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 .
Summary
Claims 1-9 and 11-18 are pending. Claims 1-9 and 11-18 are rejected herein. This is a Final Rejection as necessitated by the amendment and arguments (hereinafter “the Response”) dated 02 Dec 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Regarding claim 18: Claim 18 recites that the slope threshold value is a percentage of a yaw-rate measurement range. It is inherent that any threshold value can be expressed as a percentage of the yaw-rate measurement range. This language does not change anything about the threshold, but only states an inherent property of that number. Even a value outside of a physically possible range (e.g. 1,000,000 degrees/second) could be expressed as a percentage of the yaw-rate measurement range (e.g. 100,000%).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1 and a2) as being anticipated by YASUTAKE (JP 2005151254). A machine translation of YASUTAKE has been included with this office action. All references to text in YASUTAKE are to the attached machine translation.
Regarding claim 1: YASUTAKE discloses: A method for ascertaining a yaw-rate offset value that constitutes the offset of yaw-rate measurement values of a yaw-rate sensor of a motor vehicle (para. 3), the method comprising: receiving a plurality of yaw-rate measurement values from the yaw-rate sensor over time (para. 54-55; FIG. 2), said plurality of yaw-rate measurement values constituting a yaw-rate measurement signal; checking whether the motor vehicle is stationary (para. 54-55); and if the motor vehicle is stationary, ascertaining the yaw-rate offset value on the basis of the yaw-rate measurement signal, wherein ascertaining the yaw-rate offset value comprises: identifying a plurality of sloped yaw-rate measurement values from the plurality of yaw-rate measurement values (based on the time differential value of the detected yaw rate, DYr having a value beyond a threshold as discussed in para. 55-58; FIG. 2), wherein the plurality of sloped yaw-rate measurement values form a slope in the yaw-rate measurement signal (from t1-t2 and t3-t4 in FIG. 2),wherein the slope is determined by a statistical or mathematical procedure that assesses whether a set of yaw-rate measurement values exhibits a trend over time exceeding a slope threshold value (DYrth in para. 58-61 and FIG. 2), and disregarding the plurality of sloped yaw-rate measurement values identified as forming the slope, such that the yaw-rate offset value is ascertained from the remaining plurality of yaw-rate measurement values (The sloped values are prohibited. Para. 58-61).
Regarding claim 2: YASUTAKE discloses: checking whether the motor vehicle is stationary comprises checking whether a speed of the motor vehicle is equal to or approximately zero or wheel pulses of the motor vehicle are equal to or approximately zero (para. 54-55).
Regarding claim 11: YASUTAKE discloses: A method for ascertaining a yaw-rate value, comprising the method for ascertaining a yaw-rate offset value as claimed in claim 1, comprising ascertaining a yaw-rate value based on the yaw-rate measurement signal and the ascertained yaw-rate offset value (It is inherent in the function of using a yaw rate sensor and determining its offset as discussed in para. 51, that the final yaw rate value used for navigation will be the yaw-rate sensor output minus the offset.).
Regarding claim 12: YASUTAKE discloses: A control device for ascertaining a yaw-rate offset value or a yaw-rate value, which is designed to carry out the method as claimed in claim 1 (CPU 51 in FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 13: YASUTAKE discloses: A sensor device for a motor vehicle, having at least one yaw-rate sensor and having a control device as claimed in claim 12 (control unit 51 and yaw-rate sensor 43 in FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 14: YASUTAKE discloses: A computer program product having program code means that are stored in a non-transitory computer-readable medium in order to carry out the method as claimed in claim 1 when the computer program product is run on a processor of an electronic control unit (para. 48).
Regarding claim 15: YASUTAKE discloses: A motor vehicle having a sensor device as claimed in claim 13 (shown schematically in FIG. 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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 11-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SZEPESSY et al. (US 20140100741) in view of YASUTAKE.
Regarding claims 1, 6, and 7: SZEPESSY discloses: A method for ascertaining a yaw-rate offset value (abstract) that constitutes the offset of yaw-rate measurement values of a yaw-rate sensor of a motor vehicle (para. 2), the method comprising: receiving a plurality of yaw-rate measurement values from the yaw-rate sensor over time (This is y in FIG. 2, showing measurements over time. Para. 35-38), said plurality of measurement values constituting a yaw-rate measurement signal (y from yaw-rate sensor 3 in FIG. 1); checking whether the motor vehicle is stationary (from wheel sensor signal w; para. 23); and if the motor vehicle is stationary, ascertaining the yaw-rate offset value on the basis of the yaw-rate measurement signal (Only making the determination if w is less than a threshold such as 1 rpm, i.e. stationary. Para. 23; 35-38.).
SZEPESSY does not disclose identifying a plurality of sloped yaw-rate measurement values according to the algorithm of claim 1.
YASUTAKE however does teach identifying a plurality of sloped yaw-rate measurement values from the plurality of yaw-rate measurement values (This is identifying when DYr, which is the derivative of the yaw rate changes beyond a threshold. Para. 58, FIG. 2) wherein the plurality of sloped yaw-rate measurement values form a slope in the yaw-rate measurement signal (This is the section of FIG. 2 from t1-t2 and t3-t4), wherein the slope is determined by a statistical or mathematical procedure that assesses whether a set of yaw-rate measurement values exhibits a trend over time exceeding a slope threshold value (DYrth in para. 58-61 and FIG. 2), and disregarding the plurality of sloped yaw-rate measurement values identified as forming the slope, such that the yaw-rate offset value is ascertained from the remaining plurality of yaw-rate measurement values (The sloped values are prohibited. Para. 58-61).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to prohibit the sloped values as taught by YASUTAKE from the threshold filtered values of SZEPESSY so that erroneous data is not used. The solution of SZEPESSY is the same at the Patent Document 1 discussed in para. 5 of YASUTAKE.
Regarding claim 2: SZEPESSY discloses: checking whether the motor vehicle is stationary comprises checking whether a speed of the motor vehicle is equal to or approximately zero or wheel pulses of the motor vehicle are equal to or approximately zero (1 rpm in para. 23).
Regarding claim 3: SZEPESSY discloses: comparing each of the plurality of the yaw-rate measurement values with a threshold value (Threshold L in FIG. 2 which can be, for example, 1o/s in para. 23.).
Regarding claim 4: SZEPESSY discloses: the threshold value is approximately 3°/s or less (1o/s in para. 23).
Regarding claim 5: SZEPESSY discloses: ascertaining a plurality of relevant yaw-rate measurement values from the plurality off yaw-rate measurement values (Such as those in t2 of time period A in FIG. 2 as discussed in para. 35-38.).
Regarding claim 8: SZEPESSY discloses: ascertaining the yaw-rate offset value comprises ascertaining a mean value of the remaining plurality of yaw-rate measurement values to obtain the yaw-rate offset value (para. 13-18).
Regarding claim 11: SZEPESSY discloses: A method for ascertaining a yaw-rate value, comprising the method for ascertaining a yaw-rate offset value as claimed in claim 1, comprising ascertaining a yaw-rate value based on the yaw-rate measurement signal and the ascertained yaw-rate offset value (It is inherent in the function of using a yaw rate sensor and determining its offset as discussed in para. 2-6, that the final yaw rate value used for navigation will be the yaw-rate sensor output minus the offset.).
Regarding claim 12: SZEPESSY discloses: A control device for ascertaining a yaw-rate offset value or a yaw-rate value, which is designed to carry out the method as claimed in claim 1 (control unit in para. 13).
Regarding claim 13: SZEPESSY discloses: A sensor device for a motor vehicle, having at least one yaw-rate sensor and having a control device as claimed in claim 12 (control unit in para. 13 and yaw-rate sensor 3 in FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 14: SZEPESSY discloses: A computer program product having program code means that are stored in a non-transitory computer-readable medium in order to carry out the method as claimed in claim 1 when the computer program product is run on a processor of an electronic control unit (“The method is carried out in an electronic system of an automobile which comprises a control unit.” Para. 13).
Regarding claim 15: SZEPESSY discloses: A motor vehicle having a sensor device as claimed in claim 13 (shown schematically in FIG. 1).
Regarding claims 16 and 17: YASUTAKE uses a time differential of the yaw rate to determine the sloped data (para. 55), however any known mathematical calculation such as linear regression or curve fitting could be done and such minor differences would be obvious to one skilled in the art. With discrete data on such a small time scale, such differences are only a slightly different way of calculating Δy/Δx. Therefore the Examiner takes Official Notice that such differences would be obvious to one skilled in the algebra art.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YASUTAKE in view of HERBERTH et al. (US 20190011264).
Regarding claim 9: YASUTAKE does not disclose a plausibility check.
HERBERTH however does teach a plausibility check (para. 20) for the data of an inertial measurement unit (abstract), which is inherently checking whether a value is within a defined range.
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use a plausibility check of any data derived from a sensor as a check to see if there is a malfunction in the system.
Response to Amendment/Argument
The amendments to the drawings are noted and the previous objections thereto are accordingly withdrawn.
The amendment to the claims to overcome the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is acknowledged and said rejection is accordingly withdrawn.
The amendments to the claims to overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are acknowledged and said rejections are accordingly withdrawn.
The Applicant has argued (pages 10-12 of the Response) that SZEPESSY does not disclose identifying sloped data according to the algorithm in claim 1. The Examiner agrees and YASUTAKE has been introduced to address this limitation as necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)270-7601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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, JESSICA HAN can be reached at (571) 272-2078. 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.
/NATHANIEL J KOLB/Examiner, Art Unit 2896