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 .
Status of Claims
The amendment of 09/04/2025 has been entered. Claims 2-21 are currently pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/04/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
At 0031 line 5 “Damper 210” should read --Damper 204--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 10, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
At claim 2 line 7 “comprises” should read --further comprises--.
At claim 10 line 10 “comprises” should read --further comprises--.
At claim 18 line 9 “comprises” should read --further comprises--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “a difference between the third parameter value and the second parameter value is 25 to 300 percent greater than a difference between the first parameter value and the second parameter value” (emphasis added) in lines 1-3 while the original disclosure recites a difference between the third parameter value and the first parameter value is 25 to 300 percent greater than a difference between the first parameter value and the second parameter value (pg. 2 lines 22-24, pg. 12 lines 26-28, pg. 14 lines 18-20 and 22-25). As the limitation was introduced in a preliminary amendment filed after the filing date of the application the limitation in claim 9 is considered as new matter.
Claim 17 is rejected for the same reason, mutatis mutandis, as provided for claim 9.
These rejections may be overcome by amending the claims to recite --a difference between the third parameter value and the first parameter value is 25 to 300 percent greater--.
Claim Analysis - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 2-21 are eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 at step 2A prong 2 because the applying the control signal step in claims 2 and 18 and the transmitting the control signal step in claim 10 integrates the recited abstract ideas into a practical application.
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 2-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,391,088. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 2, the Patent claims a method comprising:
instructing (claim 1 line 2) to increase from a first damper setting (first damper stiffness setting, claim 1 lines 2-3) of a vehicle damper system (implied) to a second damper setting (second damper stiffness setting, claim 1 line 3), wherein the first damper setting corresponds to a first parameter value of a control signal (first baseline current value, claim 1 line 5) and the second damper setting corresponds to a second parameter value of the control signal (second baseline current value, claim 1 lines 6-7) greater than the first parameter value (claim 1 line 7); and
in response to the determining, applying the control signal to the vehicle damper system (implied, claim 1 lines 9-15), wherein the control signal comprises:
a third parameter value (elevated current, claim 1 lines 10-11) greater than the second parameter value (implied, if the current is reduced to the second baseline value then it is greater than the second baseline value, claim 1 lines 9-14) during a first time period (initial period, claim 1 lines 9-10); and
the second parameter value during a second period subsequent to the first time period (claim 1 lines 13-15).
Claim 1 of the Patent recites instructing to increase the damper setting rather than determining to increase the damper setting as claimed.
Claims 2 of the Patent recites determining to increase the damper setting (i.e., based on a user selection, claim 2 lines 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine to increase the damper setting as claimed in the Patent claim 1 based on a user selection as taught by the Patent claim 2 to effect a change in damper setting based on user input.
Regarding claim 3, the Patent claims the method of claim 2.
The Patent further claims receiving a user selection to change a first suspension mode to a second suspension mode (claim 2 lines 1-3), wherein determining to increase from the first damper setting to the second damper setting is based on the user selection (implied, claim 1 lines 2-3 and claim 2 lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 4, the Patent claims the method of claim 2.
The Patent further claims wherein the first damper setting (first damper stiffness setting, claim 1 lines 2-3) is a first damper stiffness (first damper stiffness setting, claim 1 lines 2-3);
the second damper setting (second damper stiffness setting, claim 1 line 3)is a second damper stiffness (second damper stiffness setting, claim 1 line 3); and
the second damper stiffness is greater than the first damper stiffness setting (claim 1 lines 6-7).
Regarding claim 5, the Patent claims the method claim 2.
The Patent further claims the control signal corresponds to a current applied to the vehicle damper system (claim 1 lines 9-15);
the first parameter value (first damper stiffness setting, claim 1 lines 2-3) corresponds to a first current value (first baseline current value, claim 1 line 5); and
the second parameter value (second damper stiffness setting, claim 1 line 3) corresponds to a second current value (second baseline current value, claim 1 lines 6-7).
Claims 10-17 are not rejected because the vehicle system claims of the Patent do not claim “a second parameter value of the control signal greater than the first parameter value” as recited in instant claim 10 lines 7-8.
Claims 18-20 are not rejected because the computer readable medium claims of the Patent do not claim “a second parameter value of the control signal greater than the first parameter value” as recited in instant claim 18 lines 6-7.
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 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)(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, 8, 10-12, 16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by OKADA (JP 2020-132122, provided by Applicant on 09/04/2025 IDS).
Regarding claim 2, OKADA discloses a method comprising:
determining to increase from a first damper setting (soft characteristic, l. 277, Fig. 5) of a vehicle damper system (5) to a second damper setting (hard characteristic, ll. 277-278, Fig. 5), wherein the first damper setting corresponds to a first parameter value of a control signal (voltage value V1 applied to electrorheological fluid, i.a. lines 225-226) and the second damper setting corresponds to a second parameter value of the control signal (voltage value V2) greater than the first parameter value (i.a. lines 256-258, Fig. 5); and
in response to the determining, applying the control signal to the vehicle damper system (i.a. lines 256-258), wherein the control signal comprises:
a third parameter value (V3, Fig. 5) greater than the second parameter value during a first time period (T1-T2, Fig. 5, ll. 280-282); and
the second parameter value during a second period (after T2, Fig. 5) subsequent to the first time period (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 3, OKADA discloses the method of claim 2.
OKADA further discloses receiving a user selection to change a first suspension mode to a second suspension mode (driving state detection unit 11 detects driving mode, ll. 158-159), wherein determining to increase from the first damper setting to the second damper setting is based on the user selection (based on detection result of running state detection unit 11, ll. 273-282).
Regarding claim 4, OKADA discloses the method of claim 2.
OKADA further discloses the first damper setting is a first damper stiffness (soft characteristic, l. 277);
the second damper setting is a second damper stiffness (hard characteristic, ll. 277-278); and
the second damper stiffness is greater than the first damper stiffness setting (hard is greater than soft, ll. 277-278).
Regarding claim 8, OKADA discloses the method of claim 2.
OKADA further discloses wherein the first time period is less than 10 seconds (ll. 209-211).
Regarding claim 10, OKADA discloses a vehicle system comprising:
a vehicle damper system (5); and
processing circuitry (21) communicatively coupled to the vehicle damper system (Fig. 1), wherein the processing circuitry is configured to:
determine to increase from a first damper setting (soft characteristic, l. 277, Fig. 5) of the vehicle damper system to a second damper setting (hard characteristic, ll. 277-278, Fig. 5), wherein the first damper setting corresponds to a first parameter value of a control signal (voltage value V1 applied to electrorheological fluid, i.a. lines 225-226) and the second damper setting corresponds to a second parameter value of the control signal (voltage value V2) greater than the first parameter value (i.a. lines 256-258, Fig. 5); and
in response to the determining, transmit the control signal to the vehicle damper system (i.a. lines 256-258), wherein the control signal comprises:
a third parameter value (V3, Fig. 5) greater than the second parameter value during a first time period (T1-T2, Fig. 5, ll. 280-282); and
the second parameter value during a second period (after T2, Fig. 5) subsequent to the first time period (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 11, OKADA discloses the vehicle system of claim 10.
OKADA further discloses a user interface (implied/inherent) configured to receive a user selection to change a first suspension mode to a second suspension mode (driving state detection unit 11 detects driving mode, ll. 158-159), wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine to increase from the first damper setting to the second damper setting based on the user selection (based on detection result of running state detection unit 11, ll. 273-282).
Regarding claim 12, OKADA discloses the vehicle system of claim 10.
OKADA further discloses wherein the first damper setting is a first damper stiffness (soft characteristic, l. 277);
the second damper setting is a second damper stiffness (hard characteristic, ll. 277-278); and
the second damper stiffness is greater than the first damper stiffness setting (hard is greater than soft, ll. 277-278).
Regarding claim 16, OKADA discloses the vehicle system of claim 10.
OKADA further discloses wherein the first time period is less than 10 seconds (ll. 209-211).
Regarding claim 18, OKADA discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising non-transitory computer readable instructions which, when processed using processing circuitry (implied/inherent in “ECU”, 21, l. 15), causes the processing circuitry to:
determine to increase from a first damper setting (soft characteristic, l. 277, Fig. 5) of a vehicle damper system (5) to a second damper setting (hard characteristic, ll. 277-278, Fig. 5), wherein the first damper setting corresponds to a first parameter value of a control signal (voltage value V1 applied to electrorheological fluid, i.a. lines 225-226) and the second damper setting corresponds to a second parameter value of the control signal (voltage value V2) greater than the first parameter value (i.a. lines 256-258, Fig. 5); and
in response to the determining, apply the control signal to the vehicle damper system (i.a. lines 256-258), wherein the control signal comprises:
a third parameter value (V3, Fig. 5) greater than the second parameter value during a first time period (T1-T2, Fig. 5, ll. 280-282); and
the second parameter value during a second period (after T2, Fig. 5) subsequent to the first time period (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 19, OKADA discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 18.
OKADA further discloses the first damper setting is a first damper stiffness (soft characteristic, l. 277);
the second damper setting is a second damper stiffness (hard characteristic, ll. 277-278); and
the second damper stiffness is greater than the first damper stiffness setting (hard is greater than soft, ll. 277-278).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5-6, 13-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OKADA (JP 2020-132122, provided by Applicant on 09/04/2025 IDS) in view of KIM (KR 2008-0040267).
Regarding claim 5, OKADA discloses the method claim 2.
OKADA further discloses the control signal corresponds to a voltage applied to the vehicle damper system (voltage value applied to electrorheological fluid, i.a. lines 225-226);
the first parameter value corresponds to a first voltage value (voltage value V1 applied to electrorheological fluid, i.a. lines 225-226); and
the second parameter value corresponds to a second voltage value (voltage value V2, i.a. lines 256-258, Fig. 5).
OKADA discloses the control signal corresponds to a voltage applied to the vehicle damper system (i.a. ll. 46-50) rather than a current applied to the vehicle damper system as claimed.
OKADA further discloses the method in which the responsiveness of the damping force of an electrorheological fluid damper is improved (ll. 41-42) solves the problem that a time lag caused by a delayed response in damping force results in a deterioration in the ride comfort and handling stability of the vehicle (ll. 36-37).
KIM teaches conventional solenoid-controlled dampers (p. 8 ll. 16-18) exhibit a delay time causing a problem that the damping force cannot be varied quickly (p. 9 ll. 8-12) and that the damping force of the conventional solenoid-controlled dampers varies in accordance with a control signal corresponding to a current applied to the vehicle damper system (p. 8 ll. 16-18).
The problem in conventional solenoid-controlled variable-damping dampers evidenced by KIM is the same problem solved by OKADA, namely correcting a time lag caused by a delayed response in the damping force.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the method for improving the response times of dampers disclosed by OKADA to the conventional solenoid-controlled variable damping dampers which are ready for improvement as evidenced by KIM to improve the responsiveness of the damper to prevent deterioration in the ride comfort and handling stability of a vehicle with predictable results.
OKADA as modified teaches the control signal corresponds to a current applied to the vehicle damper system; the first parameter value corresponds to a first current value; and the second parameter value corresponds to a second current value.
Regarding claim 6, OKADA discloses the method of claim 2.
OKADA discloses the damper is a electrorheological fluid damper (i.a. l. 28) rather than a solenoid-controlled damper as claimed.
OKADA further discloses the method in which the responsiveness of the damping force of an electrorheological fluid damper is improved (ll. 41-42) solves the problem that a time lag caused by a delayed response in damping force results in a deterioration in the ride comfort and handling stability of the vehicle (ll. 36-37).
KIM teaches conventional solenoid-controlled dampers (p. 8 ll. 16-18) exhibit a delay time causing a problem that the damping force cannot be varied quickly (p. 9 ll. 8-12).
The problem in conventional solenoid-controlled dampers evidenced by KIM is the same problem solved by OKADA, namely correcting a time lag caused by a delayed response in the damping force.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the method for improving the response times of dampers disclosed by OKADA to the conventional solenoid-controlled dampers which are ready for improvement as evidenced by KIM to improve the responsiveness of the damper to prevent deterioration in the ride comfort and handling stability of a vehicle with predictable results.
Regarding claim 13, OKADA discloses the vehicle system of claim 10.
OKADA further the control signal corresponds to a voltage applied to the vehicle damper system (voltage value applied to electrorheological fluid, i.a. lines 225-226);
the first parameter value corresponds to a first voltage value (voltage value V1 applied to electrorheological fluid, i.a. lines 225-226); and
the second parameter value corresponds to a second voltage value (voltage value V2, i.a. lines 256-258, Fig. 5).
OKADA discloses the control signal corresponds to a voltage applied to the vehicle damper system (i.a. ll. 46-50) rather than a current applied to the vehicle damper system as claimed.
OKADA further discloses the vehicle system in which the responsiveness of the damping force of an electrorheological fluid damper is improved (ll. 41-42) solves the problem that a time lag caused by a delayed response in damping force results in a deterioration in the ride comfort and handling stability of the vehicle (ll. 36-37).
KIM teaches conventional solenoid-controlled dampers (p. 8 ll. 16-18) exhibit a delay time causing a problem that the damping force cannot be varied quickly (p. 9 ll. 8-12) and that the damping force of the conventional solenoid-controlled dampers varies in accordance with a control signal corresponding to a current applied to the vehicle damper system (p. 8 ll. 16-18).
The problem in conventional solenoid-controlled variable-damping dampers evidenced by KIM is the same problem solved by OKADA, namely correcting a time lag caused by a delayed response in the damping force.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique for improving the response times of dampers disclosed by OKADA to the conventional solenoid-controlled variable damping dampers which are ready for improvement as evidenced by KIM to improve the responsiveness of the damper to prevent deterioration in the ride comfort and handling stability of a vehicle with predictable results.
OKADA as modified teaches the control signal corresponds to a current applied to the vehicle damper system; the first parameter value corresponds to a first current value; and the second parameter value corresponds to a second current value.
Regarding claim 14, OKADA discloses the vehicle system of claim 10.
OKADA discloses the damper is an electrorheological fluid damper (i.a. l. 28) rather than a solenoid-controlled damper as claimed.
OKADA further discloses the vehicle system, in which the responsiveness of the damping force of an electrorheological fluid damper is improved (ll. 41-42), solves the problem that a time lag caused by a delayed response in damping force results in a deterioration in the ride comfort and handling stability of the vehicle (ll. 36-37).
KIM teaches conventional solenoid-controlled dampers (p. 8 ll. 16-18) exhibit a delay time causing a problem that the damping force cannot be varied quickly (p. 9 ll. 8-12).
The problem in conventional solenoid-controlled dampers evidenced by KIM is the same problem solved by OKADA, namely correcting a time lag caused by a delayed response in the damping force.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique for improving the response times of dampers disclosed by OKADA to the conventional solenoid-controlled dampers which are ready for improvement as evidenced by KIM to improve the responsiveness of the damper to prevent deterioration in the ride comfort and handling stability of a vehicle with predictable results.
Regarding claim 20, OKADA as modified teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 18.
OKADA further the control signal corresponds to a voltage applied to the vehicle damper system (voltage value applied to electrorheological fluid, i.a. lines 225-226);
the first parameter value corresponds to a first voltage value (voltage value V1 applied to electrorheological fluid, i.a. lines 225-226); and
the second parameter value corresponds to a second voltage value (voltage value V2, i.a. lines 256-258, Fig. 5).
OKADA discloses the control signal corresponds to a voltage applied to the vehicle damper system (i.a. ll. 46-50) rather than a current applied to the vehicle damper system as claimed.
OKADA further discloses the method in which the responsiveness of the damping force of an electrorheological fluid damper is improved (ll. 41-42) solves the problem that a time lag caused by a delayed response in damping force results in a deterioration in the ride comfort and handling stability of the vehicle (ll. 36-37).
KIM teaches conventional solenoid-controlled dampers (p. 8 ll. 16-18) exhibit a delay time causing a problem that the damping force cannot be varied quickly (p. 9 ll. 8-12) and that the damping force of the conventional solenoid-controlled dampers varies in accordance with a control signal corresponding to a current applied to the vehicle damper system (p. 8 ll. 16-18).
The problem in conventional solenoid-controlled variable-damping dampers evidenced by KIM is the same problem solved by OKADA, namely correcting a time lag caused by a delayed response in the damping force.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the method for improving the response times of dampers disclosed by OKADA to the conventional solenoid-controlled variable damping dampers which are ready for improvement as evidenced by KIM to improve the responsiveness of the damper to prevent deterioration in the ride comfort and handling stability of a vehicle with predictable results.
OKADA as modified teaches the control signal corresponds to a current applied to the vehicle damper system; the first parameter value corresponds to a first current value; and the second parameter value corresponds to a second current value.
Claims 7, 15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OKADA (JP 2020-132122, provided by Applicant on 09/04/2025 IDS) in view of BADENOCH (GB 2,282,784).
Regarding claim 7, OKADA discloses the method of claim 2.
OKADA is not relied upon to teach the further limitations of the claim.
BADENOCH teaches determining a dynamic parameter value (damping level, p. 9 l. 32) for a vehicle damper system (12-18, p. 8 ll. 13-15)(p. 9 lines 24-28 and 30-33); and
selecting the greater of a baseline parameter value (minimum damping level, p. 10 l. 3) and the dynamic parameter value to apply to the vehicle damper system (implied, damping level bounded by minimum damping level, p. 9 ll. 30-33 and p. 10 ll. 3-6) to provide dampers that exhibit good performance in both the time and frequency domains and that provide satisfactory damping (p. 7 lines 18-21) and to optimize the damping forces for comfort requirements (p. 5 ll. 13-14 and p. 10 ll. 3-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the method of OKADA to determine a dynamic parameter value for the vehicle damper system and select the greater of a baseline parameter value and the dynamic parameter value to apply to the vehicle damper system as taught by BADENOCH to provide dampers that exhibit good performance in both the time and frequency domains and that provide satisfactory damping and to optimize the damping forces for comfort requirements.
Regarding claim 15, OKADA discloses the vehicle system of claim 10.
OKADA is not relied upon to teach the further limitations of the claim.
BADENOCH teaches processing circuitry (28) configured to determine a dynamic parameter value (damping level, p. 9 l. 32) for the vehicle damper system (12 18, p. 8 ll. 13-15)(p. 9 lines 24-28 and 30-33); and
select the greater of a baseline parameter value (minimum damping level, p. 10 l. 3) and the dynamic parameter value to apply to the vehicle damper system (implied, damping level bounded by minimum damping level, p. 9 ll. 30-33 and p. 10 ll. 3-6) to provide dampers that exhibit good performance in both the time and frequency domains and that provide satisfactory damping (p. 7 lines 18-21) and to optimize the damping forces for comfort requirements (p. 5 ll. 13-14 and p. 10 ll. 3-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the vehicle system of OKADA to determine a dynamic parameter value for the vehicle damper system and select the greater of a baseline parameter value and the dynamic parameter value to apply to the vehicle damper system as taught by BADENOCH to provide dampers that exhibit good performance in both the time and frequency domains and that provide satisfactory damping and to optimize the damping forces for comfort requirements.
Regarding claim 21, OKADA discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 18.
OKADA is not relied upon to teach the further limitations of the claim.
BADENOCH teaches determining a dynamic parameter value (damping level, p. 9 l. 32) for a vehicle damper system (12-18, p. 8 ll. 13-15)(p. 9 lines 24-28 and 30-33); and
selecting the greater of a baseline parameter value (minimum damping level, p. 10 l. 3) and the dynamic parameter value to apply to the vehicle damper system (implied, damping level bounded by minimum damping level, p. 9 ll. 30-33 and p. 10 ll. 3-6) to provide dampers that exhibit good performance in both the time and frequency domains and that provide satisfactory damping (p. 7 lines 18-21) and to optimize the damping forces for comfort requirements (p. 5 ll. 13-14 and p. 10 ll. 3-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the method of OKADA to determine a dynamic parameter value for the vehicle damper system and select the greater of a baseline parameter value and the dynamic parameter value to apply to the vehicle damper system as taught by BADENOCH to provide dampers that exhibit good performance in both the time and frequency domains and that provide satisfactory damping and to optimize the damping forces for comfort requirements.
Not Rejected Over Prior Art
Claims 9 and 17 are not rejected over prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK L. GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-7555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30 PM.
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) 270-5065. 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.
/MARK L. GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights