DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
Claims 16-30 are pending in this application.
Claims 1-15 are cancelled.
Claims 16-30 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 16-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sievers et al. (Foreign Reference DE102011089556A1) in view of Schumacher et al. (US Publication 2008/0169629 A1)
Regarding claim 16, Sievers teaches a method for a self-diagnosis of a vehicle system (Sievers: Para. 6; self-diagnostic function) that is supplied with energy by an on-board vehicle electrical system (Sievers: Para. 24; a voltage supply for a vehicle system) and includes a control unit with at least one integrated system circuit (Sievers: Para. 5; ASIC), which includes at least one internal energy supply (Sievers: Para. 22; battery), a sequence and logic controller (Sievers: Para. 27; an associated first evaluation logic in order to check whether the first comparison signal V 1 of the first comparison device), and ………. , and with at least one microcontroller (Sievers: Para. 11; microcontroller), the method comprising the following steps: after applying an on-board electrical system voltage in an initialization phase independently of an activation state of the at least one microcontroller, within the at least one integrated system circuit (Sievers: Para. 6; self-diagnostic function makes it possible to initially test the voltage comparators used for the voltage monitoring and thus to ensure the correct output of the status information), generating at least one internal reference voltage and at least one internal system voltage for supplying the vehicle system from the applied on-board electrical system voltage (Sievers: Para. 24; a predefined threshold value voltage U Ref1 , U Ref2 as a second input signal), and performing hardware-supported internal self-diagnosis functions, wherein the hardware-supported internal self-diagnosis functions are started (Sievers: Para. 35; during the start-up phase of the voltage supply to be monitored) and carried out in the integrated system circuit when the at least one internal reference voltage is available (Sievers: Para. 24; first input signal with a predefined threshold value voltage U Ref1 , U Ref2), wherein at least two hardware-supported internal self-diagnosis functions are processed at least partly in parallel (Sievers: Para. 10, 26, Fig. 1; redundant circuit design in the form of a double independent monitoring; the voltage monitoring device for the voltage supply in the exemplary embodiment shown comprises an undervoltage monitoring system and an overvoltage monitoring system); and after the initialization phase of the at least one integrated system circuit, the at least one microcontroller is an active state (Sievers: Para. 11; automatic control by means of hardware elements, the vehicle system can be fully activated by outputting a "non-reset signal" only when all voltages are stable and the checks of all comparison devices have succeeded; system software, under the control of a microcontroller), and, after an internal self-diagnosis, activating and carrying out at least one software-supported self-diagnosis function, by the at least one microcontroller (Sievers: Para. 11, 35; in step S 100, the voltage supply to be monitored is activated; during the start-up phase of the voltage supply to be monitored; via system software, under the control of a microcontroller).
Sievers doesn’t explicitly teach a safety controller.
However Schumacher, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a safety controller (Schumacher: Para. 20; safety controller).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the undervoltage and overvoltage vehicle monitor system (Sievers: Para. 26) with the safety controller triggers a restraining system with stored reserve energy (Schumacher: Para. 20-21) with a reasonable expectation of success because parallel analysis of the sensor signals as a built-in self-tests of system components by a safety controller preserves the function of vehicle safety systems (Schumacher: Para. 18, 20-21).
Regarding claim 17, Sievers teaches the method according to claim 16, wherein at least one additional test circuit and at least one rewritable permanent memory for carrying out the hardware-supported internal self-diagnosis functions are implemented in the at least one integrated system circuit (Sievers: Para. 5, 11; voltage monitoring can be measured, for example, directly as status information on an ASIC pin or can be read out by a software command), and wherein the at least one rewritable permanent memory provides electrical parameters (Sievers: Para. 11; carry out the checking of the individual comparison devices, the presetting of the individual voltages and the reading back of the output signals either automatically via suitable hardware elements).
Regarding claim 18, Sievers teaches the method according to claim 17, wherein the at least one test circuit is configured and placed such that an occurrence of interactions that are caused by influence on electrical parameters or by crosstalk is reduced (Sievers: Para. 48; present invention may additionally automatically test already integrated voltage monitors of the internally generated supply voltages; results in a significantly higher robustness with respect to latent defects; to meet extended safety requirements).
Regarding claim 19, Sievers teaches the method according to claim 16, wherein at least the at least two hardware- supported internal self-diagnosis functions each include a digital test portion and an analog test portion (Sievers: Para. 22; monitoring of the system-relevant supply voltages for supplying analog and digital functions is integrated), wherein at least the digital test portions of the at least two hardware-supported internal self-diagnosis functions are processed in parallel (Sievers: Para. 10, 22; redundant circuit design in the form of a double independent monitoring; monitoring of the system-relevant supply voltages for supplying analog and digital functions is integrated).
Regarding claim 20, Sievers teaches the method according to claim 19, wherein the analog test portions of the at least two hardware-supported internal self-diagnosis functions are processed in parallel or in a specified order depending on known feedbacks and/or safety specifications (Sievers: Para. 23, 28; undervoltage threshold and/or an overvoltage threshold is monitored; analogously to the first comparator of the undervoltage monitoring device, a second comparator of the overvoltage monitoring device is designed as a voltage comparator).
Regarding claim 21, Sievers teaches the method according to claim 16, wherein, based on the at least one internal reference voltage, at least one reference voltage and/or at least one auxiliary voltage are generated and provided for the hardware-supported internal self-diagnosis functions (Sievers: Para. 35; first comparison device of the undervoltage monitoring system must recognize an "undervoltage" state or the first "poor" state, since the voltage derived from the output voltage of the voltage supply has not yet reached the predefined threshold voltage).
Regarding claim 22, Sievers doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the at least one auxiliary voltage is replaced by a corresponding internal system voltage when the internal system voltage has reached a target value at a later time.
However Schumacher, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the at least one auxiliary voltage is replaced by a corresponding internal system voltage when the internal system voltage has reached a target value at a later time (Schumacher: Para. 10, 21; reset is produced in the event of overvoltage or undervoltage or a watchdog error; energy which is stored in energy reserve to be supplied via block 101 to the output stages).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the undervoltage and overvoltage vehicle monitor system (Sievers: Para. 26) with the safety controller triggers a restraining system with stored reserve energy (Schumacher: Para. 20-21) with a reasonable expectation of success because parallel analysis of the sensor signals as a built-in self-tests of system components by a safety controller preserves the function of vehicle safety systems (Schumacher: Para. 18, 20-21).
Regarding claim 23, Sievers teaches the method according to claim 16, wherein at least one comparator is checked by at least one of the hardware-supported internal self-diagnosis functions, the check being performed to check a switching point of the at least one comparator by changing an applied reference voltage, wherein forwarding of an output signal of the at least one comparator is blocked during the check (Sievers: Para. 23; voltage monitoring systems implemented hitherto for voltage supplies, which are embodied, for example, as linear controllers; that the regulated output voltage at an undervoltage threshold and/or an overvoltage threshold is monitored by means of at least one voltage comparator).
Regarding claim 24, Sievers teaches the method according to claim 23, wherein, after the check is error-free, the at least one comparator is used by at least one further hardware-supported internal self-diagnosis function to check an undervoltage threshold value and/or an overvoltage threshold value: (i) of the at least one internal reference voltage, and/or (ii) of the at least one internal system voltage and/or of at least one power voltage (Sievers: Para. 23; the regulated output voltage at an undervoltage threshold and/or an overvoltage threshold is monitored by means of at least one voltage comparator).
Regarding claim 25, Sievers teaches the method according to claim 16, wherein at least one logic path of the sequence and logic controller and/or at least one logic path of the safety controller of the corresponding integrated system circuit, is check by at least one of the hardware-supported internal self-diagnosis functions (Sievers: Para. 23; if the output voltage is outside the permissible range, this state is detected via the at least one voltage comparator, so that corresponding analog and/or logical states or reactions can be derived).
Regarding claim 26, Sievers doesn’t explicitly teach wherein at least one PSI interface, via which sensor signals from at least one peripheral sensor unit are received and conditioned, is checked by at least one of the hardware-supported internal self-diagnosis functions.
However Schumacher, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein at least one PSI interface, via which sensor signals from at least one peripheral sensor unit are received and conditioned, is checked by at least one of the hardware-supported internal self-diagnosis functions (Schumacher: Para. 18; security functions, which include the parallel analysis of the sensor signals from sensors 107 through 110, this analysis occurring in parallel to that of microcontroller, and the watchdog function, which monitors the function of microcontroller; functions are all executed via SPI buses).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the undervoltage and overvoltage vehicle monitor system (Sievers: Para. 26) with the safety controller triggers a restraining system with stored reserve energy (Schumacher: Para. 20-21) with a reasonable expectation of success because parallel analysis of the sensor signals as a built-in self-tests of system components by a safety controller preserves the function of vehicle safety systems (Schumacher: Para. 18, 20-21).
Regarding claim 27, Sievers teaches the method according to claim 16, wherein at least one analog interface, which receives analog signals from external analog signal transmitters or outputs analog signals to external analog signal receivers, is checked by at least one of the hardware-supported internal self-diagnosis functions (Sievers: Para. 23, 28; undervoltage threshold and/or an overvoltage threshold is monitored; analogously to the first comparator of the undervoltage monitoring device, a second comparator of the overvoltage monitoring device is designed as a voltage comparator).
Regarding claim 28, Sievers teaches the method according to claim 16, wherein an undervoltage threshold value and/or an overvoltage threshold value of at least one energy reserve of: (i) the vehicle system, and/or (ii) an analog interface, which receives analog signals from external analog signal transmitters or outputs analog signals to external analog signal receivers, and/or (iii) a central acceleration sensor, and/or (iv) a central rotation rate sensor, and/or (v) a data bus communication interface, is checked by the at least one software self-diagnosis function (Sievers: Para. 23; voltage sources, are for the most part constructed in such a way that the regulated output voltage at an undervoltage threshold and/or an overvoltage threshold is monitored).
Regarding claim 29, Sievers teaches a vehicle system that is supplied with energy by an on-board vehicle electrical system and comprises a control unit with at least one integrated system circuit (Sievers: Para. 5; ASIC), which includes at least one internal energy supply (Sievers: Para. 22; battery), a sequence and logic controller (Sievers: Para. 27; an associated first evaluation logic in order to check whether the first comparison signal of the first comparison device), and ……… , and with at least one microcontroller (Sievers: Para. 11; microcontroller), the vehicle system configured to: after applying an on-board electrical system voltage in an initialization phase independently of an activation state of the at least one microcontroller, within the at least one integrated system circuit (Sievers: Para. 6; self-diagnostic function makes it possible to initially test the voltage comparators used for the voltage monitoring and thus to ensure the correct output of the status information), generate at least one internal reference voltage and at least one internal system voltage for supplying the vehicle system from the applied on-board electrical system voltage (Sievers: Para. 24; a predefined threshold value voltage U Ref1 , U Ref2 as a second input signal), and perform hardware-supported internal self- diagnosis functions, wherein the hardware-supported internal self-diagnosis functions are started (Sievers: Para. 35; during the start-up phase of the voltage supply to be monitored) and carried out in the integrated system circuit when the at least one internal reference voltage is available (Sievers: Para. 24; first input signal with a predefined threshold value voltage U Ref1 , U Ref2), wherein at least two hardware-supported internal self- diagnosis functions are processed at least partly in parallel (Sievers: Para. 10, 26, Fig. 1; redundant circuit design in the form of a double independent monitoring; the voltage monitoring device for the voltage supply in the exemplary embodiment shown comprises an undervoltage monitoring system and an overvoltage monitoring system); and after the initialization phase of the at least one integrated system circuit, the at least one microcontroller is an active state (Sievers: Para. 11; automatic control by means of hardware elements, the vehicle system can be fully activated by outputting a "non-reset signal" only when all voltages are stable and the checks of all comparison devices have succeeded; system software, under the control of a microcontroller), and, after an internal self-diagnosis, activate and carry out at least one software-supported self-diagnosis function, by the at least one microcontroller (Sievers: Para. 11, 35; in step S 100, the voltage supply to be monitored is activated; during the start-up phase of the voltage supply to be monitored; via system software, under the control of a microcontroller).
Sievers doesn’t explicitly teach a safety controller.
However Schumacher, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a safety controller (Schumacher: Para. 20; safety controller).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the undervoltage and overvoltage vehicle monitor system (Sievers: Para. 26) with the safety controller triggers a restraining system with stored reserve energy (Schumacher: Para. 20-21) with a reasonable expectation of success because parallel analysis of the sensor signals as a built-in self-tests of system components by a safety controller preserves the function of vehicle safety systems (Schumacher: Para. 18, 20-21).
Regarding claim 30, Sievers teaches a vehicle system, comprising: a control unit including at least one integrated system circuit (Sievers: Para. 5; ASIC), which includes at least one internal energy supply (Sievers: Para. 22; battery), a sequence and logic controller (Sievers: Para. 27; an associated first evaluation logic 18 in order to check whether the first comparison signal V 1 of the first comparison device), and ……… , and the control unit further including at least one microcontroller (Sievers: Para. 11; microcontroller).
Sievers doesn’t explicitly teach a safety controller, which controls a corresponding output stage to trigger at least one ignition circuit of a restraining device.
However Schumacher, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a safety controller (Schumacher: Para. 20; safety controller), which controls a corresponding output stage to trigger at least one ignition circuit of a restraining device (Schumacher: Para. 21; the ignition elements are fired, and in turn the restraining means are triggered).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the undervoltage and overvoltage vehicle monitor system (Sievers: Para. 26) with the safety controller triggers a restraining system with stored reserve energy (Schumacher: Para. 20-21) with a reasonable expectation of success because parallel analysis of the sensor signals as a built-in self-tests of system components by a safety controller preserves the function of vehicle safety systems (Schumacher: Para. 18, 20-21).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 29 December 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 16-30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Sievers does not teach “at least two hardware-supported internal self-diagnosis functions are processed at least partly in parallel”.
In response to the applicant argument, Sievers teaches embodiments of the self-diagnostic function that do not perform checks for both overvoltage and undervoltage issues (Sievers: Para. 10). Sievers’s Figure 1 depicts the voltage monitoring device 1 for the voltage supply 3 in the exemplary embodiment shown comprises an undervoltage monitoring system 10 and an overvoltage monitoring system 20 (Sievers: Para. 26). This creates a redundant circuit design in the form of a double independent monitoring (Sievers: Para. 10). Sievers has two monitoring system: an undervoltage monitoring system 10 and an overvoltage monitoring system 20. Figure 1 should two hardware-supported internal self-diagnosis functions in the circuit diagram for the voltage monitoring device which has different paths for the undervoltage and the overvoltage monitoring. The same parts are being monitored by the undervoltage and overvoltage at least some of the same time. Sievers carries out the checking of the individual comparison devices, the presetting of the individual threshold voltages and the reading back of the output signals automatically via suitable hardware elements or via system software, under the control of a microcontroller (Sievers: Para. 11). The system watches the current voltage versus the undervoltage and the overvoltage thresholds automatically, which creates a parallel process.
The applicant’s arguments have failed to point out the distinguishing characteristics of the amended claim language over the prior art. For the above reasons, Sievers’ self-diagnostic function in view of Schumacher’s safety controller reads on applicant’s method for self-diagnosis of a vehicle system. The rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA E LINHARDT whose telephone number is (571)272-8325. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TR, M-F: 8am-4pm.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on (571) 272-1206. 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.
/L.E.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights