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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 18, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This correspondence is in response to amendments filed on February 18, 2026. Claims 1, 9, and 10 are amended. Claims 2-8 are filed as previously presented. Examiner’s response to arguments regarding the prior art of record are included below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Kolatschek does not disclose retaining respective physical acceleration values corresponding to individual occupant positions as independent control inputs for respective restraint deployment decisions (see Remarks Page 8). Examiner notes that the rejection of record indicates such assertions. These features are not taught by Kolatschek, but rather Lee. Examiner relied on Lee to modify Kolatschek per 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of obviousness with appropriate rationale for motivating such a combination. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Thus, since Lee teaches this feature, and Examiner clearly distinguished that Kolatschek does not teach the argued feature, Applicant’s argument is NOT PERSUASIVE as a proper case for nonobviousness has not been presented.
Applicant argues that Lee does not disclose identifying a vehicle crash state based on translational and rotational accelerations at the vehicle’s center of gravity independently of occupant-position acceleration values and further that Lee does not disclose performing an independent deployment evaluation for each occupant position that explicitly evaluates a derived occupant-position acceleration of the vehicle as a decision input separate from an identified vehicle-level crash state (see Remarks Pages 8-9). Examiner notes wherein Applicant has claimed an evaluation of a crash state at the vehicle’s center of gravity, Lee is not relied upon to teach such a feature. This feature is taught instead by Kolatschek. As stated above in the previous argument, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Furthermore, Examiner, upon review of the amended limitation in light of Applicant’s specification determined that support did not exist for evaluation of a crash state independently of output signals representing the vehicle acceleration at each occupant position, nor did Applicant have support for output signals ascertained for the respective occupant position as a decision input separate from the identified crash state. See the associated 112(a) rejections which are included below. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., independent crash state evaluations and separate decision inputs for determining a crash state) were not recited in the previously rejected claim(s), but rather newly amended. As such, Examiner has applied rationale below to address the amended limitations when applying the combination of Kolatschek in view of Lee, as it is believed the combination still reads on such limitations. Applicant may review the amended rejection regarding the new limitations and provide arguments pertinent to the rejection in response to this action.
Finally, with regard to the explicit evaluation of derived occupant-position acceleration of the vehicle as a decision input, Applicant merely claims performing an independent deployment evaluation for the respective occupant position that explicitly evaluates the at least one respective vehicle acceleration value represented by the respective output signal ascertained for the respective occupant position. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show explicit evaluation of derived occupant-position acceleration of the vehicle, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., occupant-position acceleration of the vehicle) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
That is, regarding the teachings of Lee, the independent deployment evaluation for the respective occupant position (see S510 and S530 at which the seatbelt and airbag deployments are independent deployment evaluations for a respective occupant position) rely on the explicit evaluation of the vehicle acceleration value (aACU and
ω
˙
ACU) which is represented by the respective output signal ascertained for the respective occupant position (acceleration of occupant head/chest/pelvis, etc. which is calculated explicitly from the vehicle acceleration value and therefore representative of such a vehicle acceleration value). It is further noted that Applicant’s disclosure includes Equation (1) for determining an acceleration value at any position which directly emulates Equation 2 (Paragraph [0096]) regarding the occupant position-specific acceleration value. As such, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are NOT PERSUASIVE.
Applicant furthers arguments in the remaining pages of the Remarks regarding that any such combination of Kolatschek in view of Lee would be improper (see Pages 9-11 of Remarks). As cited above regarding attacks against the references individually, see In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant is reminded of the factual inquiries for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103:
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.
Given that Examiner clearly delineated which features were not included in the scope and contents of Kolatschek (i.e., occupant-specific acceleration evaluations and deployment decisions), provided the teachings of Lee which did teach such features, and then established a motivation pertinent to one of ordinary skill in combining such teachings, the combination of such features remains evident.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments regarding the combination of references relied upon in rejecting the current claims have been considered but are NOT PERSUASIVE.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The markings made to amended claim 10 is inconsistent with respect to the previously filed claim 10 which was received and entered on August 7, 2025. Examiner reminds Applicant of MPEP 714 which includes 37 CFR 1.121. Specifically, attention should be made to 37 CFR 1.121(c)(2) which recites, “All claims being currently amended in an amendment paper shall be presented in the claim listing, indicate a status of “currently amended,” and be submitted with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters.” The markings of claim 10 for the current submission do not accurately reflect the changes which were made to the claim when compared to the previous submission. In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner will examine claim 10 as it was submitted in the amendment filed on February 18, 2026 following the Request for Continued Examination. However, Applicant is encouraged to review the disparities between claim 10 which was filed on August 7, 2025 and the current submission prior to submitting subsequent amendments such that it is clear the claim is filed with accuracy.
Appropriate correction is required.
NOTE: In the rejection of claim 10 below, Examiner has underlined any such claim language that appears to be a change from the previous claim submission such that Applicant can carefully review the previous submission in light of said changes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “based on the ascertained output signals representing the translational and rotational accelerations acting at the center of gravity, and independently of the output signals representing the at least one respective vehicle acceleration value at each of the occupant positions, identifying that the vehicle is in a crash state” in lines 18-21. Applicant’s specification includes discussion of crash states regarding Figs. 3-5 and additionally a brief discussion regarding the “reconstruction” of acceleration signals at a general position 110 which may be considered as either a center of gravity location or an occupant location. There is no clear and definitive evidence that the evaluations of output signals for the center of gravity and occupant positions are independent of each other. In fact, in the equations (5), (6), and (7), the determination for the acceleration values measured for the crash state are based only on the distances between sensors in the longitudinal direction and respective sensor values for detected accelerations. With respect to equation (1) which determines an acceleration at “any location of the body”, the only differentiating factor for such an acceleration is the distance of the desired location from the respective total rotational acceleration. The examples of Fig. 3-5 show a tangential acceleration at the center of gravity, and a rotational acceleration offset from the center of gravity towards an occupant position without any such delineation indicating that the center of gravity should be considered independently of the occupant accelerations in determining the crash state. Thus, it is evident that Applicant does not have support for such a limitation and art has been applied below to the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation as best understood by Examiner in absence of a related written description.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected as having similar limitations without adequate supporting description.
Claims 2-8 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
Claim 1 additionally recites “…determining whether to deploy a respective restraint device associated with the respective position in response to the identified crash state by performing an independent deployment evaluation for the respective occupant position that explicitly evaluates the at least one respective vehicle acceleration value represented by the respective output signal ascertained for that respective occupant position as a decision input separate from the identified crash state…” in lines 22-27. Applicant’s disclosure does not provide sufficient evidence that the decision input is separate from the identified crash state. Contrary to the claimed limitation, it seems that Paragraph [0097-0098] determines that the decision input is a direct result of and/or indicative of a specific crash state, and thus would not be identified as a decision input separate from the identified crash state. The crash state is inclusive of a skewed acceleration value between front and rear occupant positions, as exemplified in the examples of Figs. 3-5 which shows different acceleration values detected for front and rear positions, and as such, the occupant acceleration will be determined as a direct product of such crash state detection. Thus, it is evident that Applicant does not have support for such a limitation and art has been applied below to the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation as best understood by Examiner in absence of a related written description.
Claims 9-10 are rejected as having similar limitations without adequate supporting description.
Claims 2-8 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolatschek et al. (DE 102020205511 A1; hereinafter “Kolatschek”) in view of Lee (US 2022/0118932 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kolatschek teaches a method for vehicle restraint system control in a vehicle (A method for detecting collisions, inclusive of “airbag control unit” for controlling vehicle restraints during collision.), the method comprising the following steps:
reading in a first input signal representing a first acceleration acting transversely to a vehicle axis of the vehicle at a first location in the vehicle located on the vehicle axis (For example purposes, such input signal will be “aMO7,y” as it is a first input signal which represents a first acceleration acting transversely to a vehicle axis “LA” at a first location on said vehicle axis (see Fig. 3).), and a second input signal representing a second acceleration acting transversely to the vehicle axis at a second location in the vehicle located on the vehicle axis (For example purposes, such input signal will be “aMO9,y” as it is a second input signal which represents a second acceleration acting transversely to a vehicle axis “LA” at a second location in the vehicle located on the vehicle axis.);
ascertaining an output signals representing
(1) a translational acceleration acting transversely to the vehicle axis at a center of gravity of the vehicle (In Figs. 5-7, this output signal is acting translational acceleration “at,y” acting at center of gravity “SP”.) and
(2) a rotational acceleration acting at the center of gravity of the vehicle (The angular, i.e., rotational acceleration, is denoted as WB. Such acceleration is shown to be acting on the center of gravity “SP” in Figs. 5-7.),
the center of gravity being at a different position than each of the first location and the second location (The center of gravity “SP” is shown to be at a unique position between MO7 and MO9, i.e., first and second location (see Fig. 3).), …
based on the ascertained output signals representing the translational and rotational accelerations acting at the center of gravity, … identifying that the vehicle is in a crash state (See Figs. 5-7 and [0041-0057] which distinguishes that the vehicle is in a specific collision scenario, or rather a specific type of collision is detected, based on the total translational and rotational acceleration outputs.); …
Kolatschek implies teaches for …the ascertainment being performed by using the first input signal, the second input signal, a first distance along the vehicle axis between the first location and the center of gravity, and a second distance along the vehicle axis between the second location and the center of gravity; (see Equation 3 which requires known values for sensors MO(k) including lateral accelerations, radial distance from COG, and angle to COG. Since at,y (lateral acceleration at COG) and WB (rotational acceleration at COG) are not known measured values in the system and the measurements require at least two sensor detections, it is implied that such an equation would be used to determine the unknown values and thus obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art)…
Kolatschek additionally implies teachings for …wherein the first location and the second location are each at different positions than each of the plurality of occupant positions; (Fig. 3 displays measuring positions MO7 and MO9 located on a centralized axis of the vehicle in the front (hood) and rear (trunk) positions and thus, though not explicitly determined by the disclosure, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that such positions would be different than each of the plurality of occupant positions, as such occupant positions would be outside of the centerline and additionally centrally located within the main body of the car.)…
However, Kolatschek does not explicitly nor implicitly teach …for a plurality of occupant positions, ascertaining respective output signals representing at least one respective vehicle acceleration value at each of the respective occupant positions by using the first input signal and the second input signal,
… for each of the plurality of occupant positions, determining whether to deploy a respective restraint device associated with the respective position in response to the identified crash state by performing an independent deployment evaluation for the respective occupant position that explicitly evaluates the at least one respective vehicle acceleration value represented by the respective output signal ascertained for the respective occupant position …; and
controlling deployment of the restraint devices according to the determination.
Lee, pertinent to the problem at hand, teaches … for a plurality of occupant positions, ascertaining respective output signals representing at least one respective vehicle acceleration value at each of the respective occupant positions by using the first input signal and the second input signal (The equation provided in [0096-0097] provides an equation for an acceleration value of an occupant’s head part, i.e., output signal, pertaining to the occupant position. Such calculation includes “aACU” which is the acceleration of the vehicle thus making the head acceleration value, i.e., output signal, representative of at least one respective vehicle acceleration value at each respective occupant position. Per the teachings of Kolatschek cited above, the first input signal and second input signal result in a vehicle acceleration at a center of gravity and as such it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the combined teachings would result in the vehicle acceleration values necessary to determine the acceleration value of the occupant, i.e., output signal, using the first input signal and the second input signal.),
… for each of the plurality of occupant positions, determining whether to deploy a respective restraint device associated with the respective position in response to the identified crash state by performing an independent deployment evaluation for the respective occupant position that explicitly evaluates the at least one respective vehicle acceleration value represented by the respective output signal ascertained for the respective occupant position … (“The safety device 50 includes the seat belt 52 or the airbag 51. The control unit 40 may control whether to operate the seat belt 52 or the airbag 51, an operation timing, or an operation amount based on the behavior information calculated by the calculation unit 30” [0099]. Thus, for each occupant, the resulting acceleration determinations as cited above determine whether to operate a restraint device. Such examples of cases dependent on bodily acceleration values for head, chest, and pelvis are provided in [0100-0102]. As noted, such acceleration calculations are determined via a vehicle acceleration value and thus the deployment evaluation explicitly evaluates the at least one respective vehicle acceleration value which is represented by the head/chest/pelvis acceleration, i.e., output signal, for the respective occupant position associated with this output signal.); and
controlling deployment of the restraint devices according to the determination (In Fig. 6, S520 regards “controlling seat belt” according to the determination that the seat belt needs to be controlled, and S550 and S560 regards “deploy airbag” such that airbag is controlled with appropriate pressure based on determination that airbag needs to be controlled.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the restraint methods of Kolatschek to include the determinations for deploying restraint devices based on occupant accelerations as determined by Lee with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because such a method will avoid unnecessary injury to the occupant in the event of a collision by determining dynamic acceleration and positions of occupants as a result of the abrupt collision force (Lee, [0005]).
Although Examiner indicated the limitations “…independently of the output signals representing the at least one respective vehicle acceleration value at each of the occupant positions, identifying that the vehicle is in a crash state…” and “…evaluates the at least one respective vehicle acceleration value represented by the respective output signal ascertained for that respective occupant position as a decision input separate from the identified crash state…” as introducing new matter, the combination of Kolaschek in view of Lee as identified above still reads on such limitations.
The combination of Kolatschek in view of Lee determines acceleration values at the center of gravity (Kolatschek) and uses a total vehicle acceleration to determine accelerations of occupants at their respective positions (Lee). The combination determines that the center of gravity verifies a total vehicle acceleration value between the two sensors, and those total vehicle acceleration values are then used to determine the acceleration of the occupant at respective occupant position. The output signals representing the at least one respective vehicle acceleration value at each of the occupant positions is not relied upon in determining a crash state, and as such the identification that the vehicle is in a crash state determined based on the values at the center of gravity are independent of the output signals determined for the occupant position. In a similar sense, the respective output signal ascertained for the respective occupant position which is used to determine the deployment of the restraint devices are not used in determining the identified crash state and thus the output signal ascertained for the respective occupant position is a decision input which is separate from the identified crash state.
The combined teachings relied upon to make such a determination are motivated as a combination of known methods which yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143.I(A)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the combination of Kolatschek in view of Lee teaches output signals determined for respective occupant positions as signals which are separate from an identified crash state, and additionally that the determination of the crash state is independent of the output signals determined for respective occupant positions.
Regarding claim 2, Kolatschek as modified by Lee (references made to Kolatschek) teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
detecting the first input signal by using a first acceleration sensor arranged at the first location and/or detecting the second input signal by using a second acceleration sensor arranged at the second location (Each of positions MO7 and MO9 have acceleration sensors 14 as indicated in Paragraph [0021] of the disclosure and additionally Fig. 3.).
Regarding claim 3, Kolatschek as modified by Lee (references made to Kolatschek) teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
determining the first input signal by using at least two first measurement signals which represent accelerations acting transversely to the vehicle axis at different first sensor locations in the vehicle lying outside the vehicle axis and/or determining the second input signal by using at least two second measurement signals which represent accelerations acting transversely to the vehicle axis at different second sensor locations in the vehicle located outside the vehicle axis (“Furthermore, in step S110, prior to the comparison, the procedure generates the first processed motion information aA,y for the first common lateral sensor axis A from a combination of the processed lateral accelerations aMO1,y; aMO4,y acquired at measuring points MO1, MO4. The second processed motion information aB,y for the second common lateral sensor axis B is generated from a combination of the processed lateral accelerations aMO2,y; aMO5,y acquired at measuring points MO2, MO5. From a combination of the processed lateral acceleration aMO3,y; aMO6,y recorded at the measuring points MO3 , MO6, a third processed motion information aC,y is generated for the third common lateral sensor axis C” [0033]. Thus, such measurements for the first signal, i.e., measurement on lateral sensor axis A, and the second signal, i.e., measurement on a lateral sensor axis C, may be determined in an alternative embodiment by combining two sensor signals located outside of the vehicle axis LA. See additionally Fig. 2.).
Regarding claim 6, Kolatschek as modified by Lee (references made to Kolatschek) teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein in the rotational acceleration is about an axis of rotation oriented orthogonally to the vehicle axis and is obtained by using the first input signal, the second input signal, the first distance, and the second distance (The axis of rotation extends orthogonally to the vehicle frame and consequently the vehicle axis. Thus, by the same logic in the rejection of claim 1 regarding the determination of such a rotational acceleration using Equation 3 and known inputs for the accelerations at first and second locations indicating a first and second radius (distance) to the center of gravity, it would be obvious that such a rotational acceleration about such an axis is obtained using required variables as is claimed.).
Regarding claim 7, Kolatschek as modified by Lee (references made to Kolatschek) teaches the method according to claim 6,
wherein the rotational acceleration is ascertained as a quotient of a difference between the second acceleration and the first acceleration and of a difference between the first distance and the second distance (In determining a rotational acceleration using two sensor determinations and Equation 3 (as was obvious as indicated in rejection of both claim 1 and claim 6) one of ordinary skill in the art would reduce the resulting system of equations to be WB = (aMO(7),y – aMO(9),y)/(r(7)-r(9)). Such a result would determine that the rotational acceleration is a quotient of the difference between the second acceleration MO(9),y , the first acceleration MO(7),y and the difference between the first distance r(7) and the second distance r(9).).
Regarding claim 8, Kolatschek as modified by Lee teaches the method according to claim 1,
wherein, in the reading in step, a third input signal is read in, which represents a third acceleration acting at a third location in the vehicle transversely to a further vehicle axis which is oriented orthogonally to the vehicle axis, and a fourth input signal is read in, which represents a fourth acceleration acting transversely to the further vehicle axis at a fourth location in the vehicle located on the further vehicle axis (Fig. 2 provides three additional pairs of measurement locations which are paired along axes A, B, or C. Each provides a longitudinal component arMO(k),x acting at measurement position k. Such longitudinal component acts transversely to the further vehicle axis A, B, or C.), and
wherein in the ascertaining step for the center of gravity, a further output signal is ascertained, which represents a translational acceleration acting transversely to the further vehicle axis at a further position in the vehicle different from the third location and the fourth location (The longitudinal acceleration component at,x is the same for the entire vehicle and is thus ascertained at “a further position” different from the third and fourth locations, i.e., sensor locations.),
the further output signal being ascertained by using the third input signal, the fourth input signal, a third distance along the further vehicle axis between the third location and the further position, and a fourth distance along the further vehicle axis between the fourth location and the further position (Given Equation 3 in view of Equation 2, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the component for longitudinal acceleration at,x would be determined by aMO(k),x = at,x + WBr(k) cos WMO(k) given the respective angular component associated with the longitudinal direction as is determined by Equation 1. These processes are thus implied by Kolatschek in order to determine the further output signal as addressed above.),
wherein the further position and the center of gravity are identical or different (Each measurement is with respect to the center of gravity, and thus the further position is identical to the center of gravity.).
Regarding claim 9, Kolatschek teaches a device configured for vehicle restraint system control in a vehicle, the device comprising a processor in communication with sensors (“In this case, the method 100 can be stored as a computer program product with program code on a machine-readable medium and executed by the evaluation and control unit 12 , 12A , 12B , 12C” [0040]. “The evaluation and control unit can be understood in this context as an electrical device, such as a control unit, in particular an airbag control unit, which processes or evaluates detected sensor signals” [0011]. Thus, there is an evaluation and control unit, i.e., device, which is best understood to be a processor which executes and processes sensor signals via program code instructions. Such a device performs the methods of the disclosure.), wherein the processor is configured to:
read in from the sensors a first input signal representing a first acceleration acting transversely to a vehicle axis of the vehicle at a first location in the vehicle located on the vehicle axis (For example purposes, such input signal will be “aMO7,y” as it is a first input signal which represents a first acceleration acting transversely to a vehicle axis “LA” at a first location on said vehicle axis (see Fig. 3).), and a second input signal representing a second acceleration acting transversely to the vehicle axis at a second location in the vehicle located on the vehicle axis (For example purposes, such input signal will be “aMO9,y” as it is a second input signal which represents a second acceleration acting transversely to a vehicle axis “LA” at a second location in the vehicle located on the vehicle axis.);
ascertain output signals representing
(1) a translational acceleration acting transversely to the vehicle axis at a center of gravity of the vehicle (In Figs. 5-7, this output signal is acting translational acceleration “at,y” acting at center of gravity “SP”.) and
(2) a rotational acceleration acting at the center of gravity of the vehicle (The angular, i.e., rotational acceleration, is denoted as WB. Such acceleration is shown to be acting on the center of gravity “SP” in Figs. 5-7.),
the center of gravity being at a different position than each of the first location and the second location (The center of gravity “SP” is shown to be at a unique position between MO7 and MO9, i.e., first and second location (see Fig. 3).), …
based on the ascertained output signals representing the translational and rotational accelerations acting at the center of gravity, … identify that the vehicle is in a crash state (See Figs. 5-7 and [0041-0057] which distinguishes that the vehicle is in a specific collision scenario, or rather a specific type of collision is detected, based on the total translational and rotational acceleration outputs.); …
Kolatschek implies teaches for …the ascertainment being performed by using the first input signal, the second input signal, a first distance along the vehicle axis between the first location and the center of gravity, and a second distance along the vehicle axis between the second location and the center of gravity; (see Equation 3 which requires known values for sensors MO(k) including lateral accelerations, radial distance from COG, and angle to COG. Since at,y (lateral acceleration at COG) and WB (rotational acceleration at COG) are not known measured values in the system and the measurements require at least two sensor detections, it is implied that such an equation would be used to determine the unknown values and thus obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art)…
Kolatschek additionally implies teachings for …wherein the first location and the second location are each at different positions than each of the plurality of occupant positions; (Fig. 3 displays measuring positions MO7 and MO9 located on a centralized axis of the vehicle in the front (hood) and rear (trunk) positions and thus, though not explicitly determined by the disclosure, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that such positions would be different than each of the plurality of occupant positions, as such occupant positions would be outside of the centerline and additionally centrally located within the main body of the car.)…
However, Kolatschek does not explicitly nor implicitly teach …for a plurality of occupant positions, ascertain respective output signals representing at least one respective vehicle acceleration value at each of the respective occupant positions by using the first input signal and the second input signal,
… for each of the plurality of occupant positions, determine whether to deploy a respective restraint device associated with the respective position in response to the identified crash state by performing an independent deployment evaluation for the respective occupant position that explicitly evaluates the at least one respective vehicle acceleration value represented by the respective output signal ascertained for the respective occupant position …; and
control deployment of the restraint devices according to the determination.
Lee, pertinent to the problem at hand, teaches …for a plurality of occupant positions, ascertain respective output signals representing at least one respective vehicle acceleration value at each of the respective occupant positions by using the first input signal and the second input signal (The equation provided in [0096-0097] provides an equation for an acceleration value of an occupant’s head part, i.e., output signal, pertaining to the occupant position. Such calculation includes “aACU” which is the acceleration of the vehicle thus making the head acceleration value, i.e., output signal, representative of at least one respective vehicle acceleration value at each respective occupant position. Per the teachings of Kolatschek cited above, the first input signal and second input signal result in a vehicle acceleration at a center of gravity and as such it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the combined teachings would result in the vehicle acceleration values necessary to determine the acceleration value of the occupant, i.e., output signal, using the first input signal and the second input signal.),
… for each of the plurality of occupant positions, determine whether to deploy a respective restraint device associated with the respective position in response to the identified crash state by performing an independent deployment evaluation for the respective occupant position that explicitly evaluates the at least one respective vehicle acceleration value represented by the respective output signal ascertained for the respective occupant position … (“The safety device 50 includes the seat belt 52 or the airbag 51. The control unit 40 may control whether to operate the seat belt 52 or the airbag 51, an operation timing, or an operation amount based on the behavior information calculated by the calculation unit 30” [0099]. Thus, for each occupant, the resulting acceleration determinations as cited above determine whether to operate a restraint device. Such examples of cases dependent on bodily acceleration values for head, chest, and pelvis are provided in [0100-0102]. As noted, such acceleration calculations are determined via a vehicle acceleration value and thus the deployment evaluation explicitly evaluates the at least one respective vehicle acceleration value which is represented by the head/chest/pelvis acceleration, i.e., output signal, for the respective occupant position associated with this output signal.); and
control deployment of the restraint devices according to the determination (In Fig. 6, S520 regards “controlling seat belt” according to the determination that the seat belt needs to be controlled, and S550 and S560 regards “deploy airbag” such that airbag is controlled with appropriate pressure based on determination that airbag needs to be controlled.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the restraint methods of Kolatschek to include the determinations for deploying restraint devices based on occupant accelerations as determined by Lee with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because such a method will avoid unnecessary injury to the occupant in the event of a collision by determining dynamic acceleration and positions of occupants as a result of the abrupt collision force (Lee, [0005]).
Although Examiner indicated the limitations “…independently of the output signals representing the at least one respective vehicle acceleration value at each of the occupant positions, identifying that the vehicle is in a crash state…” and “…evaluates the at least one respective vehicle acceleration value represented by the respective output signal ascertained for that respective occupant position as a decision input separate from the identified crash state…” as introducing new matter, the combination of Kolaschek in view of Lee as identified above still reads on such limitations. The combination of Kolatschek in view of Lee determines acceleration values at the center of gravity (Kolatschek) and uses a total vehicle acceleration to determine accelerations of occupants at their respective positions (Lee). The combination determines that the center of gravity verifies a total vehicle acceleration value between the two sensors, and those total vehicle acceleration values are then used to determine the acceleration of the occupant at respective occupant position. The output signals representing the at least one respective vehicle acceleration value at each of the occupant positions is not relied upon in determining a crash state, and as such the identification that the vehicle is in a crash state determined based on the values at the center of gravity are independent of the output signals determined for the occupant position. In a similar sense, the respective output signal ascertained for the respective occupant position which is used to determine the deployment of the restraint devices are not used in determining the identified crash state and thus the output signal ascertained for the respective occupant position is a decision input which is separate from the identified crash state.
The combined teachings relied upon to make such a determination are motivated as a combination of known methods which yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143.I(A)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the combination of Kolatschek in view of Lee teaches output signals determined for respective occupant positions as signals which are separate from an identified crash state, and additionally that the determination of the crash state is independent of the output signals determined for respective occupant positions.
Regarding claim 10, Kolatschek teaches a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium on which is stored a computer program that is executable by a computer and that, when executed by the computer, causes the computer to perform a method for vehicle restraint system control in a vehicle (“In this case, the method 100 can be stored as a computer program product with program code on a machine-readable medium and executed by the evaluation and control unit 12 , 12A , 12B , 12C” [0040]. Thus, there is a machine-readable medium (which is hard disk memory, i.e., non-transitory (see [0011)) which stores a computer program which is executed by an evaluation and control unit, i.e., computer, and causes the method 100 to be performed.), the method comprising the following steps:
reading in a first input signal representing a first acceleration acting transversely to a vehicle axis of the vehicle at a first location in the vehicle located on the vehicle axis (For example purposes, such input signal will be “aMO7,y” as it is a first input signal which represents a first acceleration acting transversely to a vehicle axis “LA” at a first location on said vehicle axis (see Fig. 3).), and a second input signal representing a second acceleration acting transversely to the vehicle axis at a second location in the vehicle located on the vehicle axis (For example purposes, such input signal will be “aMO9,y” as it is a second input signal which represents a second acceleration acting transversely to a vehicle axis “LA” at a second location in the vehicle located on the vehicle axis.);
ascertaining an output signals representing
(1) a translational acceleration acting transversely to the vehicle axis at a center of gravity of the vehicle (In Figs. 5-7, this output signal is acting translational acceleration “at,y” acting at center of gravity “SP”.) and
(2) a rotational acceleration acting at the center of gravity of the vehicle (The angular, i.e., rotational acceleration, is denoted as WB. Such acceleration is shown to be acting on the center of gravity “SP” in Figs. 5-7.),
the center of gravity being at a different position than each of the first location and the second location (The center of gravity “SP” is shown to be at a unique position between MO7 and MO9, i.e., first and second location (see Fig. 3).), …
based on the ascertained output signals representing the translational and rotational accelerations acting at the center of gravity, … identifying that the vehicle is in a crash state (See Figs. 5-7 and [0041-0057] which distinguishes that the vehicle is in a specific collision scenario, or rather a specific type of collision is detected, based on the total translational and rotational acceleration outputs.); …
Kolatschek implies teaches for …the ascertainment being performed by using the first input signal, the second input signal, a first distance along the vehicle axis between the first location and the center of gravity, and a second distance along the vehicle axis between the second location and the center of gravity; (see Equation 3 which requires known values for sensors MO(k) including lateral accelerations, radial distance from COG, and angle to COG. Since at,y (lateral acceleration at COG) and WB (rotational acceleration at COG) are not known measured values in the system and the measurements require at least two sensor detections, it is implied that such an equation would be used to determine the unknown values and thus obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art)…
Kolatschek additionally implies teachings for …wherein the first location and the second location are each at different positions than each of the plurality of occupant positions; (Fig. 3 displays measuring positions MO7 and MO9 located on a centralized axis of the vehicle in the front (hood) and rear (trunk) positions and thus, though not explicitly determined by the disclosure, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that such positions would be different than each of the plurality of occupant positions, as such occupant positions would be outside of the centerline and additionally centrally located within the main body of the car.)…
However, Kolatschek does not explicitly nor implicitly teach …for a plurality of occupant positions, ascertaining respective output signals representing at least one respective vehicle acceleration value at each of the respective occupant positions by using the first input signal and the second input signal,
… for each of the plurality of occupant positions, determining whether to deploy a respective restraint device associated with the respective position in response to the identified crash state by performing an independent deployment evaluation for the respective occupant position that explicitly evaluates the at least one respective vehicle acceleration value represented by the respective output signal ascertained for the respective occupant position …; and
controlling deployment of the restraint devices according to the determination.
Lee, pertinent to the problem at hand, teaches … for a plurality of occupant positions, ascertaining respective output signals representing at least one respective vehicle acceleration value at each of the respective occupant positions by using the first input signal and the second input signal (The equation provided in [0096-0097] provides an equation for an acceleration value of an occupant’s head part, i.e., output signal, pertaining to the occupant position. Such calculation includes “aACU” which is the acceleration of the vehicle thus making the head acceleration value, i.e., output signal, representative of at least one respective vehicle acceleration value at each respective occupant position. Per the teachings of Kolatschek cited above, the first input signal and second input signal result in a vehicle acceleration at a center of gravity and as such it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the combined teachings would result in the vehicle acceleration values necessary to determine the acceleration value of the occupant, i.e., output signal, using the first input signal and the second input signal.),
… for each of the plurality of occupant positions, determining whether to deploy a respective restraint device associated with the respective position in response to the identified crash state by performing an independent deployment evaluation for the respective occupant position that explicitly evaluates the at least one respective vehicle acceleration value represented by the respective output signal ascertained for the respective occupant position … (“The safety device 50 includes the seat belt 52 or the airbag 51. The control unit 40 may control whether to operate the seat belt 52 or the airbag 51, an operation timing, or an operation amount based on the behavior information calculated by the calculation unit 30” [0099]. Thus, for each occupant, the resulting acceleration determinations as cited above determine whether to operate a restraint device. Such examples of cases dependent on bodily acceleration values for head, chest, and pelvis are provided in [0100-0102]. As noted, such acceleration calculations are determined via a vehicle acceleration value and thus the deployment evaluation explicitly evaluates the at least one respective vehicle acceleration value which is represented by the head/chest/pelvis acceleration, i.e., output signal, for the respective occupant position associated with this output signal.); and
controlling deployment of the restraint devices according to the determination (In Fig. 6, S520 regards “controlling seat belt” according to the determination that the seat belt needs to be controlled, and S550 and S560 regards “deploy airbag” such that airbag is controlled with appropriate pressure based on determination that airbag needs to be controlled.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the restraint methods of Kolatschek to include the determinations for deploying restraint devices based on occupant accelerations as determined by Lee with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because such a method will avoid unnecessary injury to the occupant in the event of a collision by determining dynamic acceleration and positions of occupants as a result of the abrupt collision force (Lee, [0005]).
Although Examiner indicated the limitations “…independently of the output signals representing the at least one respective vehicle acceleration value at each of the occupant positions, identifying that the vehicle is in a crash state…” and “…evaluates the at least one respective vehicle acceleration value represented by the respective output signal ascertained for that respective occupant position as a decision input separate from the identified crash state…” as introducing new matter, the combination of Kolaschek in view of Lee as identified above still reads on such limitations. The combination of Kolatschek in view of Lee determines acceleration values at the center of gravity (Kolatschek) and uses a total vehicle acceleration to determine accelerations of occupants at their respective positions (Lee). The combination determines that the center of gravity verifies a total vehicle acceleration value between the two sensors, and those total vehicle acceleration values are then used to determine the acceleration of the occupant at respective occupant position. The output signals representing the at least one respective vehicle acceleration value at each of the occupant positions is not relied upon in determining a crash state, and as such the identification that the vehicle is in a crash state determined based on the values at the center of gravity are independent of the output signals determined for the occupant position. In a similar sense, the respective output signal ascertained for the respective occupant position which is used to determine the deployment of the restraint devices are not used in determining the identified crash state and thus the output signal ascertained for the respective occupant position is a decision input which is separate from the identified crash state.
The combined teachings relied upon to make such a determination are motivated as a combination of known methods which yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143.I(A)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the combination of Kolatschek in view of Lee teaches output signals determined for respective occupant positions as signals which are separate from an identified crash state, and additionally that the determination of the crash state is independent of the output signals determined for respective occupant positions.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolatschek in view of Lee and further in view of Hano et al. (US Patent No. 4,948,164).
Regarding claim 4, Kolatschek as modified by Lee teaches the method according to claim 1.
Kolatschek as modified does not explicitly teach …wherein in the ascertaining step for the center of gravity,
one of the output signals is ascertained from a sum of the first acceleration multiplied by a first weighting factor and the second acceleration multiplied by a second weighting factor, wherein the first weighting factor and the second weighting factor are determined by using the first distance and the second distance.
Hano, pertinent to the problem at hand, teaches …wherein in the ascertaining step for the center of gravity,
one of the output signals is ascertained from a sum of the first acceleration multiplied by a first weighting factor and the second acceleration multiplied by a second weighting factor (See Equation from C17, L63 wherein Gx is the sum of the first acceleration Ga multiplied by a first weighting factor {(x-b)/(a-b)} and the second acceleration Gb multiplied by a second weighting factor {(a-x)/(a-b)}.),
wherein the first weighting factor and the second weighting factor are determined by using the first distance and the second distance (The weighting factors described above are based on the first distance (a-x) and the second distance (x-b).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the acceleration calculations of Kolatschek to include the output signal determinations using weighting factors as taught by Hano with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because such weighting based on a distributed distance to the monitoring point will allow ease of calculation when the gravity center shifts based on car load distributions (Hano, C1, L61-68).
Regarding claim 5, Kolatschek as modified by Lee and Hano teaches the method according to claim 4.
Kolatschek as modified does not explicitly teach …wherein the first weighting factor is determined as a quotient of the first distance and a difference between the first distance and the second distance, and
the second weighting factor is determined as a quotient of the second distance and a difference between the first distance and the second distance.
However, Hano as previously determined above teaches …wherein the first weighting factor is determined as a quotient of the second distance and a difference between the first distance and the second distance ({(x-b)/(a-b)}), and
the second weighting factor is determined as a quotient of the first distance and a difference between the first distance and the second distance ({(a-x)/(a-b)}).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the weighting system of Hano in place of that disclosed by Applicant to modify the teachings of Kolatschek (as stated above), as doing so would be a mere design incentive which would yield predictable results (See MPEP 2143.I(F)). Applicant discloses “…wherein the weighting factors result from the longitudinal distances of the measurement locations from the coordinate origin at point 0. The sum of the weighting factors is 1.” As such, this substitution would not be considered novel and no inventive effort would be required in making this design choice under the same pretense.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIDNEY L MOLNAR whose telephone number is (571)272-2276. The examiner can normally be reached 9 A.M. to 4 P.M. EST Monday-Friday.
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, Jonathan (Wade) Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/S.L.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656