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 .
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 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01.
In re claim 16, claim 16 recites “a control system for controlling an active suspension system of a vehicle, the control system comprising one or more controller, wherein the control system is configured to perform the method of claim 13” in lines 1-3. While lines 1-3 of claim 1 recites multiple claim elements, such as an active suspension system, and one or more controllers, lines 1-3 of claim 1 fails to recite some sort of sensor, device, or mechanism that detects a ramp approached by an overhang of the vehicle. This being the case, claim 16 is considered to be incomplete and indefinite for omitting essential elements. Claim 17 is further rejected for dependence upon a rejected claim.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01.
In re claim 1, claim 1 recites “A method of controlling an active suspension system of a vehicle, the method comprising: detecting a ramp approached by an overhang of the vehicle” in lines 1-3. However, the method of claim 1 fails to recite some sort of sensor, device, or mechanism used to detect a ramp approached by an overhang of the vehicle, further, claim 1 fails to recite a step explaining how the ramp is detected. This being the case, it is unclear in the claim how the ramp is detected, without using some sort of sensor, device, or mechanism to detect the ramp. This being the case, claim 1 is considered to be indefinite and incomplete for omitting the essential step of how the ramp is detected. Claim 2-12 are further rejected for dependence upon a rejected claim.
In re claim 13, see claim 1 above, mutatis mutandis. Claims 14-17 are further rejected for dependence upon a rejected claim.
In re claim 18, see claim 1 above, mutatis mutandis. Claims 19-20 are further rejected for dependence upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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 1, 4-6, 9, 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vente (U.S. 20200231016).
In re claim 1, Vente teaches a method of controlling an active suspension system (a vehicle may be equipped with an active suspension system and/or with other suspension system actuators, that are configured to operate in multiple modes; [0036]) of a vehicle (fig. 1, fig. 11; multi-actuator system 110; [0056]), the method comprising:
detecting a ramp approached by an overhang of the vehicle (fig. 1, fig. 4; [0042, 0044, 0047]);
in dependence on detecting the ramp, controlling the active suspension system to modify a relative ride height between
a leading ride height at a set of leading wheels of the vehicle (as shown in fig. 4) and
a trailing ride height at a set of trailing wheels of the vehicle (as shown in fig. 4), to increase a ramp angle of the vehicle relative to the ramp (as explained in [0044, 0046-0047]); and
determining if one or more inhibit conditions are active (a vehicle controller may prevent the vehicle from operating in the second mode when the one or more operating parameters are within a certain range. For example, in some embodiments, a controller may preclude operation in the second mode if the vehicle speed is between 20 mph and 100 mph. In some embodiments, a controller may preclude operation in the second mode if the vehicle speed is between 10 mph and 100 mph; [0055]), and wherein if any of the one or more inhibit conditions are active the ramp angle is not increased (a second mode where a posture (e.g., a pitch angle) of the vehicle body is modified to avoid an anticipated interference or collision with portions of a driving surface (e.g., a road surface while entering or leaving steep ramps or driveways, and/or boulders/rock formations which may be climbed over or traversed during off-road driving) [0031]; and as indicated in [0041; 0054-0055]; note: as indicated in [0055] the controller inhibits operation in the second mode if the vehicle speed is between 10 mph and 100 mph).
In re claim 4, Vente teaches the method of claim 1, wherein
the one or more inhibit conditions (as explained above, a controller may preclude operation in the second mode if the vehicle speed is between 10 mph and 100 mph; [0055]) comprise
the vehicle not being in a permissible terrain mode (a mode where one or more of the actuators are used to optimize comfort, safety and/or drivability during conventional (e.g., city and/or highway) driving by using, for example, a skyhook controller; [0031]; note: the permissible terrain mode would be a second mode, as indicated in [0031] and explained above) for controlling one or more vehicle subsystems (systems and methods are disclosed for using one or more suspension system actuators to adjust a posture (e.g., a pitch angle) of a vehicle body in response to information about driving surface anomalies that may interfere with one or more surfaces on the vehicle; [0030]; and as indicated in [0035]) according to a configuration set.
In re claim 5, Vente teaches the method of claim 4, further comprising
determining whether the vehicle is in
a first terrain mode being an on-road mode (as indicated in [0034]) and
a second terrain mode being an off-road mode (as indicated in [0035]),
wherein if the vehicle is in the first terrain mode the ramp angle is not increased (as explained above), and
wherein if the vehicle is in the second terrain mode the ramp angle is increased (as explained above).
In re claim 6, Vente teaches the method of claim 1, wherein
the one or more inhibit conditions comprise
a steering angle being excessive (A range of factors may be considered, including, for example: speed, direction of travel (e.g., turn radius), road surface conditions, etc; [0034]; note: one of ordinary skill, such as a vehicle driver, would recognize the correlation between the steering angle and the turning radius, and thus would also recognize a steering angle being an inhibited condition).
In re claim 9, Vente teaches the method of claim 1, and Vente further teaches wherein
controlling the active suspension system comprises at least one of:
raising the leading ride height (as shown in fig. 4 and explained in [0047]); and
lowering the trailing ride height (as shown in fig. 4 and explained in [0047]).
In re claim 11, see claim 1 above.
In re claim 12, see claim 1 above.
In re claim 13, Vente teaches a method for controlling an active suspension system (a vehicle may be equipped with an active suspension system and/or with other suspension system actuators, that are configured to operate in multiple modes; [0036]) of a vehicle (as shown in fig. 1 and explained above), the method comprising:
detecting a ramp approached by an overhang of the vehicle (fig. 1, fig. 4; [0042, 0044, 0047]);
in dependence on detecting the ramp,
controlling the active suspension system to modify a relative ride height between
a leading ride height at a set of leading wheels of the vehicle (as indicated in fig. 4, fig. 6 and explained above) and
a trailing ride height at a set of trailing wheels of the vehicle (as indicated in fig. 4, fig. 6 and explained above), to increase a ramp angle of the vehicle relative to the ramp ([0044; 0046-0047]); and
determining whether a ramp angle condition is satisfied, comprising:
determining a parameter indicative of the ramp angle (The method also includes, with the one or more controllers, receiving information based on data from a second set of one or more sensors. The method also includes with the one or more controllers, over a second segment of the driving surface, using at least a portion of the information based on data from the second set of sensors to control a second set of one or more actuators to modify a vehicle angle selected from the group consisting of an approach angle, a departure angle, and a breakover angle, wherein the first set of actuators and the second set of actuators have at least one actuator in common; [0005]; the movement of the vehicle that may be induced, in the second mode, may include modification of the pitch angle of the vehicle. In the second mode, the controller may respond to information from one or more sensors, such as forward-looking sensors (e.g., LIDAR, radar, vision, acoustic, etc.) and/or a user interface that indicates the need for an increase of various vehicle angles (e.g., approach angle, departure angle, and/or breakover angle). In the second mode, alternatively or additionally, the controller may respond to information and/or commands provided by means of a user interface; [0054]); and
determining whether the parameter exceeds a limit (The method includes obtaining information about a terrain ahead of the vehicle, and, based on the obtained information, determining that a slope of the terrain exceeds an approach angle of the vehicle; [0015]; note: as indicated above, the information about a terrain ahead of the vehicle is determined via. sensors and is indicative of a ramp angle, as indicated in [0015]), wherein
the ramp angle is increased in dependence on the parameter exceeding the limit (The method also includes in response to said determination, compressing at least one actuator arranged between a rear wheel and the vehicle body and extending at least one actuator arranged between a front wheel and the vehicle body, thereby increasing a pitch of the vehicle body to increase the approach angle; [0015]).
In re claim 14, Vente teaches the method of claim 13, and further teaches wherein
determining whether the ramp angle condition is satisfied comprises at least one of:
determining whether the parameter exceeds an approach angle limit associated with an approach angle of the vehicle (as explained above); and
determining whether the parameter exceeds a departure angle limit associated with a departure angle of the vehicle (as suggested via. [0015-0016; 0033; 0037; 0039; 0059]), wherein
the ramp angle is increased in dependence on the parameter exceeding at least one of
the approach angle limit (as explained above) and
departure angle limit (as explained above).
In re claim 15, Vente teaches the method of claim 14, further comprising
determining the approach angle limit and the departure angle limit in dependence on at least one of:
a ride height of the vehicle (as illustrated in FIG. 4, the front portion of the vehicle may be raised and the rear portion may be lowered resulting in an approach angle of δ for the third posture that is greater than the approach angle β for the second posture; [0047]; note: raising/lowering the front portion and/or the rear portion alters a ride height of the vehicle);
a current prevailing roll angle of the vehicle;
an angular rate associated with vehicle roll angle;
a current prevailing pitch angle of the vehicle (as shown in fig. 3-4 and fig. 6; [0022; 0024; 0047]); and
an angular rate associated with vehicle pitch angle.
In re claim 16, Vente teaches a control system for controlling an active suspension of a vehicle (as explained above),
the control system comprising one or more
controllers (one or more controllers of such actuators; [0034]; fig. 11; multiple controllers shown, 111, 115, 119; [0054]), wherein
the control system is configured to
perform the method of claim 13 (as explained above)
In re claim 17, see claim 16 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 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vente (U.S. 20200231016) in view of Guest et al. (U.S. 20170203626).
In re claim 2, Vente teaches the method of claim 1, but lacks
determining whether the vehicle is in a towing condition, and wherein
the one or more inhibit conditions comprise
the vehicle being in the towing condition.
Guest teaches an analogous ride-height adjustment system for a vehicle (abstract) and further teaches
determining whether the vehicle is in a towing condition (if it is detected (for example by detection of electrical connection or other known methods) that the vehicle is towing a trailer or the like, the system of the present invention may be disabled; [0078]), and wherein
the one or more inhibit conditions comprise
the vehicle being in the towing condition (additional safety features may be provided to limit application of the system. For example, if the terrain over which the vehicle is presently positioned is rough, such that wheels are at different heights, or the ground is sloped, or if the vehicle is wading in water, or if there is ground contact with the body of the vehicle, or if it is detected (for example by detection of electrical connection or other known methods) that the vehicle is towing a trailer or the like, the system of the present invention may be disabled; [0078]; The method may further comprise detecting inhibit parameters of the vehicle and, on detection of one or more of said inhibit parameters, preventing said adjusting of the suspension system in said first and/or second movements. An inhibit parameter may comprise one or more of:… g) detection of towing; [0065-0072]).
Thus it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Vente, to incorporate determining whether the vehicle is in a towing condition, and wherein the one or more inhibit conditions comprise the vehicle being in the towing condition, as clearly suggested and taught by Guest, in order to provide an additional measure of safety, since alterations to the vehicles ride height, approach and departure angles change the geometry of the vehicles suspension and also how the vehicle handles, which contribute to unsafe or unpredictable behavior when towing, thus creating an unsafe driving condition, as is commonly known in the art, and alluded to in [0078].
In re claim 3, Vente and Guest teach the method of claim 2, and Guest further teaches
determining whether the vehicle is in the towing condition by one or more of:
detecting a mechanical connection to a tow hook;
determining whether a towing mode is selected in a human machine interface of the vehicle (if it is detected (for example by detection of electrical connection or other known methods) that the vehicle is towing a trailer or the like, the system of the present invention may be disabled; [0078]; note: detection of towing/towing mode via. determination of towing mode being selected in a HMI of the vehicle is a known method, and thus is considered to be included within other known methods); and
an image recognition of a towed object from a rear-facing camera of the vehicle.
In re claim 7, Vente teaches the method of claim 1, but lacks wherein
the one or more inhibit conditions comprise
a door of the vehicle being ajar.
Guest teaches an analogous ride-height adjustment system for a vehicle (abstract) and further teaches wherein
the one or more inhibit conditions (under normal circumstances it is undesirable to permit raising and lowering while the doors are open; [0114]) comprise
a door of the vehicle being ajar (note: when a vehicle door is ajar, it is not fully closed and thus considered to be open. Under normal conditions, raising and lowering of the suspension would be inhibited with the door being ajar, since this would be an undesirable operation, as indicated in [0114]).
Motivation to combine is given in claim 2 above.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vente (U.S. 20200231016).
In re claim 18, Vente teaches a method for controlling an active suspension system (fig. 1, fig. 11; multi-actuator system 110; [0056]) of a vehicle (as shown in fig. 1), the method comprising:
detecting a ramp approached by an overhang of the vehicle (fig. 1, fig. 4; [0042, 0044, 0047]);
in dependence on detecting the ramp,
control the active suspension system to modify a relative ride height between
a leading ride height at a set of leading wheels of the vehicle (as indicated in fig. 4, fig. 6 and explained above) and
a trailing ride height at a set of trailing wheels of the vehicle (as indicated in fig. 4, fig. 6 and explained above), to increase a ramp angle of the vehicle relative to the ramp; and
determining whether the vehicle is in a forward gear or a reverse gear (Control parameters of one or more controllers of such actuators may be selected to satisfy certain safety, drivability, and/or comfort requirements. A range of factors may be considered, including, for example: speed, direction of travel (e.g., turn radius), road surface conditions, etc.; [0034]; note: direction of travel indicates that the vehicle is either in a forward gear or a reverse gear, being that the vehicle can only travel forward in a forward gear or reverse in a reverse gear, otherwise the vehicles transmission and/or drive train will suffer catastrophic damage, as is commonly known in the art.),
wherein if the vehicle is in a forward gear,
detecting the ramp is dependent on a forward- facing sensor (Data about the driving surface may be collected from one or more appropriate forward and/or downward looking sensors such as, for example, LIDAR, radar, laser ranging, and/or acoustic ranging; [0039]).
Vente lacks wherein if the vehicle is in a reverse gear, detecting the ramp is dependent on a rearward-facing sensor.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to detect the ramp dependent on a rearward-facing sensor, since doing so only requires an additional sensor that is rear facing, and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device (such as duplicating a sensor) involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention (such as placing rearrange a sensor to be rearward facing) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
In re claim 19, see claim 18 above.
In re claim 20, see claim 19 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 10 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 and 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 Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
The prior art of record fails to show or reasonably teach in combination an active suspension method having the recited elements, as required by claim 8, including
the one or more inhibit conditions comprise at least one of
the vehicle being out-of-gear and
a suspension fault code;
or an active suspension method having the recited elements, as required by claim 10, including
generating a warning signal on a human-machine input device of the vehicle
if an inhibit condition is satisfied.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D BAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5692. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5625. 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.
/JOHN D BAILEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/KURT PHILIP LIETHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights