DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-4, 6-7, 9, 13-17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lavoie (US Pub No 2018/0154727).
In regard to claim 2, Lavoie discloses a control system for controlling an active suspension of a vehicle (see the Abstract: “A disclosed example apparatus includes a plurality of actuators of a vehicle, where each actuator is to be length adjustable, and a controller communicatively coupled to the actuators, where the controller to vary a height of at least one of the actuators to adjust a tilt of the vehicle to facilitate loading or removal of an object relative to the vehicle.”) comprising a vehicle body (100, Fig 2) and a plurality of wheels (104), the control system comprising one or more controllers (“Actuation Controller”, 201, with sensors 402, see Figs 2 and 4), the control system configured to:
determine a difference in height and/or angle, between the vehicle body and an ingress/egress surface (see Paragraph 0029 (emphasis added): “In this example, the sensors 402 measure a topography of the terrain 410 to determine or calculate a degree to which the actuator controller 201 will tilt or angle the vehicle 100 to facilitate access to the object 110 by the user 303. In particular, the sensors 402 of the illustrated example utilize camera imaging at multiple cameras to determine the topography. Additionally or alternatively, at least one of the sensors 402 measures an angle and/or level of the vehicle 100 sitting on the terrain 410 relative to a horizontal plane (e.g., a true horizontal measured by a gravitational sensor). In some examples, the sensors 402 take into account and/or measure surface profiles or contours 412 of the terrain 410.”); and
control the active suspension to reduce the difference in height and/or angle between the vehicle body and an ingress/egress surface (see step 712 in Fig 7 along with Paragraph 0053: “Next, at least one adjustable actuator (e.g., the actuator 202) of the vehicle 100 is controlled to orient the vehicle 100 at the desired tilt angle (block 712). In this example, numerous actuators of the at least one adjustable actuator are actuated and/or adjusted in length to orient the vehicle 100 at the desired tilt angle.”).
In regard to claim 3, Lavoie discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the control system is configured to:
determine the difference in angle between the vehicle body and the ingress/egress surface (see Paragraph 0029 (emphasis added): “In this example, the sensors 402 measure a topography of the terrain 410 to determine or calculate a degree to which the actuator controller 201 will tilt or angle the vehicle 100 to facilitate access to the object 110 by the user 303.); and
control the active suspension to reduce the difference in the angle between the vehicle body and the ingress/egress surface (see step 712 in Fig 7 along with Paragraph 0053: “at least one adjustable actuator (e.g., the actuator 202) of the vehicle 100 is controlled to orient the vehicle 100 at the desired tilt angle (block 712)).
In regard to claim 4, Lavoie discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the control system is configured to determine information indicative of the angle of the ingress/egress surface (see Paragraph 0029: “the sensors 402 of the illustrated example utilize camera imaging at multiple cameras to determine the topography” and “sensors 402 take into account and/or measure surface profiles or contours 412 of the terrain 410”).
In regard to claim 6, Lavoie discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the control system is configured to receive information indicative of a requirement for ingress/egress of passengers and/or cargo (see step 706 of Fig 7: “Receive a command from the user to orient the vehicle at a desired orientation”) before controlling the active suspension to reduce the difference in height and/or angle (step 706 being performed before step 712).
In regard to claim 7, Lavoie discloses the system of claim 6, wherein the control system is configured to receive information indicative that the ingress/egress is to occur with the vehicle on a sloped surface (considered to be the “YES” signal output from step 706, of Fig 7, which is based on previously receiving a “YES” from step 704; also see Paragraphs 0049 and 0050).
In regard to claim 9, Lavoie discloses the system of claim 2, further configured to receive sensor-dependent information from sensors (sensors 402) enabling the control system to control the active suspension based on a current vehicle context (see Paragraph 0029: “In this example, the sensors 402 measure a topography of the terrain 410 to determine or calculate a degree to which the actuator controller 201 will tilt or angle the vehicle 100 to facilitate access to the object 110 by the user 303. In particular, the sensors 402 of the illustrated example utilize camera imaging at multiple cameras to determine the topography. Additionally or alternatively, at least one of the sensors 402 measures an angle and/or level of the vehicle 100 sitting on the terrain 410 relative to a horizontal plane (e.g., a true horizontal measured by a gravitational sensor). In some examples, the sensors 402 take into account and/or measure surface profiles or contours 412 of the terrain 410.”).
In regard to claim 13, Lavoie discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the active suspension is controllable to control the ride height of the vehicle (Paragraph 0020 (emphasis added): “The example vehicle leveling system 200 includes an actuation controller 201, actuators (e.g., adjustable height actuators, adjustable shocks, shocks) 202 (hereinafter actuators 202a, 202b, 202c, 202d, etc.), which are adjustable length shocks/dampeners in this example, with corresponding respective lengths 204 (hereinafter lengths 204a, 204b, 204c, 204d, etc.).”).
In regard to claim 14, Lavoie discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the active suspension system is configured to cause relative vertical movement between the wheels and the body of the vehicle (Paragraph 0021: “to tilt and/or orient the vehicle 100 by moving/displacing the wheels 104 relative to the chassis and/or the cabin 102”).
In regard to claims 15 and 16, Lavoie discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the active suspension is controllable to enable active roll control at one or more axles of the vehicle and wherein the active suspension is controllable to enable active pitch control at one or more axles of the vehicle.
Each of the four actuators of Lavoie (202a, 202b, 202c, 202d, see Fig 2 and Paragraph 0020) are able to be independently controlled; for example, see Paragraph 0021: “the actuation controller 201 coordinates a rotation of the chassis along both of the axes 220, 224 to tilt and/or rotate the vehicle 100 in multiple directions relative to the terrain 114 (e.g., a three-dimensional tilt of the vehicle 100, a tilt along multiple axes, etc.)”. As such it considered to be able to actively control roll and pitch as broadly claimed.
In regard to claim 17, Lavoie discloses the system of claim 9, comprising one active damper per vehicle wheel (Paragraph 0020: “actuators (e.g., adjustable height actuators, adjustable shocks, shocks) 202 (hereinafter actuators 202a, 202b, 202c, 202d, etc.), which are adjustable length shocks/dampeners in this example”).
In regard to claim 19, Lavoie discloses a vehicle (100, Fig 2) comprising the active suspension of claim 9 (see the rejection of claim 9, above).
In regard to claim 20, Lavoie discloses a method of controlling an active suspension of a vehicle (see the Abstract: “Methods and apparatus to control vehicle tilt are disclosed. A disclosed example apparatus includes a plurality of actuators of a vehicle, where each actuator is to be length adjustable, and a controller communicatively coupled to the actuators, where the controller to vary a height of at least one of the actuators to adjust a tilt of the vehicle to facilitate loading or removal of an object relative to the vehicle.”) comprising a vehicle body (100, Fig 2) and a plurality of wheels (104), the method comprising:
determining a difference in height and/or angle, between the vehicle body and an ingress/egress surface (see Paragraph 0029 (emphasis added): “In this example, the sensors 402 measure a topography of the terrain 410 to determine or calculate a degree to which the actuator controller 201 will tilt or angle the vehicle 100 to facilitate access to the object 110 by the user 303. In particular, the sensors 402 of the illustrated example utilize camera imaging at multiple cameras to determine the topography. Additionally or alternatively, at least one of the sensors 402 measures an angle and/or level of the vehicle 100 sitting on the terrain 410 relative to a horizontal plane (e.g., a true horizontal measured by a gravitational sensor). In some examples, the sensors 402 take into account and/or measure surface profiles or contours 412 of the terrain 410.”); and
controlling the active suspension to reduce the difference in height and/or angle between the vehicle body and the ingress/egress surface (see step 712 in Fig 7 along with Paragraph 0053: “Next, at least one adjustable actuator (e.g., the actuator 202) of the vehicle 100 is controlled to orient the vehicle 100 at the desired tilt angle (block 712). In this example, numerous actuators of the at least one adjustable actuator are actuated and/or adjusted in length to orient the vehicle 100 at the desired tilt angle.”).
In regard to claim 21, Lavoie discloses a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium storing instructions thereon that, when executed by one or more electronic processors (Paragraph 0039: “Flowcharts representative of example methods that may be used to implement the suspension tilt control system 500 of FIG. 5 are shown in FIGS. 6 and 7. In this example, the methods may be implemented using machine readable instructions that comprise a program for execution by a processor such as the processor 812 shown in the example processor platform 800 discussed below in connection with FIG. 8”), causes the one or more electronic processors to carry out the method of claim 20 (see the rejection of claim 20, above).
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.
Claims 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavoie (US Pub No 2018/0154727), alone.
In regard to claim 5,
Lavoie discloses the system of claim 2.
Lavoie does not positively disclose wherein the control system is configured to control the active suspension to reduce the difference in height and/or angle when the difference exceeds a minimum threshold.
In other words, Lavoie simply fails to specifically teach a threshold.
However, Lavoie does teach that the purpose of the system is to adjust the vehicle height based on an operator’s height or their ability to raise their arms to a certain point; see Paragraph 0015: “Methods and apparatus to control vehicle tilt are disclosed. Loading or unloading an object onto or from a vehicle can be challenging due to physical limitations such as a height of a person and/or a difficult-to-reach storage/mounting location of the object. For example, reaching an object on a car roof can be difficult for persons that do not have a requisite height and/or have difficulty moving their arms above a certain height over their shoulders.”.
In other words, while a specific threshold is not taught by Lavoie, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize some form of trigger, of when to operate the control system, as the explicit purpose of Lavoie to operate the system based on the needs of the operator.
In regard to claim 18,
Lavoie discloses the system of claim 9.
Lavoie does not positively disclose the system comprising one active spring per vehicle wheel.
Lavoie DOES disclose one active suspension actuator per wheel (see Fig 2 and Paragraph 0020) and teaches that these actuators may be selected from “adjustable height actuators, adjustable shocks, shocks” (Paragraph 0020).
Examiner takes Official Notice that it is very well known throughout the art to configure vehicle shocks with springs, and that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the system of Lavoie thus.
Claims 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavoie (US Pub No 2018/0154727), in view of Weldy (US Pub No 2017/0246975).
In regard to claim 8,
Lavoie discloses the system of claim 2.
Lavoie does not positively disclose the system configured to control the active suspension by controlling a suspension fluid pump.
In other words, Lavoie does not specify a specific actuator mechanism for actuators 202a-d.
However, Lavoie does teach in general, that “the term “actuator” refers to any type of actuator, which can be mechanical, hydraulic, piezoelectric, magnetic and/or electromechanical, etc.” (from Paragraph 0017; also see Paragraph 0022).
Further, Weldy discloses a suspension adjustable for loading/unloading (see the Abstract) and also teaches that actuators used in such a system can utilize fluid systems such as pneumatics or hydraulics (Paragraph 0037: “The cylinder 34 could be pneumatic, electric, or hydraulic.”).
As Lavoie teaches that the actuators used in the active suspension system can be any desired actuator type, and specifically mentions hydraulic, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to simply configure the system of Lavoie such that it utilized a fluid pump (such a pneumatic or hydraulic pump) as is already known in the art, as supported by Weldy.
In regard to claim 12,
Lavoie discloses an active suspension system comprising an active suspension and a control system according to claim 2 (see the rejection of claim 2, above), wherein the active suspension is configured for active spring control and/or active damping (Paragraph 0020: “actuators (e.g., adjustable height actuators, adjustable shocks, shocks) 202 (hereinafter actuators 202a, 202b, 202c, 202d, etc.), which are adjustable length shocks/dampeners”)
Lavoie does not positively disclose using a pump-controlled pneumatic system.
In other words, Lavoie does not specify a specific actuator mechanism for actuators 202a-d.
However, Lavoie does teach in general, that “the term “actuator” refers to any type of actuator, which can be mechanical, hydraulic, piezoelectric, magnetic and/or electromechanical, etc.” (from Paragraph 0017; also see Paragraph 0022).
Further, Weldy discloses a suspension adjustable for loading/unloading (see the Abstract) and also teaches that actuators used in such a system can utilize fluid systems such as pneumatics or hydraulics (Paragraph 0037: “The cylinder 34 could be pneumatic, electric, or hydraulic.”).
As Lavoie teaches that the actuators used in the active suspension system can be any desired actuator type, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to simply configure the system of Lavoie such that it utilized a pump-controlled pneumatic system as is already known in the art, as supported by Weldy.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavoie (US Pub No 2018/0154727), in view of Baraszu (US Pat No 4,838,574).
In regard to claim 11,
Lavoie discloses the system of claim 9.
Lavoie does not positively disclose the system configured to receive information from at least one wheel position sensor.
However, the use of such sensors in similar systems is known in the art.
Baraszu teaches an adjustable suspension system, and more importantly teaches that (Col 1, lines 13-29, emphasis added): “Automotive suspensions employing adjustable suspension units typically utilize one or more sensors for detecting the vertical position of a controlled road wheel and tire assembly with respect to either another part of the suspension itself or another part of the chassis or body of the vehicle. In the case of vehicles using load leveling or air or hydropneumatic suspension systems, it is necessary to know the ride height of the vehicle in order to determine whether correction of the ride height is required. If the suspension position sensor indicates that the ride height is less than a prescribed low limit, the adjustable suspension unit will be given the command to increase the ride height. Conversely, in the event that sensed ride height exceeds a prescribed high limit, the adjustable suspension unit will be given the command to lower, or decrease, the ride height.”
In other words, Baraszu teaches that it is well known to include wheel position sensors with active suspension control systems in order to be able to measure the change in wheel to vehicle distance.
In view of the teachings of Baraszu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the system of Lavoie such that it was configured to receive information from at least one wheel position sensor, to allow for measurement of change in wheel to vehicle distance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but appears it would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB M AMICK whose telephone number is (571)272-5790. The examiner can normally be reached Core Hours 10-6 M-F (First Fridays Off).
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571) 272-1196. 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.
/JACOB M AMICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights