 teaches the control device according to claim 11,. ‘903 further teaches (para. [0090]: “FIG. 11 illustrates a block diagram of the above-described mass estimation. The sprung mass calculation portion 36 serves to estimate the mass of the vehicle body 1. This sprung mass calculation portion 36 includes a front wheel-side mass calculation portion 41, a rear wheel-side calculation portion 42, a front-rear wheel mass integration portion 43, and a mass update portion 44.”; para. [0091]-[0092]: “The front wheel-side mass calculation portion 41 […] thereby calculating the current mass mF on the front wheel side. […] The rear wheel-side mass calculation portion 42 […] The mass calculation map 42C calculates the current mass mR on the rear wheel side”; para. [0109]: “This results in improvement of the estimation accuracy when the weight is changed, and therefore can improve the ride comfort”), but fails to specifically teach weight coefficient calculation unit is configured to change the weight coefficient
However, in the same field of endeavor, HALL teaches wherein the weight coefficient calculation unit is configured to change the weight coefficient (col 30s-31 lines 52-3: “The stiffness of the suspension system 140 may be changed according to the road conditions using, for example, gain scheduling. The suspension system 140 and, in particular, the primary actuator 246 may be controlled according to a suspension control logic that, for example, controls output of the primary actuator 246 (e.g., torque and/or direction) according to the suspension system sensors 352d (e.g., force, position, and/or motion) of the primary actuator 246. For those road conditions for which increased stiffness is desired, the gain may be increased, such that the output of the primary actuator 246 (e.g., the torque) achieves a higher stiffness. Other inputs for gain scheduling may include, for example, speed of the vehicle 100 and/or weight of the vehicle 100 (e.g., which may vary according to occupants thereof). The stiffness of the suspension system 140 may be changed in other manners, for example, by changing target parameters of the suspension control logic (e.g., travel and/or force transfer of the primary actuator 246)”).
Hall is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor of active suspension which comprises of changing damping of an active damper. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ‘903 in view of ‘189 to incorporate the teachings of Hall by adjusting weight coefficient based on weight of vehicle. Doing so would enhance user experience by enhancing ride comfort by accounting for factors which affect road conditions (Hall, col 4 lines 40-50), such as weight of vehicle. ‘903 in view of ‘189 in view of HALL fails to specifically teach wherein the weight coefficient calculation unit is configured to change the weight coefficient in accordance with a front-rear weight balance.
However, in the same field of endeavor, IZAWA teaches wherein the weight coefficient calculation unit is configured to change the weight coefficient in accordance with a front-rear weight balance (para. [0015]: “differences in loads acting upon the wheels can be detected from the lateral acceleration, longitudinal (or front-rear) acceleration, and/or vehicle speed, and this can be used to adjust the damping coefficient (or gain provided by the gain setting means) for the damper of each wheel, whereby further optimizing the damping characteristics depending on the state of movement of the vehicle”; para. [0048]: “the front dampers where the wheels need to support larger loads due to the shift of center of gravity resulting from the deceleration are set to a higher value than those for the rear dampers.”).
IZAWA is considered analogous art to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor of active suspension which comprises of changing damping of an active damper. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ‘903 in view of ‘189 and further in view of Hall to incorporate the teachings of IZAWA by adjusting weight coefficient based on weight distribution of vehicle. Doing so would enhance user experience by enhancing ride comfort by optimizing the damping characteristics based on state of the vehicle (IZAWA, para. [0015]), such as weight distribution of vehicle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hayashi (US 20120010780 A1) teaches damping force control apparatus for controlling a damping force characteristic of a damper used for a vehicle suspension apparatus using Nonlinear H_infinity control theory on a four-wheel model of a vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW S KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-7356. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8AM - 5PM.
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, James J Lee can be reached on (571) 270-5965. 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.
/ANDREW SANG KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights