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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,021,033. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both disclose a method of mitigating impact of wheel events (i.e. suspension system) of vehicles and would have been obvious over the patent claims.
Applicant claim 2
A method of mitigating impact of wheel events on vehicle occupants, comprising:
identifying a first set of frequency components of a wheel/body event; identifying a second set of frequency components of the wheel/body event;
controlling an air spring with a computerized controller to mitigate impact of the first set of frequency components; and
controlling an active electro-hydraulic actuator with a computerized controller to mitigate impact of the second set of frequency components, wherein the air spring and the actuator are operatively disposed substantially between a vehicle and a wheel of the vehicle such that they are operatively in parallel.
Patent Claim 12
A method of operating a suspension system of a vehicle having a hydraulic suspension system which includes a hydraulic actuator and an air suspension system which includes an air spring, the method comprising:
(a) controlling the hydraulic actuator, with a first controller, to apply a first force on a portion of the vehicle in an extension direction, and
(b) during step (a) controlling, with a second controller, a second force applied on the portion of the vehicle with the air spring.
Applicant claim 5
A vehicle suspension controller for a wheel of a vehicle comprising;
a first algorithm for determining electric motor commands of an electro-hydraulic suspension actuator;
a second algorithm for determining commands for pneumatic valves and an air compressor of a suspension air spring; and
a processor for executing the first algorithm and the second algorithm to control the electro-hydraulic suspension actuator and the air spring to cooperatively control position and rate of movement of the wheel, wherein the electro-hydraulic suspension actuator and the air spring are operatively disposed in parallel between the wheel and the vehicle.
Patent Claim 1
A vehicle suspension system comprising:
a hydraulic suspension system, wherein the hydraulic suspension system includes a hydraulic actuator including an electric motor; a hydraulic actuator controller adapted to control the electric motor;
an air suspension system, wherein the air suspension system includes an air spring, and wherein the air spring is operatively coupled in parallel to the hydraulic actuator; and
an air spring controller in communication with the hydraulic actuator controller, wherein the air spring controller is adapted to control an operating parameter of the air spring, wherein the operating parameter is a parameter selected from the group consisting of air pressure of the air spring and air volume of the air spring.
Application claims 2 and 5 discloses a vehicle suspension controller that controls an air spring and actuators with a and actuators whereas patent claim 1 and 12 disclose a system that includes a similar air spring controller with actuators. Although not identical, patent claims would have anticipated application claims.
Corresponding applicant claims 2-4, and 6-9 are similarly rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims 2-6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,021,033.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-21 are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAE LENNY LOUIE whose telephone number is (571)272-5195. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6AM-3PM.
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, PETER D NOLAN can be reached at 571-270-7016. 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.
/W.L.L/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights