DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 6/9/2025 has been considered.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Status of Application
Claims 1, 3-4, 8-9, 11, 13-14, and 18-22 are pending.
Claims 2, 5-7, 10, 12, and 15-17 have been previously cancelled.
Claim 1, 11, and 18 have been amended.
Claims 1, 11, and 18 are independent.
This Final Office Action is in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” received on 11/11/2025.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 11/11/2025; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached above in the FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
It is the Office’s stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered and the rejections remain.
Final Office Action
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
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
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"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that no claims contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1, 4, 11, 14, 18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Green et al. (United States Patent Publication 2017/0057528) in view of Fumiyoshi (Japanese Patent Publication JP2014138528A)
With respect to Claim 1: While Green discloses “An apparatus for determining a faulty sensor from among a plurality of sensors mounted close to each other in a same region of a vehicle” [Green, ¶ 0116-0123, 0080 with Figure 7 (3 sensors (n) are in the same region measuring the same marker and compared in pairs to each other)];
“the plurality of sensors composed of n sensors and configured for detecting a same type of a target object by performing a same detection function” [Green, ¶ 0116-0123, 0080 with Figure 7 (sensors on one side of vehicle detecting marker 120)];
“the apparatus comprising: a memory storing a program; and a processor configured to execute the program” [Green, ¶ 0018 with Figure 1];
“wherein the processor, when executing the program, is configured to perform a faulty sensor determination process” [Green, ¶ 0018 with Figure 1];
“which includes steps of: receiving n sensor signals, each respectively from one of the n sensors” [Green, ¶ 0116-0123, 0080 with Figure 7];
“setting a plurality of sensor signal pairs comprising all possible unique pairs from the received n sensor signals” [Green, ¶ 0116-0123, 0080 with Figure 7];
“determining a value difference between two sensor signals in each of the plurality of sensor signal pairs” [Green, ¶ 0116-0123, 0080 with Figure 7];
“determining, for each of the plurality of sensor signal pairs, whether the value difference is within a predetermined normal range” [Green, ¶ 0116-0123, 0080 with Figure 7];
“selecting one or more error pairs from among the plurality of sensor signal pairs based on a determination that the value difference of the two sensor signals in each error pair is outside the predetermined normal range sensor” [Green, ¶ 0116-0123, 0080 with Figure 7];
“identifying a first sensor that is included in all of the one or more error pairs” [Green, ¶ 0116-0123, 0080 with Figure 7];
“determining that the first sensor as a faulty sensor” [Green, ¶ 0116-0123, 0080 with Figure 7];
Green does not specifically state 4 sensors are used or positively recite what controls exclude the faulty sensor.
Fumiyoshi, which is also a faulty sensor detection vehicle control system which uses 4 sensors and creates pairs teaches “the plurality of sensors composed of n sensors (n being a natural number equal to or larger than 4), the apparatus comprising” [Fumiyoshi, Embodiment 2 with Figure 4];
“receiving n sensors signals, each respectively from one of the n sensors” [Fumiyoshi, Embodiment 2 with Figure 4 (voltages)];
“setting a plurality of sensor signals pairs, comprising all possible unique pairs form the received n sensor signals” [Fumiyoshi, Embodiment 2 with Figure 4];
“determining a value difference between two sensors signals in each of the plurality of sensor signals” [Fumiyoshi, Embodiment 2 with Figure 4];
“determining for each of the plurality of sensor signals pairs, whether the values difference is within a predetermined normal range” [Fumiyoshi, Embodiment 2 with Figure 4];
“selecting one or more error pairs from among the plurality of sensors signals pairs based on a determing that the value difference of the two sensors signals in each error pair is outside the predetermine normal range” [Fumiyoshi, Embodiment 2 with Figure 4];
“identifying a first sensor that is included in all of the one or more error pairs” [Fumiyoshi, Embodiment 2 with Figure 4];
“determining that the first sensor as a fault sensor” [Fumiyoshi, Embodiment 2 with Figure 4];
“controlling the vehicle using the n sensor signals, excluding the signal from the faulty sensor” [Fumiyoshi, Embodiment 2 with Figure 4].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Fumiyoshi into the invention of Green to not only compare sensor data sets in a vehicle and compare the sensors for faulty sensor determination as Green discloses but to also use all possible combinations of sensor comparisons with 4 sensor sets to determine a faulty sensor and control the vehicle without the faulty sensor data as taught by Fumiyoshi with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Fumiyoshi into Green to create a more robust system that can produce more accurate results by comparing all sensors and eliminating the faulty sensor [Fumiyoshi, Embodiment 2]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as using sensors for data collection and vehicle control and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 4: While Green discloses “The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the plurality of sensors composed of n sensors are the same type of sensors and detect a same target” [Green, ¶ 0116-0123, 0080 with Figure 7].
Green does not specifically state that the target is internal, rather external.
Fumiyoshi, which is also a faulty sensor detection vehicle control system which uses 4 sensors and creates pairs teaches “The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the plurality of sensors composed of n sensors are the same type of sensors and detect a same target in the vehicle” [Fumiyoshi, Embodiment 2 with Figure 4 (voltage)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Fumiyoshi into the invention of Green to not only compare sensor data sets in a vehicle and compare the sensors for faulty sensor determination as Green discloses but to also use all possible combinations of sensor comparisons with 4 sensor sets to determine a faulty sensor and control the vehicle without the faulty sensor data as taught by Fumiyoshi with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Fumiyoshi into Green to create a more robust system that can produce more accurate results by comparing all sensors and eliminating the faulty sensor [Fumiyoshi, Embodiment 2]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as using sensors for data collection and vehicle control and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 20: While Green discloses “The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to repeat periodically, with a predetermined time interval, the faulty sensor determination process” [Green, ¶ 0116-0123, 0080 with Figure 7];
“using a set of plurality of sensors” [Green, ¶ 0116-0123, 0078, 0080 with Figure 7];
Green does not state that the measurements are continued without the faulty sensor.
Fumiyoshi, which is also a faulty sensor detection vehicle control system which uses 4 sensors and creates pairs teaches “the plurality of sensors composed of n sensors (n being a natural number equal to or larger than 4), the apparatus comprising” [Fumiyoshi, Embodiment 2 with Figure 4];
“using a new set of plurality of sensors, which is composed of the plurality of sensors excluding the faulty sensor” [Fumiyoshi, Embodiment 2 with Figure 4].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Fumiyoshi into the invention of Green to not only compare sensor data sets in a vehicle and compare the sensors for faulty sensor determination as Green discloses but to also use all possible combinations of sensor comparisons with 4 sensor sets to determine a faulty sensor and control the vehicle without the faulty sensor data as taught by Fumiyoshi with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Fumiyoshi into Green to create a more robust system that can produce more accurate results by comparing all sensors and eliminating the faulty sensor [Fumiyoshi, Embodiment 2]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as using sensors for data collection and vehicle control and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claims 11, 14, and 21: all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus in Claims 1, 4, and 20. The method taught/disclosed in Claims 11, 14, and 21 can clearly perform on the apparatus of Claims 1, 4, and 20. Therefore Claims 11, 14, and 21 are rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claims 18 and 22: all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus in Claims 1, 4, and 20 The vehicle taught/disclosed in Claims 18 and 22: can clearly perform on the apparatus of Claims 1, 4, and 20. Therefore Claims 18 and 22: is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 8-9 and 19 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Green et al. (United States Patent Publication 2017/0057528) in view of Fumiyoshi (Japanese Patent Publication JP2014138528A) and in further view of Bechtler et al. (United States Patent Publication 2011/0066319)
With respect to Claim 8-9: While Green discloses using the sensors to control the vehicle speed;
Green does not specifically state how the vehicle speed is controlled when a sensor is faulty.
Bechtler, which is also faulty sensor determination system, that uses 4 sensors on a vehicle discloses “The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to perform a function control of an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) or autonomous driving of the vehicle using the n sensor signals excluding the signal from the faulty sensor” [Bechtler, ¶ 0007-0009, 0019, 0023-0025, 0034 and Figure 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Bechtler into the invention of Green to not only compare sensor data sets in a vehicle and compare the sensors for faulty sensor determination as Green and Bechlter disclose but to also control the vehicle without the faulty sensor data as taught by Bechlter with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Bechlter into Green to create a more robust system that can produce more accurate results by comparing all sensors and eliminating the faulty sensor [Bechlter, ¶ 0025]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as using sensors for data collection and vehicle control and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 19: all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus in Claims 8-9. The vehicle taught/disclosed in Claim 19 can clearly perform on the apparatus of Claims 8-9. Therefore Claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Green et al. (United States Patent Publication 2017/0057528) in view of Fumiyoshi (Japanese Patent Publication JP2014138528A), and in further view of Lode (United States Patent Publication 2009/0178481).
With respect to Claim 3: While Green discloses using the averages of sensor data for vehicle control, Green does not specifically state that the removal of the bad sensor data. Further Fumiyoshi was introduced to show the removal of the sensor data from the data being used for vehicle control.
Lode, which is also a sensor system that measures errors teaches “using an average of the sensor signals excluding the signal from the faulty sensor.” [Lode, ¶ 0045].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Lode into the invention of Green to not only measure faulty sensors based on data gathering and use averages of the data gathered for vehicle control as Green discloses but to also remove bad sensor data from average sensor calculations for vehicle control as taught by Lode with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Lode into Green to create a more robust system that account for faults in sensor data while continuing control [Lode, ¶ 0045]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as using sensors for data collection and vehicle control and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 13: all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus in Claim 3. The vehicle taught/disclosed in Claim 13 can clearly perform on the apparatus of Claim 3. Therefore Claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale.
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am -4pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached on (571)-270-0151. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c