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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2022-140581, filed on 09/05/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/28/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 13 and 14. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because Figure 2 appears to have a preview controller 1, however there is no preview controller in the drawing only an arrow pointing at the Fender. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed on 03/03/2025 is being acknowledged. The abstract, specification, and claims are amended.
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) is/are:
in claim 1:
a road surface distance detector to use the sensor to detect
an average road surface displacement calculator to calculate
an actuator controller to control
in claim 2:
the average road surface displacement calculator calculates
in claim 3:
the average road surface displacement calculator calculates
in claim 4:
the road surface distance detector averages
in claim 5:
the road surface distance detector calculates
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The road surface distance detector is an ECU (Electronic Control Unit) that receives measurements from a distance sensor [see Paragraph 0020], the distance sensor is a radar type, a camera type, a laser type, and the like [see Paragraph 0028]. The average road surface displacement calculator is a processing unit [see Paragraph 0018] and is implemented on an ECU [see Paragraph 0020]. The actuator controller to control is implemented on an ECU [see Paragraph 0020].
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-5 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 1 recites the limitation "the sensor" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim in a previous recitation of “sensor” recites “at least one distance sensor”, this interpretation can be more than one sensor, however the second recitation is only one sensor. Examiner suggests amending the claim limitation “the sensor” and any subsequent recitation to “the at least one distance sensor”.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation "the distance sensor" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests amending the claim limitation “the distance sensor” and any subsequent recitation of a sensor to “the at least one distance sensor”.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation "of the two or more points" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-5 depend on claim 1 and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the two or more distance sensors" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 further recites the limitation "the distance sensor" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 depends on claim 4 and is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the distance sensors" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 further recites the limitation "a sensor" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 further recites the limitation "the sensor" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Note: Examiner suggests amending the claim limitation “the distance sensor” and any subsequent recitation of a sensor to “the at least one distance sensor”.
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.
Claims 1, 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lakehal-Ayat et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0352920 A1) hereinafter Lakehal-Ayat.
Regarding claim 1, Lakehal-Ayat discloses a suspension control system comprising:
at least one distance sensor mounted on a vehicle body [see Paragraph 0047 - discusses at least one sensor, see Figure 1 below – depicts at least one sensor 4 on the vehicle body 3]; and
PNG
media_image1.png
300
514
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Lakehal-Ayat
at least one processor configured to executed functions of [see Paragraph 0048 - discusses a controller that is connected with the sensors (visual system) and the controller controls the suspension, and see Paragraph 0023 - discusses that the controller contains processors]:
a road surface distance detector to use the sensor to detect a distance to a road surface from the distance sensor to at least one point on the road surface through which a wheel of a vehicle passes [see Paragraphs 0049 and 0062 - discusses that depth measurements between the at least one sensor and a ground surface is determined in front of a vehicle during travel of the vehicle];
an average road surface displacement calculator to calculate an average road surface displacement of two or more road surface displacements each obtained by subtracting a vehicle height from the distance to the road surface at each of the two or more points within a range of a tire contact length in a rolling direction of the wheel [see Paragraphs 0050 and 0062 - discusses estimating an average height of the ground (multiple measurements) (see Paragraph 0037 - discusses a relative height profile that is an average of the height points) using the visual system, see Figure 1 below - depicts a displacement of the road surface (of the height points H1-H3), see Paragraph 0024 – discusses that irregularities are determined based on their heights using the sensor (see Paragraph 0028 – distance sensor such as a LIDAR) – a vehicle mounted sensor, for example a LIDAR, detects height differences by scanning the road, measuring each point’s distance, and comparing it to a flat reference (the height distance when there is no irregularity). Deviations from that reference reveal the shape and size of irregularities (heights of bumps or potholes)]; and
PNG
media_image1.png
300
514
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Lakehal-Ayat
an actuator controller to control an active suspension based on the average road surface displacement so as to stabilize posture of the vehicle body at a predetermined vehicle height [see Paragraphs 0052 and 0061-0062 - discusses that the controller adjusts the suspension system to provide stability based on the relative height profile (average of the height points) determined by the visual system for a vehicle that is at a set height].
Regarding claim 4, Lakehal-Ayat discloses the invention with respect to claim 1. Lakehal-Ayat further discloses wherein the road surface distance detector averages distances to the road surface detected by the two or more distance sensors provided in a width direction of the wheel, to have the distance to the road surface from the distance sensor to the point on the road surface through which the wheel passes [see Paragraph 0047 - discusses using two sensors in a stereo set up to generate a depth matrix to detect unevenness of a ground surface, and see Paragraph 0049 - discusses that the detection region of the sensors has a breadth in the lateral direction of the vehicle, and see Figure 1 below - depicts the point where the vehicles wheel will pass through, and see Paragraph 0050 an average of heights is determined using multiple measurements (parallel images) from sensors].
PNG
media_image1.png
300
514
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Lakehal-Ayat
Claim 6 is analogous to claim 1 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lakehal-Ayat.
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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lakehal-Ayat in view of Suzuki et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0057306 A1) hereinafter Suzuki.
Regarding claim 2, Lakehal-Ayat discloses the invention with respect to claim 1.
However, Lakehal-Ayat fails to disclose wherein the average road surface displacement calculator calculates the tire contact length in the rolling direction of the wheel, based on at least vehicle speed or tire pressure.
Suzuki discloses wherein an average road surface displacement calculator calculates a tire contact length in the rolling direction of a wheel, based on at least vehicle speed see Paragraph 0009 - discusses calculating a ground contact length of a tire based on a vehicle speed and ground contact time].
Suzuki suggests that determining the ground contact length of the tire, that a reduction in pressure can be determined for the tire at a high precision [see Paragraphs 0006 and 0009].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the average road surface displacement calculator as taught by Lakehal-Ayat to calculate the tire contact length in the rolling direction of the wheel, based on at least vehicle speed or tire pressure as taught by Suzuki in order to determine reductions in tire pressure at a high precision [Suzuki, see Paragraphs 0006 and 0009].
Regarding claim 3, Lakehal-Ayat discloses the invention with respect to claim 1.
However, Lakehal-Ayat fails to disclose wherein the average road surface displacement calculator calculates the tire contact length in a multistage form in the rolling direction of the wheel, based on at least one of vehicle speed and tire pressure.
Suzuki discloses wherein the average road surface displacement calculator calculates the tire contact length in a multistage form in the rolling direction of the wheel, based on at least one of vehicle speed see Paragraphs 0030-0041 - discusses determining two peak values as ground contact time (multistage) and then using the ground contact time to determine a ground contact length].
Suzuki suggests that determining the ground contact length of the tire, that a reduction in pressure can be determined for the tire at a high precision [see Paragraphs 0006 and 0009].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the average road surface displacement calculator as taught by Lakehal-Ayat to calculate the tire contact length in a multistage form in the rolling direction of the wheel, based on at least one of vehicle speed Suzuki in order to determine reductions in tire pressure at a high precision [Suzuki, see Paragraphs 0006 and 0009].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance.
Claim 5 recites:
“wherein the road surface distance detector calculates a weighted average value as a distance to the road surface, with weights on distances to the road surface detected by the distance sensors such that when a vehicle turns, the more a sensor is located on an inner side of the turn, the greater weight is given to the distance for the sensor.”
Lakehal-Ayat is directed at when a vehicle is on a turn at a sharp angle, that no weight is added or less weight is added [see Paragraphs 0024 and 0043]. Whereas Applicants invention is “when a vehicle turns, the more a sensor is located on an inner side of the turn, the greater weight is given to the distance for the sensor”. This limitation of claim 5 appears to be the opposite of Lakehal-Ayat and further the weight is not related to the average value, it is related to the control terms [see Paragraphs 0024 and 0034].
The Examiner further emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for further modification of the evidence at hand to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as combining various references from the totality of the evidence to reach the combination of features as claimed would require a substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias. It is thereby asserted by the Examiner that, in light of the above and in further deliberation over all of the evidence at hand, that the claims are allowable as the evidence at hand does not anticipate the claims and does not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shayne M Gilbertson whose telephone number is (571)272-4862. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday - Friday: 10:30 AM - 9:30 PM EST.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at 571-272-4190. 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.
/SHAYNE M. GILBERTSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
