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 .
Claims 1-11 are pending.
This action is made final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, from pages 9-14, applicant argued that “that the rejections of claims 1, 2 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) are overcome…. the rejections of claims 1, 2 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are overcome…”. The examiner respectfully disagreed with applicant’s argument. The written description still fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the claimed functions such as evaluate sensor data, form first result signals, evaluate sensor data from the sensor of the sensor system, form second result signals, compare the first result signals and the second result signals with one another, and generates safe output signals. From pages 10-12 of the remarks, applicant cited different paragraphs and states “Typically such control and evaluation units are provided by a processor, ASIC or similar device”, however, the specification is silent and does not provide any adequate structures to perform the claimed functions. There are not such “a processor, ASIC or similar device” recited in the specification to perform the claimed functions, it is still unclear regarding to the corresponding structures of the claimed “first control and evaluation unit”, “ second control and evaluation unit”, and “comparator unit” . Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112 maintained.
In the remarks, from pages 14-17, applicant argued that “the output of the first and second result signals in order to form a staggered safety architecture with the first control and evaluation unit and use a comparator to compare the first result signals and the second result signals with one another and generates safe output signals is significantly more than the mere execution of mathematical algorithms”. The examiner respectfully traverses applicant’s position. By evaluating data to form first result and second result can be practically performed in the human mind with a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited evaluations, forming a staggered safety architecture using those first and second result is inherently from the recited evaluations and comparing, by evaluating and comparing data to double check the results involves mentally forming a staggered safety architecture to compare the two results to ensure the two results data are consistent. Beside those abstract ideas, transfers sensor data and generates safe output signals are insignificant extra-solution activities which not amounts to significantly more than the recited exception (please see below for detail explanation for 101 rejections). Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 maintained.
In the remarks, from pages 17-21, applicant argued that “the Sari reference does not teach or suggest…. a staggered safety architecture for a safety monitoring system”. The examiner respectfully traverses applicant’s position. Sari teaches a staggered safety architecture for a safety monitoring system, such as paragraph [0026] indicates “The second power processor is redundant to the first power processor. Each additional redundant power processor also increases the safety”. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 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.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: The claim recites a system, which fall within a statutory category.
Step 2A Prong one: claim 1 recites step of “evaluate sensor data from the sensor of the sensor system and to form first result signals”, “evaluate sensor data from the sensor of the sensor system and to form second result signals, forming a staggered safety architecture”, “compare the first result signals and the second result signals with one another”. The claimed limitation falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited calculation can be practically performed in the human mind, such that steps of “evaluate… to form...”, “evaluate… to form… forming…”, and “compare…” can be mentally performed in the human mind to calculate information, to produce results, to double check results, to compare results. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong two: Besides the abstract ideas, the claim recites additional limitations “transfer sensor data” and “generates safe output signals”. The additional limitations represent mere data transmission and data output that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and is recited at a high level of generality. Limitations “transfer sensor data” and “generates safe output signals” in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional elements “at least one sensor system”, “at least one sensor in a first housing”, “at least one programmable controller in a second housing”, “first control and evaluation unit”,“ second control and evaluation unit”, and “comparator unit” in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim as a whole does not amounts to significantly more than the recited exception. The additional elements of “transfer sensor data” and “generates safe output signals” represent mere data transmission and data output is recited at a high level of generality, and, as disclosed in the specification, is also well-known. This limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, limitation “transfer sensor data” and “generates safe output signals” do not amount to significantly more. The additional elements “at least one sensor system”, “at least one sensor in a first housing”, “at least one programmable controller in a second housing”, “first control and evaluation unit”,“ second control and evaluation unit”, and “comparator unit” in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: The claim recites a method, which fall within a statutory category.
Step 2A Prong one: claim 11 recites step of “sensor data from the sensor of the sensor system being evaluated and first result signals being formed”, “sensor data from the sensor of the sensor system being evaluated and evaluation unit and second result signals being formed, forming a staggered safety architecture”, “comparing the first result signals and the second result signals with one another”. The claimed limitation falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited calculation can be practically performed in the human mind, such that steps of “evaluated… formed...”, “evaluated… formed… forming…”, and “compare…” can be mentally performed in the human mind to calculate information, to produce results, to double check results, to compare results. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong two: Besides the abstract ideas, the claim recites additional limitations “transmits sensor data” and “generating safe output signals”. The additional limitations represent mere data transmission and data output that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and is recited at a high level of generality. Limitations “transmits sensor data” and “generating safe output signals” in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional elements “at least one sensor system”, “at least one sensor in a first housing”, “at least one programmable controller in a second housing”, “first control and evaluation unit”,“ second control and evaluation unit”, and “comparator unit” in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim as a whole does not amounts to significantly more than the recited exception. The additional elements of “transmits sensor data” and “generating safe output signals” represent mere data transmission and data output is recited at a high level of generality, and, as disclosed in the specification, is also well-known. This limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, limitation “transmits sensor data” and “generating safe output signals” do not amount to significantly more. The additional elements “at least one sensor system”, “at least one sensor in a first housing”, “at least one programmable controller in a second housing”, “first control and evaluation unit”,“ second control and evaluation unit”, and “comparator unit” in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 2 recites step of “compare the first result signals and the second result signal with one another while taking account of the tolerance range”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Besides the abstract ideas, the claim recites additional limitations “requesting test data”. The additional limitations represent mere data output and data input that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and is recited at a high level of generality. Limitations “requesting test data” in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 7 recites step of “output a plausibility measure based on the comparison of the first result signals and the second result signals”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent Claim 9 recites step of “evaluate a further sensor system” and “evaluate sensor data from the sensor of the further sensor system and to form third result signals”, the step cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. Besides the abstract ideas, the claim recites additional limitations “transmit sensor data”. The additional limitations represent mere data output and data input that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and is recited at a high level of generality. Limitations “transmit sensor data” in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim lacks any additional elements which may serve to integrate it into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: first control and evaluation unit being configured to evaluate sensor data from the sensor of the sensor system and to form first result signals in claim 1, second control and evaluation unit being configured to evaluate sensor data from the sensor of the sensor system and to form second result signals in claim 1, comparator unit configured to compare the first result signals and the second result signals with one another and generates safe output signals in claim 1, comparator unit being configured to compare the first result signals and the second result signal with one another in claim 2, second control and evaluation unit being configured to evaluate sensor data from the sensor of the further sensor system and to form third result signals in claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-2, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “first control and evaluation unit being configured to evaluate sensor data from the sensor of the sensor system and to form first result signals” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the data evaluation. The use of the terms “evaluate” is not adequate structure for performing the data evaluation because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “first control and evaluation unit being configured to evaluate sensor data from the sensor of the sensor system and to form first result signals” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the signal generation. The use of the term “form” is not adequate structure for performing the signal generation because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “second control and evaluation unit being configured to evaluate sensor data from the sensor of the sensor system and to form second result signals” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the data evaluation. The use of the term “evaluate” is not adequate structure for performing the data evaluation because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “second control and evaluation unit being configured to evaluate sensor data from the sensor of the sensor system and to form second result signals” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the signal generation. The use of the term “form” is not adequate structure for performing the signal generation because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “comparator unit configured to compare the first result signals and the second result signals with one another and generates safe output signals” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the data comparison. The use of the term “compare” is not adequate structure for performing the data comparison because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “comparator unit being configured to compare the first result signals and the second result signals with one another and generates safe output signals” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the data generation. The use of the term “generates” is not adequate structure for performing the data generation because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “comparator unit being configured to compare the first result signals and the second result signal with one another” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the data comparison. The use of the term “compare” is not adequate structure for performing the data comparison because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “second control and evaluation unit being configured to evaluate sensor data from the sensor of the further sensor system and to form third result signals” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the data evaluation. The use of the term “evaluate” is not adequate structure for performing the data evaluation because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “second control and evaluation unit being configured to evaluate sensor data from the sensor of the further sensor system and to form third result signals” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the signal generation. The use of the term “form” is not adequate structure for performing the signal generation because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim 1 is 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structures to perform the claimed functions regarding to evaluate sensor data, form first result signals, evaluate sensor data from the sensor of the sensor system, form second result signals, compare the first result signals and the second result signals with one another, and generates safe output signals. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed functions because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 is 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structures to perform the claimed functions regarding to compare the first result signals and the second result signal with one another. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed functions because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 is 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structures to perform the claimed functions regarding to evaluate sensor data from the sensor of the further sensor system and to form third result signals. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed functions because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-8, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SARI (US 20210146938 A1).
As to claims 1 and 11, SARI teaches a system and method having at least one sensor system having at least one sensor in a first housing and at least one programmable controller in a second housing [Figs. 1-3], wherein the sensor system has a first control and evaluation unit, with the first control and evaluation unit being configured to evaluate sensor data from the sensor of the sensor system and to form first result signals [a first power processor, which is configured to acquire and evaluate sensor signal] [0026-0029, 0059-0063], wherein the programmable controller has a second control and evaluation unit, wherein the sensor system is configured to transfer sensor data to the second control and evaluation unit, with the second control and evaluation unit being configured to evaluate sensor data from the sensor of the sensor system and to form second result signals [at least one second power processor, which is configured to acquire and evaluate sensor signals] [0026-0029, 0059-0063], forming a staggered safety architecture with the first control and evaluation unit ([0026] The second power processor is redundant to the first power processor. Each additional redundant power processor also increases the safety), and with a comparator unit being provided, with the comparator unit being configured to compare the first result signals and the second result signals with one another and generates safe output signals [a safety processor, which is connected to the first power processor and the second power processor such that the safety processor controls the vehicle module based on a result of the evaluation of sensor signals with the first power processor and a result of the evaluation of sensor signals with the second power processor, wherein the vehicle module can be controlled based on the results of the comparison. A malfunctioning state of the first power processor and/or the second power processor can be determined by the comparison] [0026-0029, 0059-0063].
As to claim 3, SARI teaches the programmable controller has the comparator unit [0026-0029, 0059-0063].
As to claim 6, SARI teaches the programmable controller has a signal output for requesting test data and the sensor system has a signal input for requesting test data, with the signal output being connected to the signal input [0019, 0033, 0056-0058, 0068].
As to claim 7, SARI teaches the programmable controller is configured to output a plausibility measure based on the comparison of the first result signals and the second result signals of the comparator unit [0022].
As to claim 8, SARI teaches the programmable controller is configured to evaluate stored historical information [0033-0034, 0057].
As to claim 10, SARI teaches a safety controller has the comparator unit [0026-0029, 0059-0063].
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2, 4-5, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SARI in view of HAMMES et al. (hereinafter “HAMMES”) (US 20200290205 A1).
As to claim 2, SARI teaches comparing the first result signals and the second result signals with one another and generates safe output signals [0026-0029, 0059-0063]. SARI does not explicitly teach at least one tolerance range is provided in the comparator unit, with the comparator unit being configured to compare the first result signals and the second result signal with one another while taking account of the tolerance range and generating safe output signals.
However, HAMMES teaches a safety system for safeguarding a machine using two controllers to receive and evaluate sensor data from a plurality of sensors. especially, HAMMES teaches at least one tolerance range is provided in the comparator unit, with the comparator unit being configured to compare the first result signals and the second result signal with one another while taking account of the tolerance range and generating safe output signals [0014-0019, 0048-0050].
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of HAMMES with the teachings of SARI for the purpose of providing a reasonable error range for comparing different result signal from different resource to ensure proper operation with permitted deviations.
As to claim 4, HAMMES teaches the sensor system has a test data generator [Figs. 1-6] [0016, 0049-0050, 0053, 0064-0066].
As to claim 5, HAMMES teaches the sensor system is a 3D image sensor system [0059].
As to claim 9, HAMMES teaches the programmable controller is configured to evaluate a further sensor system, with the further sensor system being configured to transmit sensor data to the second control and evaluation unit, with the second control and evaluation unit being configured to evaluate sensor data from the sensor of the further sensor system and to form third result signals [Fig. 1] [0016, 0042-0047, 0052-0053, 0069].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ZHIPENG WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-7.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at 5712722279. 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.
/ZHIPENG WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights