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. KR10-2023-0029805, filed on 3/7/2023.
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 09/12/2025. The examiner notes the following adjustments to the claims by the applicant:
Claims 1 and 11 are amended;
No additional claims cancelled (Claim 17 previously canceled);
No new claims added.
Therefore, Claims 1-16 and 18-20 are pending examination, in which Claims 1 and 11 are independent claims.
In light of the instant amendments and arguments:
Further examination resulted in a new rejection of Claims 1-16 and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as detailed below.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following arguments regarding the previous office action:
[A] To overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection, the applicant has amended each independent claim to include the additional underlined limitations (or the equivalent): "initialize the diagnostic test interval by terminating a current diagnostic test interval and starting a new diagnostic test interval when the counted number of fault occurrences and fault terminations is less than the predetermined threshold; and initialize the counted number of the fault occurrences and fault terminations in response to the initializing of the diagnostic test interval.";
[B] “With respect to Le Goff, a fault counter 350 counts, during the FTTI 305, the number of error pulses 320-326 having a pulse duration greater than the predetermined error pulse filter period to determine whether a fault signal 290 is turned on. (see Le Goff, FIG. 3). Le Goff, however, neither discloses nor suggests the claimed "count a number of fault occurrences and fault terminations during the diagnostic test interval, ... wherein the diagnoser is configured to: initialize the diagnostic test interval by terminating a current diagnostic test interval and starting a new diagnostic test interval when the counted number of fault occurrences and fault terminations is less than the predetermined threshold; and initialize the counted number of the fault occurrences.”;
[C] “That is, amended claim 1 recites a discrete, non-continuous approach where the diagnostic test interval functions as an independent unit of time that is affirmatively terminated and restarted. Joris, by contrast, employs a continuous decrementing mechanism that does not terminate and restart any diagnostic interval-it merely reduces a counter value incrementally with each ignition cycle until the counter reaches zero. Joris, therefore, does not disclose or suggest "count a number of fault occurrences and fault terminations during the diagnostic test interval, ... wherein the diagnoser is configured to: initialize the diagnostic test interval by terminating a current diagnostic test interval and starting a new diagnostic test interval when the counted number of fault occurrences and fault terminations is less than the predetermined threshold; and initialize the counted number of the fault occurrences and fault terminations in response to the initializing of the diagnostic test interval," as recited in amended claim 1.”.
Applicant's arguments A., B., and C . appear to be directed to the instantly amended subject matter. Accordingly, they have been addressed in the rejections below.
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 (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 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 1-3, 7-8, 11-13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Le Goff et al. (US 11,313,702 B2, henceforth Le Goff), Melis et al. (GB 2500926 A, henceforth Melis).
Regarding Claim 1, Le Goff explicitly recites the limitations: a fault diagnosis apparatus {135, Figs. 1-2, includes comparator 240 and processor 270: “The processor 270 may be configured to perform various digital processing steps to adhere with different application safety standards and to avoid false error triggering.”, Col. 11, Lns. 6-8} of a vehicle electronic control unit/ECU {155, Fig. 1} with a functional safety system {“a method for ensuring the safety of a system employing the inductive position system by monitoring the angular deviation resulting from inaccuracies present in the analog front-end (AFE) circuitry”, Col. 1, Lns. 16-20} configured to detect a fault {detection of inherent errors: “ISO 26262 provides a classification of inherent safety risk in an automotive system or elements that expresses the level of risk reduction required to prevent a specific hazard…a high level of self-diagnostic capability of the inductive sensor is required to detect inherent errors.”, Col. 1, Lns. 44-51} remaining beyond a preset diagnostic test interval {“The processor 270 may also rely on the predetermined fault tolerant time interval (FTTI), a predetermined error pulse filter duration and a predetermined fault counter maximum value to prevent false error triggering, in compliance with the application safety standards.”, Col. 11, Lns. 10-15} from an occurrence time as a confirmed fault {with regard to Fig. 4, a confirmed fault corresponds to fault counter 350 output of “1”: also, “only the duration (Tperiod) of the first error pulse 426 is greater than the predetermined error pulse filter period (Tperiod_tol) and so, the first error pulse 426 results in the fault counter 450 incrementing to a value of “1” 454.”, Col. 12, Lns. 57-61, and, with regard to Fig. 7, corresponds to incrementing counter 630}, the fault diagnosis apparatus comprising: a sensor configured to output one or more signals corresponding to an input/output current and voltage of the vehicle ECU {position sensor 100 and ECU 155, Fig. 1, and “In common inductive position sensors, a resonating transmitter coil magnetically induces a current in the receiver coils which results in fixed voltage oscillations unless disturbed by any metallic target movement”, Col. 1, Lns. 26-30; and “A redundant AFE channel is provided and alternatively utilized with a sine AFE channel or a cosine AFE channel of the AFE circuitry to obtain a voltage difference that may result in a detection angle error at the electronic control unit (ECU) of the inductive position sensor”, Abstract}; and a diagnoser {“FIG. 2 is a block diagram illustrating a system for monitoring AFE circuitry of an inductive position sensor”, Col. 1, Lns. 57-58} configured to detect a fault occurrence and a fault termination of the vehicle ECU during the diagnostic test interval {error pulse 420 during the first half of FTTI, Fig. 4, is representative of a potential or latent fault that does not register as a confirmed fault, as fault counter 350 remains zero until after the second half of FTTI; one skilled in the art will appreciate that under ISO 26262 the diagnostic test interval (DTI) occurs in the first half of the Fault Tolerant Time Interval (FTTI), and that any occurrence-and-termination during the DTI is a potential fault not a confirmed fault} based on the one or more signals received from the sensor, count a number {“The function of the fault counter is to count the abovementioned valid error pulses within each FTTI interval. The processor 270 uses the fault counter to validate the number of valid error pulses that need to occur before sending a fault condition to the ECU”, Col. 11, Lns. 31-35} of fault occurrences and fault terminations during the [occurrences and fault terminations is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold {a fault corresponds to an increase in error pulse width, as evident in Fig. 4, in which error pulses 420, 422 and 424 do not trigger a fault condition or counter 350, but error pulse 426 does register as a fault condition, corresponding to a YES condition in Fig. 6 at operation 535, incrementation of fault counter 535 and a YES condition at operation 540 due to satisfy a “greater than” criteria}, wherein the diagnoser is configured to: initialize the [{with regard to Fig. 6, after the predetermined fault counter maximum is reached at operation 540, and the time interval for resetting is exceeded at operation 550, the fault counter is reset at operation 555, and closed-loop monitoring system represented in Fig. 6 proceeds to start a new test interval after completion of the previous test interval}.
Le Goff does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: initialize the diagnostic test interval by terminating a current test interval and starting a new diagnostic test interval when the counted number of fault occurrences and fault terminations is less than the predetermined threshold.
However, Melis explicitly recites the limitations: initialize the diagnostic test interval by terminating a current test interval and starting a new diagnostic test interval when the counted number of fault occurrences and fault terminations is less than the predetermined threshold
{Pg. 12, Lns. 1-16, teaches that to avoid mistakenly identifying a confirmed fault (i.e., “to avoid failure misdetections”) the opening and closing cycle of an injection needle is monitored over at least 3 cycles; if a condition is met, a potential fault condition is identified and a counter is incremented (i.e., counter 23 in Fig. 5), with a confirmed fault only determined if a second potential fault condition is identified (i.e., “Once this condition is satisfied, the evaluation of the potential failure is confirmed 26.”, with 26 identified in Fig. 5), if not confirmed the
monitoring system is reset (i.e., “The control loop is restarted 25 until the condition 24 Counter> 2 is satisfied”)}.
Le Goff and Melis are analogous art because they both deal with diagnosing vehicle faults.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Le Goff and Melis before them, to modify the teachings of Le Goff to include the teachings of Melis to distinguish between confirmed and unconfirmed faults {Fig. 5 and Pg. 12, Lns. 1-16}.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Le Goff and Melis discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Le Goff explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the diagnoser is configured to detect the fault occurrences and terminations of the vehicle ECU in response to determining the one or more signals received from the sensor deviating from and returning to a preset allowable range of the input/output current and voltage {“the redundant AFE channel buffer to determine the voltage difference between the output voltage of the cosine AFE channel buffer and the output voltage of the redundant AFE channel buffer. The method then proceeds by determining if the voltage difference is greater than a predetermined threshold voltage which corresponds to a given angular error. If it is determined that the voltage difference is greater than the predetermined threshold voltage, then the method proceeds by signaling a fault condition to an electronic control unit (ECU) coupled to the inductive position sensor.”, Col. 2, Lns. 44-54}.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Le Goff and Melis discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Le Goff explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the diagnoser is configured to detect the confirmed fault of the vehicle ECU {“In order to prevent voltage glitches from triggering false faults and to comply with the defined fault tolerant time interval (FTTI) at the ECU 155, the processor 270 is further configured to digitally process the error pulses received from comparator circuit 240 until the fault tolerant time interval (FTTI) has been met.”, Col. 10, Lns. 61-66} in response to the one or more signals received from the sensor deviating from a preset allowable range of the input/output current and voltage and remaining beyond the diagnostic test interval {“The processor 270 may also rely on the predetermined fault tolerant time interval (FTTI), a predetermined error pulse filter duration and a predetermined fault counter maximum value to prevent false error triggering, in compliance with the application safety standards.”, Col. 11, Lns. 10-15; and “the redundant AFE channel buffer to determine the voltage difference between the output voltage of the cosine AFE channel buffer and the output voltage of the redundant AFE channel buffer. The method then proceeds by determining if the voltage difference is greater than a predetermined threshold voltage which corresponds to a given angular error. If it is determined that the voltage difference is greater than the predetermined threshold voltage, then the method proceeds by signaling a fault condition to an electronic control unit (ECU) coupled to the inductive position sensor.”, Col. 2, Lns. 44-54}.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Le Goff and Melis discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Le Goff explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the sensor includes: a current sensor provided in each of phases of the vehicle ECU; and an input/output voltage sensor of the vehicle ECU {as evident in Fig. 9A, for example, the system of Figs. 1-2 detects the voltage signal and phases, and the current is derivable from the circuit resistance, in accordance with Ohms law}.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Le Goff and Melis discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Le Goff explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the vehicle ECU includes the sensor and the diagnose {Figs. 1-2}.
Regarding Claim 11, Le Goff explicitly recites the limitations: a fault diagnosis method {implemented on AFE circuitry 135, Figs. 1-2, includes comparator 240 and processor 270: “The processor 270 may be configured to perform various digital processing steps to adhere with different application safety standards and to avoid false error triggering.”, Col. 11, Lns. 6-8} of a vehicle ECU {“A system and method for monitoring analog front-end (AFE) circuitry of an inductive position sensor. A redundant AFE channel is provided and alternatively utilized with a sine AFE channel or a cosine AFE channel of the AFE circuitry to obtain a voltage difference that may result in a detection angle error at the electronic control unit (ECU) of the inductive position sensor.”, Abstract; ECU 155, Fig. 1} with a functional safety system {“a method for ensuring the safety of a system employing the inductive position system by monitoring the angular deviation resulting from inaccuracies present in the analog front-end (AFE) circuitry”, Col. 1, Lns. 16-20} configured to detect a fault {detection of inherent errors: “ISO 26262 provides a classification of inherent safety risk in an automotive system or elements that expresses the level of risk reduction required to prevent a specific hazard…a high level of self-diagnostic capability of the inductive sensor is required to detect inherent errors.”, Col. 1, Lns. 44-51, and “continuously detecting the inherent integrated circuit (IC) errors which result in angle measurement errors at the position sensor, thus reducing the risk to conform with safety rating standards”, Col. 2, Lns. 6-9} remaining beyond a preset diagnostic test interval {“The processor 270 may also rely on the predetermined fault tolerant time interval (FTTI), a predetermined error pulse filter duration and a predetermined fault counter maximum value to prevent false error triggering, in compliance with the application safety standards.”, Col. 11, Lns. 10-15} from an occurrence time as a confirmed fault {with regard to Fig. 4, a confirmed fault corresponds to fault counter 350 output of “1”: “only the duration (Tperiod) of the first error pulse 426 is greater than the predetermined error pulse filter period (Tperiod_tol) and so, the first error pulse 426 results in the fault counter 450 incrementing to a value of “1” 454.”, Col. 12, Lns. 57-61, and, with regard to Fig. 7, corresponds to incrementing counter 630}, the fault diagnosis method {implemented by the circuitry in Fig. 2: “FIG. 2 is a block diagram illustrating a system for monitoring AFE circuitry of an inductive position sensor”, Col. 1, Lns. 57-58} comprising: detecting a fault of the vehicle ECU during the diagnostic test interval {error pulse 420 during the first half of FTTI, Fig. 4, is representative of a potential or latent fault that does not register as a confirmed fault, as fault counter 350 remains zero until after the second half of FTTI; one skilled in the art will appreciate that under ISO 26262 the diagnostic test interval (DTI) occurs in the first half of the Fault Tolerant Time Interval (FTTI), and that any occurrence-and-termination during the DTI is a potential fault not a confirmed fault} based on one or more signals corresponding to an input/output current and voltage of the vehicle ECU {Figs. 3-4; “A redundant AFE channel is provided and alternatively utilized with a sine AFE channel or a cosine AFE channel of the AFE circuitry to obtain a voltage difference that may result in a detection angle error at the electronic control unit (ECU) of the inductive position sensor”, Abstract}; counting a number {“The function of the fault counter is to count the abovementioned valid error pulses within each FTTI interval. The processor 270 uses the fault counter to validate the number of valid error pulses that need to occur before sending a fault condition to the ECU”, Col. 11, Lns. 31-35} of fault occurrences and fault terminations during the diagnostic test interval; and detecting a fault of the vehicle ECU when the counted number of fault occurrences and fault terminations is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold {a fault corresponds to an increase in error pulse width, as evident in Fig. 4, in which error pulses 420, 422 and 424 do not trigger a fault condition or counter 350, but error pulse 426 does register as a fault condition, corresponding to a YES condition in Fig. 6 at operation 535, incrementation of fault counter 535 and a YES condition at operation 540 due to satisfy a “greater than” criteria}, wherein the fault diagnosis method further comprises: initializing the [{with regard to Fig. 6, after the predetermined fault counter maximum is reached at operation 540, and the time interval for resetting is exceeded at operation 550, the fault counter is reset at operation 555, and closed-loop monitoring system represented in Fig. 6 proceeds to start a new test interval after completion of the previous test interval}.
Le Goff does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: initializing the diagnostic test interval by terminating a current test interval and starting a new diagnostic test interval when the counted number of fault occurrences and fault terminations is less than the predetermined threshold.
However, Melis explicitly recites the limitations: initializing the diagnostic test interval by terminating a current test interval and starting a new diagnostic test interval when the counted number of fault occurrences and fault terminations is less than the predetermined threshold
{Pg. 12, Lns. 1-16, teaches that to avoid mistakenly identifying a confirmed fault (i.e., “to avoid failure misdetections”) the opening and closing cycle of an injection needle is monitored over at least 3 cycles; if a condition is met, a potential fault condition is identified and a counter is incremented (i.e., counter 23 in Fig. 5), with a confirmed fault only determined if a second potential fault condition is identified (i.e., “Once this condition is satisfied, the evaluation of the potential failure is confirmed 26.”, with 26 identified in Fig. 5), if not confirmed the
monitoring system is reset (i.e., “The control loop is restarted 25 until the condition 24 Counter> 2 is satisfied”)}.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Le Goff and Melis discloses all the limitations of Claim 11, as discussed supra. In addition, Le Goff explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the diagnoser is configured to detect the fault occurrences and terminations of the vehicle ECU in response to determining the one or more signals received from the sensor deviating from and returning to a preset allowable range of the input/output current and voltage {“the redundant AFE channel buffer to determine the voltage difference between the output voltage of the cosine AFE channel buffer and the output voltage of the redundant AFE channel buffer. The method then proceeds by determining if the voltage difference is greater than a predetermined threshold voltage which corresponds to a given angular error. If it is determined that the voltage difference is greater than the predetermined threshold voltage, then the method proceeds by signaling a fault condition to an electronic control unit (ECU) coupled to the inductive position sensor.”, Col. 2, Lns. 44-54}.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Le Goff and Melis discloses all the limitations of Claim 11, as discussed supra. In addition, Le Goff explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the diagnoser is configured to detect the confirmed fault of the vehicle ECU {“In order to prevent voltage glitches from triggering false faults and to comply with the defined fault tolerant time interval (FTTI) at the ECU 155, the processor 270 is further configured to digitally process the error pulses received from comparator circuit 240 until the fault tolerant time interval (FTTI) has been met.”, Col. 10, Lns. 61-66} in response to the one or more signals received from the sensor deviating from a preset allowable range of the input/output current and voltage and remaining beyond the diagnostic test interval {“The processor 270 may also rely on the predetermined fault tolerant time interval (FTTI), a predetermined error pulse filter duration and a predetermined fault counter maximum value to prevent false error triggering, in compliance with the application safety standards.”, Col. 11, Lns. 10-15; and “the redundant AFE channel buffer to determine the voltage difference between the output voltage of the cosine AFE channel buffer and the output voltage of the redundant AFE channel buffer. The method then proceeds by determining if the voltage difference is greater than a predetermined threshold voltage which corresponds to a given angular error. If it is determined that the voltage difference is greater than the predetermined threshold voltage, then the method proceeds by signaling a fault condition to an electronic control unit (ECU) coupled to the inductive position sensor.”, Col. 2, Lns. 44-54}.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Le Goff and Melis discloses all the limitations of Claim 11, as discussed supra. In addition, Le Goff explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the sensor includes: a current sensor provided in each of phases of the vehicle ECU; and an input/output voltage sensor of the vehicle ECU {as evident in Fig. 9A, for example, the system of Figs. 1-2 detects the voltage signal and phases, and the current is derivable from the circuit resistance, in accordance with Ohms law}.
Claims 4-6, 9-10, 14-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Le Goff, Melis and Sowa (US 7,239,946 B2).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Le Goff and Melis discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. The combination of Le Goff and Melis does not appear to explicitly disclose limitation: wherein the diagnostic test interval is set to 100 ignition (IG) cycles of a vehicle.
However, Sowa explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the diagnostic test interval is set to 100 ignition (IG) cycles of a vehicle {“This self-correcting feature results from when the vehicle is operated through many record cycles. For example, the predetermined number of record cycles may be set to 50 or even 100. In this way, if the vehicle operates through 50 or 100 ignition cycles without further errors, the recorded fault dataset can be erased from the first storage media.”, Col. 16, Lns. 15-20}.
The combination of Le Goff and Melis along with Sowa are analogous art because they all deal with vehicle diagnostic systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Le Goff, Melis and Sowa before them, to modify the teachings of the combination of Le Goff and Melis to include the teachings of Sowa to detect a slowly evolving vehicle abnormality before it leads to a vehicle malfunction.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Le Goff, Melis and Sowa discloses all the limitations of Claim 4, as discussed supra. In addition, Le Goff explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the diagnoser is configured to detect the potential fault of the vehicle ECU in response to the number of the fault occurrences and terminations {FTTI, Fig. 3} of the vehicle ECU being greater than or equal to 10 during the diagnostic test interval {“Each of the predetermined FTTI, the predetermined error pulse filter duration and the predetermined fault counter maximum value are trimmable in order to meet the requirements of different safety standards and to avoid false error triggering”, Col. 11, Lns. 15-19, and “The processor 270 uses the fault counter to validate the number of valid error pulses that need to occur before sending a fault condition to the ECU….the predetermined fault counter maximum value may be trimmable between 0 and 7.”, Col. 11, Lns. 32-40}.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Le Goff, Melis and Sowa discloses all the limitations of Claim 4, as discussed supra. In addition, Le Goff explicitly recites the limitation: the diagnoser is configured to initialize the diagnostic test interval in response to the number of the fault occurrences and terminations {FTTI, Fig. 3} of the vehicle ECU being less than 10 during the diagnostic test interval {“Each of the predetermined FTTI, the predetermined error pulse filter duration and the predetermined fault counter maximum value are trimmable in order to meet the requirements of different safety standards and to avoid false error triggering”, Col. 11, Lns. 15-19, and “The processor 270 uses the fault counter to validate the number of valid error pulses that need to occur before sending a fault condition to the ECU….the predetermined fault counter maximum value may be trimmable between 0 and 7.”, Col. 11, Lns. 32-40}.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Le Goff and Melis discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. The combination of Le Goff and Melis does not appear to explicitly disclose limitation: wherein the diagnoser is configured to turn on a warning light provided in a vehicle in response to the confirmed fault or the potential fault of the vehicle ECU being detected.
However, Sowa explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the diagnoser is configured to turn on a warning light provided in a vehicle in response to the confirmed fault or the potential fault of the vehicle ECU being detected {“Preferably, a fault flag is set and stored to indicate that a fault condition has occurred. In practical applications, this fault flag may result in a "Malfunction Indicator Lamp" light being lit on a control panel. As an example, a particular fault condition might prescribe transfer and storage of an entire sensor dataset for a previous N ignition cycles”, Col. 3, Lns. 61-67}.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Le Goff, Melis and Sowa discloses all the limitations of Claim 9, as discussed supra. Le Goff does not appear to explicitly disclose limitation: wherein the diagnoser is configured to turn on a warning light provided in a vehicle in response to the confirmed fault or the potential fault of the vehicle ECU being detected.
However, Melis explicitly recites the limitation: confirmed fault and the potential fault of the vehicle ECU are distinguishable from each other {Pg. 12, Lns. 1-16, teaches that to avoid mistakenly identifying a confirmed fault (i.e., “to avoid failure misdetections”) the opening and closing cycle of an injection needle is monitored over at least 3 cycles; if a condition is met, a potential fault condition is identified and a counter is incremented (i.e., counter 23 in Fig. 5), with a confirmed fault only determined if a second potential fault condition is identified (i.e., “Once this condition is satisfied, the evaluation of the potential failure is confirmed 26.”, with 26 identified in Fig. 5), if not confirmed the monitoring system is reset (i.e., “The control loop is restarted 25 until the condition 24 Counter> 2 is satisfied”)}.
The combination of Le Goff and Melis does not appear to explicitly disclose limitation: wherein the diagnoser is configured to turn on a warning light provided in a vehicle in response to the confirmed fault or the potential fault of the vehicle ECU being detected.
In addition, Sowa explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the turning on of the warning light comprises turning on the warning light to make the confirmed fault and the potential fault of the vehicle ECU distinguishable from each other {warning light when a fault is detected: “Preferably, a fault flag is set and stored to indicate that a fault condition has occurred. In practical applications, this fault flag may result in a "Malfunction Indicator Lamp" light being lit on a control panel. As an example, a particular fault condition might prescribe transfer and storage of an entire sensor dataset for a previous N ignition cycles”, Col. 3, Lns. 61-67; one skilled in the art will appreciate that each distinct diagnostic signal, fault or code can corresponding to a separate warning by a separate lighting element}.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Le Goff and Melis discloses all the limitations of Claim 11, as discussed supra. The combination of Le Goff and Melis does not appear to explicitly disclose limitation: wherein the diagnostic test interval is set to 100 ignition (IG) cycles of a vehicle.
However, Sowa explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the diagnostic test interval is set to 100 ignition (IG) cycles of a vehicle {“This self-correcting feature results from when the vehicle is operated through many record cycles. For example, the predetermined number of record cycles may be set to 50 or even 100. In this way, if the vehicle operates through 50 or 100 ignition cycles without further errors, the recorded fault dataset can be erased from the first storage media.”, Col. 16, Lns. 15-20}.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Le Goff, Melis and Sowa discloses all the limitations of Claim 14, as discussed supra. In addition, Le Goff explicitly recites the limitation: wherein detecting the potential fault of the vehicle ECU in response to the number of the fault occurrences and terminations {FTTI, Fig. 3} of the vehicle ECU being greater than or equal to 10 during the diagnostic test interval {“Each of the predetermined FTTI, the predetermined error pulse filter duration and the predetermined fault counter maximum value are trimmable in order to meet the requirements of different safety standards and to avoid false error triggering”, Col. 11, Lns. 15-19, and “The processor 270 uses the fault counter to validate the number of valid error pulses that need to occur before sending a fault condition to the ECU….the predetermined fault counter maximum value may be trimmable between 0 and 7.”, Col. 11, Lns. 32-40}.
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Le Goff, Melis and Sowa discloses all the limitations of Claim 14, as discussed supra. In addition, Le Goff explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the initializing the diagnostic test interval in response to the number of the fault occurrences and terminations {FTTI, Fig. 3} of the vehicle ECU being less than 10 during the diagnostic test interval {“Each of the predetermined FTTI, the predetermined error pulse filter duration and the predetermined fault counter maximum value are trimmable in order to meet the requirements of different safety standards and to avoid false error triggering”, Col. 11, Lns. 15-19, and “The processor 270 uses the fault counter to validate the number of valid error pulses that need to occur before sending a fault condition to the ECU….the predetermined fault counter maximum value may be trimmable between 0 and 7.”, Col. 11, Lns. 32-40}.
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Le Goff and Melis discloses all the limitations of Claim 11, as discussed supra. The combination of Le Goff and Melis does not appear to explicitly disclose limitation: wherein the detecting of the confirmed fault or the potential fault of the vehicle ECU comprises turning on a warning light provided in a vehicle.
However, Sowa explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the detecting of the confirmed fault or the potential fault of the vehicle ECU comprises turning on a warning light provided in a vehicle {“Preferably, a fault flag is set and stored to indicate that a fault condition has occurred. In practical applications, this fault flag may result in a "Malfunction Indicator Lamp" light being lit on a control panel. As an example, a particular fault condition might prescribe transfer and storage of an entire sensor dataset for a previous N ignition cycles”, Col. 3, Lns. 61-67}.
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Le Goff, Melis and Sowa discloses the fault diagnosis method of Claim 19. Le Goff does not appear to explicitly disclose limitation: wherein the turning on of the warning light comprises turning on the warning light to make the confirmed fault and the potential fault of the vehicle ECU distinguishable from each other.
However, Melis explicitly recites the limitation: confirmed fault and the potential fault of the vehicle ECU are distinguishable from each other {Pg. 12, Lns. 1-16, teaches that to avoid mistakenly identifying a confirmed fault (i.e., “to avoid failure misdetections”) the opening and closing cycle of an injection needle is monitored over at least 3 cycles; if a condition is met, a potential fault condition is identified and a counter is incremented (i.e., counter 23 in Fig. 5), with a confirmed fault only determined if a second potential fault condition is identified (i.e., “Once this condition is satisfied, the evaluation of the potential failure is confirmed 26.”, with 26 identified in Fig. 5), if not confirmed the monitoring system is reset (i.e., “The control loop is restarted 25 until the condition 24 Counter> 2 is satisfied”)}.
The combination of Le Goff and Melis does not appear to explicitly disclose limitation: wherein the turning on of the warning light comprises turning on the warning light to make the confirmed fault and the potential fault of the vehicle ECU distinguishable from each other.
In addition, Sowa explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the turning on of the warning light comprises turning on the warning light to make the confirmed fault and the potential fault of the vehicle ECU distinguishable from each other {warning light when a fault is detected: “Preferably, a fault flag is set and stored to indicate that a fault condition has occurred. In practical applications, this fault flag may result in a "Malfunction Indicator Lamp" light being lit on a control panel. As an example, a particular fault condition might prescribe transfer and storage of an entire sensor dataset for a previous N ignition cycles”, Col. 3, Lns. 61-67; one skilled in the art will appreciate that each distinct diagnostic signal, fault or code can corresponding to a separate warning by a separate lighting element}.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD EDWIN GEIST whose telephone number is (703)756-5854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm.
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.
/R.E.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights