DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the trigger path" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination it will be understood to be an inherent aspect of the forces involved in any collision and so all values picked up by the sensors provide some understanding of the trigger path.
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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartlett (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0016286) in view of Yeh (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0031714).
Regarding claim 1, Bartlett discloses a method of controlling an occupant protection device in a motor vehicle (fig. 6c) the method comprising:
Measuring, by a control device, a central impact signal of a central sensor (42 disclosed in ¶58 as measuring for impacts) in the motor vehicle,
determining that a first impact signal of left sensor signal of a left-hand upfront sensor (60) of the motor vehicle or a right sensor signal of a right-hand upfront sensor (62) of the motor vehicle is greater than an upper threshold of the trigger path(42 are the central sensors and ¶24 states the sensors are compared to each other and ¶27 where it specifically has the sensors compared to the central sensor) while a second impact signal of the other of the right sensor signal and the left sensor signal is less than a lower threshold of the trigger path(¶38 discloses the comparison of the sensors to the central sensor) wherein the right-hand upfront sensor and the left-hand upfront sensor are in the region of the bumper (¶63 discloses the sensors can be located by the radiator and fig. 2 shows what is construed as the front sensors in the region of the bumper),
determining whether the first impact signal exceeds an early triggering characteristic of the central impact sensor based on the trigger path(110); and
Note: when one sensor (left sensor) is at a high value in comparison to the other sensors (central sensor) the system knows that it is a side impact. When it matches a certain curve from the fig. 6 it allows for further classification.
Note: “based on the trigger path” is met by this reference that is using the same raw data to determine whether the impact requires triggering of safety devices.
triggering the occupant protection device only (¶103 discloses the disbursement of the safety devices based on the OMDB mode that was triggered due to sensors receiving information about impact on one side and not the other side) in response to (i) determining that the first impact signal is greater than the upper threshold of the trigger path while the second impact signal is less than the lower threshold of the trigger path(the comparison of the sensors is done to know where the forces are coming from but the vehicle is a solid structure and so any impact will also read on other sensors and so the determination requires the filtering of that data out otherwise all accidents would read on all sensors without distinguishing the primary direction of the accident. Fig. 5 shows how these sensor values are filtered to compare to thresholds) and (ii) determining that the first signal exceeds the early triggering characteristic of the central impact sensor.
Note: “early” triggering “normal” triggering and “late” triggering have not been defined in the claims. This adjective without any comparison allows for any triggering of the central sensor to address this limitation. As a result this reference that does not deploy a protection device for all impacts but only ones that rise above certain thresholds can be said to only deploy it when those thresholds are reached that would cause an “early triggering”.
Bartlett does not disclose Generating, by the control device, the trigger path by computing a double integral of the central impact signal;
Yeh, which deals in accident detection, teaches Generating, by the control device, the trigger path by computing a double integral of the central impact signal (122 is one of the sensors it is centrally located and ¶58 discloses taking double integral).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Bartlett with the double integration of Yeh because this provides displacement data (¶58).
Regarding claim 2 which depends from claim 1, Bartlett discloses whereinearly triggering characteristic comprises at least one first sectioncentral impact signal of the central senso(the left side is the dominant section showing that it is not a head on collision as determined in fig. 5d), wherein the triggering comprises triggering the occupant protection systemof the trigger path if the first signal exhibits the early triggering characteristics, and triggering the occupant protection system in of the trigger path, in which the triggeringcentral impact signal of the central sensoin the trigger path (the first section is the left side with the second section, right side, not showing a possible impact as depicted in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3 which depends from claim 2, Bartlett discloses wherein the triggering comprises triggering the occupant protection system in a middle section of the trigger pathcentral impact signal of the central sensor(fig. 7 disclosed in ¶103-106).
Regarding claim 4 which depends from claim 3, Bartlett discloses further comprising: integrating the left sensor signal of the left-hand upfront sensor and the right sensor signal of the right- hand upfront sensor are via a short-time integral; double integratingleft sensor signal of the left-hand upfront sensor and the right sensor signal of the right-hand upfront sensor and a second result of double integrating the central impact signal of the central sensor with respect to one another (this is meaningless extrasolution activity that is not integrated into the invention in a meaningful way, i.e. stating that the triggering is somehow effected by this mathematical operation. ¶72 discloses integrating and YEI specifically states a “double” integration).
Regarding claim 5 which depends from claim 1, Bartlett discloses (¶22 discloses the different types of devices and ¶70, ¶101 discloses actuation of each safety device as the formulas dicatate not requiring each to deploy every time).
Regarding claim 6 which depends from claim 5, Bartlett discloses further comprising: determining whether the central impact signal of the central sensor is less than a lower limit value of the trigger path; and suppressing triggering of the occupant protection system in response to determining the central impact signal of the central senso limit value (¶69-70 discloses how each item in the occupant protection device can be controlled independently where the side airbags are triggered but the front airbags are suppressed because the front impact sensor is lower than a threshold. ¶5 discloses how some of the triggering events will be filtered out due to other sensor data.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/15/26 have been fully considered are persuasive and so the rejection has been modified to include Yeh (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0031714).
Applicant argues on pages 4-6 that the Bartlett reference does not use a central sensor “trigger path” in order to determine whether to use the safety devices. The claims do not define what a trigger path is only that a double derivative of the raw data is made which informs the controller about the trigger path. The double derivative calculation has been addressed above.
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 GONZALO LAGUARDA whose telephone number is (571)272-5920. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-Th Alt. F.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at (571) 270-5065. 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.
GONZALO LAGUARDA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747 email: gonzalo.laguarda@uspto.gov
/GONZALO LAGUARDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights