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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 01/29/2026 have been entered. Claims 9-27 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-8 is cancelled and claim 27 is a newly added dependent claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 9-11 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11-13 of copending Application No. 18834577 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the same inventive entity or name at least one joint inventor in common and the instant application have a similar invention concept with above copending application. The instant application disclose a method for automatically checking, in an approval procedure for a vehicle, whether an input signal of a control unit is potentially relevant to on-board diagnostics (OBD) by using a signal network representing a signal flow, verifying whether a signal connection is present between the input signal and at least one OBD-relevant output signal, and indicating that the input signal is potentially OBD-relevant if such a connection exists. The copending application disclose a method for determining whether an output signal of a controller of a vehicle is OBD-compliant by using a similar signal network, checking for a signal connection between input and output signals, determining whether the input signal is OBD-compliant, and indicating that the output signal is OBD-compliant based on those checks. The different between the instant application and copending application are: the instant application is more focuses on determining whether the input signal is OBD relevant and the copending application is more focuses on determining whether output signal are OBD compliant. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that both methods in the instant application and copending application use a signal network model and involve checking whether input and output signal are connected and OBD relevant or compliant. Therefore, it would be obviously for one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the copending application above to reject the instant application with non-statutory double patenting. Please see a non-statutory double patenting table below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Non-Statutory Double Patenting Table:
Instant Application 18835966
Copending Application 18834577
9. (New) A method for automatically checking, in an approval procedure for a vehicle, whether an input signal of a control unit for the vehicle is potentially relevant to on-board diagnostics, the method comprising: using a signal network which represents a signal flow in the control unit, the signal network comprising the input signal and at least one on-board diagnostics-relevant output signal;
11. (New) A method for determining whether at least one output signal of a controller of a vehicle is on-board diagnostics compliant, the method comprising: using a signal network, which represents a signal flow in the controller, comprising at least one input signal and the at least one output signal;
verifying whether a signal connection is present between the input signal and the at least one on-board diagnostics-relevant output signal;
checking whether a signal connection exists between the at least one input signal and the at least one output signal; checking whether the at least one input signal is on-board diagnostics compliant;
and indicating that the input signal is potentially on-board diagnostics-relevant if the signal connection is present between the input signal and the at least one output signal.
and indicating that the at least one output signal is on-board diagnostics compliant when the signal connection exists between the at least one input signal and the at least one output signal and when the at least one input signal is on-board diagnostics compliant or, in the case of a plurality of input signals, when all of the input signals with a signal connection are on-board diagnostics compliant.
10. (New) The method as claimed in claim 9, wherein the input signal is a sensor signal that is applied to a signal input of the control unit.
12. (New) The method as claimed in claim 11, wherein the at least one input signal is a sensor signal which is applied to a signal input of the controller.
11. (New) The method as claimed in claim 9, wherein the input signal is a BUS signal that is applied to a signal input of the control unit.
13. (New) The method as claimed in claim 11, wherein the at least one input signal is a bus signal which is applied to a signal input of the controller.
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.
Claims 9-12 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lantzsch Volker et al. DE 102005044236 in view of Ransberger Marinus et al. DE 102015222592.
Regarding claim 9, Lantzsch Volker et al. teach A method for automatically checking, in an approval procedure for a vehicle, whether an input signal of a control unit for the vehicle is potentially relevant to on-board diagnostics, the method comprising: using a signal network which represents a signal flow in the control unit, the signal network comprising the input signal and at least one on-board diagnostics-relevant output signal; (Lantzsch Volker et al. DE 102005044236 abstract; paragraphs [0002]-[0007]; [0010]-[0016]; [0025]-[0026]; [0029]-[0030]; [0034]; figures 1-2;)
Preferably, the method is carried out using a previously described diagnostic device. According to the invention, the vehicle's OBD communication is tested automatically and bidirectionally. This makes it possible to test all OBD-relevant functions of the vehicle with little effort. When carrying out the method, the diagnostic device can preferably simulate a vehicle-specific scan tool in a master mode and/or optionally simulate one or more OBD relevant control units in a slave mode (Lantzsch Volker et al. par. 15). In the present embodiment according to Fig. 1, the diagnostic device 1 is configured to be operated in a master mode and in a slave mode. In the master mode, the diagnostic device 1 simulates a scan tool that directly participates in the data traffic of the CAN bus 17. The function of any scan tool or the function of the scan tool 15 can be simulated directly by the diagnostic device 1. In the slave mode, the diagnostic device 1 simulates the function of at least one control unit 13 participating in the data traffic of the CAN bus 17 or any other OBD-relevant control unit. The control units 13 are OBD-relevant control units, for example an engine control unit, a control unit for detecting exhaust gas-relevant variables or similar (Lantzsch Volker et al. par. 25). Arrows 21 and 23 indicate an input/output interface of the diagnostic device 1. The arrow 21 means that the diagnostic device 1 can be configured accordingly by a user. Arrow 23 indicates that the corresponding diagnosis or Test results can be output. In particular, for each analyzed and tested function, this includes information on whether the test was passed or failed. Through the user configuration, as indicated by arrow 21, the diagnostic device can, for example, act on a protocol to be analyzed, for example KWP 2000 in conjunction with ISO 9141 or a CAN protocol (Lantzsch Volker et al. par. 29).
According to the cited passages and figures, examiner interprets element 11 as an on-board diagnostic (OBD), element 13 as a control unit, CAN (control area network) as a signal network, arrow 21 as an input and arrow 23 as an output.
Lantzsch Volker et al. do not explicitly teach verifying whether a signal connection is present between the input signal and the at least one on-board diagnostics-relevant output signal; and indicating that the input signal is potentially on-board diagnostics-relevant if the signal connection is present between the input signal and the at least one output signal.
Ransberger Marinus et al. teach verifying whether a signal connection is present between the input signal and the at least one on-board diagnostics-relevant output signal; and indicating that the input signal is potentially on-board diagnostics-relevant if the signal connection is present between the input signal and the at least one output signal. (Ransberger Marinus et al. DE 102015222592 abstract; paragraphs [0002]-[0015]; [0020]-[0026]; figures 1-2;)
For example, the engine start-stop system (MSA) 101 is OBD-relevant because the vehicle may no longer be able to drive electrically under certain conditions of the start-stop system (in such a case, the combustion engine would always run). This means that all sensor, actuator and communication signals 132, 133, 134 connected to the MSA 101 via the engine electronics 100 are also OBD-relevant. Consequently, the various causal chains 105 from the MSA function 101 to the sensors 102, actuators 103 and communication units 104 must be traced back in order to identify which vehicle components or which vehicle signals 132, 133, 134 are specifically OBD-relevant. Determining the one or more causal chains 105 for an MSA function 101 based on the SW modules 111, 112, 113 is typically very complex (Ransberger Marinus et al. par. 23). The method 200 comprises determining 201 a plurality of descriptive text files 121, 122, 123 for the plurality of SW modules 111, 112, 113. A descriptive text file 121, 122, 123 of a SW module 111, 112, 113 (e.g. B. an XML file) typically contains relationships between input signals and output signals of the SW module 111, 112, 113. The method 200 further comprises determining 202 the chain of effects 105 by analyzing the plurality of descriptive text files 121, 122, 123 (Ransberger Marinus et al. par. 26).
According to the cite passages and figures, examiner interprets SW module 111, 112 and 113 is part of SW program 110 and signal 132, 133 and 134 as the input signal and effect 105 as the output from evaluation from SW module 113.
Therefore, it would have been obviously to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to apply a known technique of identify which vehicle components or which vehicle signals are specifically OBD relevant, as taught by Ransberger Marinus et al. reference to the method of Lantzsch Volker et al. reference since the result would have been predicable and yielded no unexpected results.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Lantzsch Volker et al. and Ransberger Marinus et al. disclose The method as claimed in claim 9, wherein the input signal is a sensor signal that is applied to a signal input of the control unit.
For example, the engine start-stop system (MSA) 101 is OBD-relevant because the vehicle may no longer be able to drive electrically under certain conditions of the start-stop system (in such a case, the combustion engine would always run). This means that all sensor, actuator and communication signals 132, 133, 134 connected to the MSA 101 via the engine electronics 100 are also OBD-relevant. Consequently, the various causal chains 105 from the MSA function 101 to the sensors 102, actuators 103 and communication units 104 must be traced back in order to identify which vehicle components or which vehicle signals 132, 133, 134 are specifically OBD-relevant. Determining the one or more causal chains 105 for an MSA function 101 based on the SW modules 111, 112, 113 is typically very complex (Ransberger Marinus et al. par. 23).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Lantzsch Volker et al. and Ransberger Marinus et al. disclose The method as claimed in claim 9, wherein the input signal is a BUS signal that is applied to a signal input of the control unit.
BUS 17 show in the figure 1 of Lantzsch Volker et al. reference.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Lantzsch Volker et al. and Ransberger Marinus et al. disclose The method as claimed in claim 9, wherein the signal network comprises a further input signal, and further comprising: verifying whether a further signal connection is present between the further input signal and any of the at least one on-board diagnostics-relevant output signal; and indicating that the further input signal is potentially on-board diagnostics-relevant if the further signal connection is present between the input signal and any of the at least one output signal.
For example, the engine start-stop system (MSA) 101 is OBD-relevant because the vehicle may no longer be able to drive electrically under certain conditions of the start-stop system (in such a case, the combustion engine would always run). This means that all sensor, actuator and communication signals 132, 133, 134 connected to the MSA 101 via the engine electronics 100 are also OBD-relevant. Consequently, the various causal chains 105 from the MSA function 101 to the sensors 102, actuators 103 and communication units 104 must be traced back in order to identify which vehicle components or which vehicle signals 132, 133, 134 are specifically OBD-relevant. Determining the one or more causal chains 105 for an MSA function 101 based on the SW modules 111, 112, 113 is typically very complex (Ransberger Marinus et al. par. 23). The method 200 comprises determining 201 a plurality of descriptive text files 121, 122, 123 for the plurality of SW modules 111, 112, 113. A descriptive text file 121, 122, 123 of a SW module 111, 112, 113 (e.g. B. an XML file) typically contains relationships between input signals and output signals of the SW module 111, 112, 113. The method 200 further comprises determining 202 the chain of effects 105 by analyzing the plurality of descriptive text files 121, 122, 123 (Ransberger Marinus et al. par. 26).
According to the cite passages and figures, examiner interprets SW module 111, 112 and 113 is part of SW program 110 and signal 132, 133 and 134 as the input signal and effect 105 as the output from evaluation from SW module 113.
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Lantzsch Volker et al. and Ransberger Marinus et al. disclose A non-transitory storage medium containing a computer program having a program code to carry out the method as claimed in claim 9 when the computer program is executed on a processor, a computer, or programmable hardware.
According to a further aspect, a storage medium is described. The storage medium may comprise a software program configured to be executed on a processor and thereby to carry out the method described in this document (Ransberger Marinus et al. par. 15).
Claims 13 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lantzsch Volker et al. DE 102005044236 in view of Ransberger Marinus et al. DE 102015222592 and further in view of Yokoyama et al. US 5821860.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Lantzsch Volker et al. and Ransberger Marinus et al. teach all the limitation in the claim 9.
The combination of Lantzsch Volker et al. and Ransberger Marinus et al. do not explicitly teach The method as claimed in claim 9, further comprising using a connection matrix when verifying whether the signal connection is present between the input signal and the at least one on-board diagnostics-relevant output signal.
Yokoyama et al. teach The method as claimed in claim 9, further comprising using a connection matrix when verifying whether the signal connection is present between the input signal and the at least one on-board diagnostics-relevant output signal. (Yokoyama et al. US 5821860 abstract; col. 7 lines 40-67; figures 1-8)
As shown in FIG. 6, pieces of information input to units or nodes (i.e. neurons) of the input layer are meandering amount data Xj (j=1 to n). These pieces of information are weighted by weights constituting a connection matrix, and input to units or nodes of the intermediate layer. An output from each of the units of the intermediate layer is determined e.g. by a sigmoidal function. Similarly to the data processing carried out when data items are transferred from the input layer to the intermediate layer, outputs from the units of the intermediate layer weighted by weights constituting a connection matrix are input to the output layer, and the output layer delivers the resulting data as the driving condition-indicative parameter POP. A POP value, which is determined by the sigmoidal function, falls between "0" and "1.0", and a larger POP value indicates a more degraded driving condition of the driver (Yokoyama et al. col. 7 lines 40-55).
Therefore, it would have been obviously to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to substitute a connection matrix, as taught by Yokoyama et al. reference into a connection from Lantzsch Volker et al. and Ransberger Marinus et al. reference to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Lantzsch Volker et al., Ransberger Marinus et al. and Yokoyama et al. disclose The method as claimed in claim 9, wherein verifying whether the signal connection is present between the input signal and the at least one on-board diagnostics-relevant output signal is carried out using the signal network.
As shown in FIG. 6, pieces of information input to units or nodes (i.e. neurons) of the input layer are meandering amount data Xj (j=1 to n). These pieces of information are weighted by weights constituting a connection matrix, and input to units or nodes of the intermediate layer. An output from each of the units of the intermediate layer is determined e.g. by a sigmoidal function. Similarly to the data processing carried out when data items are transferred from the input layer to the intermediate layer, outputs from the units of the intermediate layer weighted by weights constituting a connection matrix are input to the output layer, and the output layer delivers the resulting data as the driving condition-indicative parameter POP. A POP value, which is determined by the sigmoidal function, falls between "0" and "1.0", and a larger POP value indicates a more degraded driving condition of the driver (Yokoyama et al. col. 7 lines 40-55). Each element (weight) of the connection matrix is determined by the BP learning algorithm such that a total error function of the output from the output layer obtained when meandering amount data obtained by actually driving the vehicle in a meandering manner are applied to the neural network as input data is minimized with respect to a desired POP value indicative of the meandering of the vehicle as teaching data (teaching signal) (Yokoyama et al. col. 7 lines 56-63).
Claims 14-16, 18-20 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lantzsch Volker et al. DE 102005044236 in view of Ransberger Marinus et al. DE 102015222592 and further in view of Yamaki US 20020161495.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Lantzsch Volker et al. and Ransberger Marinus et al. teach The method as claimed in claim 9, further comprising: providing a pre-determined property of the input signal with regard to a relevance to on- board diagnostics of the input signal;
For example, the engine start-stop system (MSA) 101 is OBD-relevant because the vehicle may no longer be able to drive electrically under certain conditions of the start-stop system (in such a case, the combustion engine would always run). This means that all sensor, actuator and communication signals 132, 133, 134 connected to the MSA 101 via the engine electronics 100 are also OBD-relevant. Consequently, the various causal chains 105 from the MSA function 101 to the sensors 102, actuators 103 and communication units 104 must be traced back in order to identify which vehicle components or which vehicle signals 132, 133, 134 are specifically OBD-relevant. Determining the one or more causal chains 105 for an MSA function 101 based on the SW modules 111, 112, 113 is typically very complex (Ransberger Marinus et al. par. 23).
The combination of Lantzsch Volker et al. and Ransberger Marinus et al. do not explicitly teach comparing the potentially on-board diagnostics-relevant input signal with the pre- determined property; and outputting a warning signal if the potentially on-board diagnostics-relevant input signal does not match the pre-determined property.
Yamaki teaches comparing the potentially on-board diagnostics-relevant input signal with the pre- determined property; and outputting a warning signal if the potentially on-board diagnostics-relevant input signal does not match the pre-determined property. (Yamaki US 20020161495 abstract; paragraphs [0004]; [0055]-[0060]; [0063]-[0066]; [0082]-[0087]; [0115]-[0121]; [0123]-[0127]; [0239]-[0248]; figures 1-19;)
In step S11, a signal for driving an actuator as a diagnosis target is outputted. In step S12, the ECU checks whether there are predetermined changes in input parameters for the diagnosis, the input parameters for the diagnosis being given by input values of, e.g., operating status parameters and control parameters that are changed with operation of the actuator (Yamaki par. 65). Then, if there are predetermined changes in the input parameters for the diagnosis, it is determined in step S13 that the actuator as the diagnosis target is normal as detailed in diagnosis examples (1) to (8) explained below. If there are no predetermined changes in the input parameters for the diagnosis, it is determined in step S14 that the actuator as the diagnosis target is abnormal. Note that, in all of the diagnosis examples (1) to (8) explained below, a final abnormality determination is made when an abnormal state has continued over a predetermined time or over a predetermined number of rotations (Yamaki par. 66). Finally, if the actuator itself under the diagnosis or any associated (accompanied) system is determined as being in the abnormal state, the warning lamp 85 is lit up or blinked for issuing the alarm to the driver. This diagnosis process is thereby brought into an end (Yamaki par. 82). In step S51, whether an input value to the diagnosis target (wiring system including the sensor or wiring system including the actuator) or an output value from the diagnosis target continuously indicates a too small or too large value that is never taken in the normal condition, i.e., a value beyond the range specified in specifications, is determined by checking a signal level at a corresponding input or output port of the I/O interface 77 during the diagnosis time that is set in consideration of effects of noise, etc. (Yamaki par. 124).
According to the cited passages, examiner interprets the system perform a comparison for determine the abnormal state when there is a deviate between a input value and a predetermine storage value.
Therefore, it would have been obviously to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to apply a known technique of determine the abnormal state by comparing the input measurement with a normal value, as taught by Yamaki reference to the method of Lantzsch Volker et al. and Ransberger Marinus et al. reference since the result would have been predicable and yielded no unexpected results.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Lantzsch Volker et al., Ransberger Marinus et al. and Yamaki disclose The method as claimed in claim 14, wherein the input signal is a sensor signal that is applied to a signal input of the control unit.
For example, the engine start-stop system (MSA) 101 is OBD-relevant because the vehicle may no longer be able to drive electrically under certain conditions of the start-stop system (in such a case, the combustion engine would always run). This means that all sensor, actuator and communication signals 132, 133, 134 connected to the MSA 101 via the engine electronics 100 are also OBD-relevant. Consequently, the various causal chains 105 from the MSA function 101 to the sensors 102, actuators 103 and communication units 104 must be traced back in order to identify which vehicle components or which vehicle signals 132, 133, 134 are specifically OBD-relevant. Determining the one or more causal chains 105 for an MSA function 101 based on the SW modules 111, 112, 113 is typically very complex (Ransberger Marinus et al. par. 23).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Lantzsch Volker et al., Ransberger Marinus et al. and Yamaki disclose The method as claimed in claim 14, wherein the input signal is a BUS signal that is applied to a signal input of the control unit.
BUS 17 show in the figure 1 of Lantzsch Volker et al. reference.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Lantzsch Volker et al., Ransberger Marinus et al. and Yamaki disclose The method as claimed in claim 14, further comprising: checking whether the input signal is sent from an additional control unit for the vehicle as an output signal; automatically checking whether the output signal from the additional control unit is displayed as on-board diagnostics-monitored;
For example, the engine start-stop system (MSA) 101 is OBD-relevant because the vehicle may no longer be able to drive electrically under certain conditions of the start-stop system (in such a case, the combustion engine would always run). This means that all sensor, actuator and communication signals 132, 133, 134 connected to the MSA 101 via the engine electronics 100 are also OBD-relevant. Consequently, the various causal chains 105 from the MSA function 101 to the sensors 102, actuators 103 and communication units 104 must be traced back in order to identify which vehicle components or which vehicle signals 132, 133, 134 are specifically OBD-relevant. Determining the one or more causal chains 105 for an MSA function 101 based on the SW modules 111, 112, 113 is typically very complex (Ransberger Marinus et al. par. 23).
and outputting a warning signal if an on-board diagnostic property of the input signal and the output signal, as verified by both control units, are inconsistent.
In step S11, a signal for driving an actuator as a diagnosis target is outputted. In step S12, the ECU checks whether there are predetermined changes in input parameters for the diagnosis, the input parameters for the diagnosis being given by input values of, e.g., operating status parameters and control parameters that are changed with operation of the actuator (Yamaki par. 65). Then, if there are predetermined changes in the input parameters for the diagnosis, it is determined in step S13 that the actuator as the diagnosis target is normal as detailed in diagnosis examples (1) to (8) explained below. If there are no predetermined changes in the input parameters for the diagnosis, it is determined in step S14 that the actuator as the diagnosis target is abnormal. Note that, in all of the diagnosis examples (1) to (8) explained below, a final abnormality determination is made when an abnormal state has continued over a predetermined time or over a predetermined number of rotations (Yamaki par. 66). Finally, if the actuator itself under the diagnosis or any associated (accompanied) system is determined as being in the abnormal state, the warning lamp 85 is lit up or blinked for issuing the alarm to the driver. This diagnosis process is thereby brought into an end (Yamaki par. 82). In step S51, whether an input value to the diagnosis target (wiring system including the sensor or wiring system including the actuator) or an output value from the diagnosis target continuously indicates a too small or too large value that is never taken in the normal condition, i.e., a value beyond the range specified in specifications, is determined by checking a signal level at a corresponding input or output port of the I/O interface 77 during the diagnosis time that is set in consideration of effects of noise, etc. (Yamaki par. 124).
According to the cited passages, examiner interprets the system perform a comparison for determine the abnormal state when there is a deviate between a input value and a predetermine storage value.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Lantzsch Volker et al., Ransberger Marinus et al. and Yamaki disclose The method as claimed in claim 18, wherein the input signal is a sensor signal that is applied to a signal input of the control unit.
For example, the engine start-stop system (MSA) 101 is OBD-relevant because the vehicle may no longer be able to drive electrically under certain conditions of the start-stop system (in such a case, the combustion engine would always run). This means that all sensor, actuator and communication signals 132, 133, 134 connected to the MSA 101 via the engine electronics 100 are also OBD-relevant. Consequently, the various causal chains 105 from the MSA function 101 to the sensors 102, actuators 103 and communication units 104 must be traced back in order to identify which vehicle components or which vehicle signals 132, 133, 134 are specifically OBD-relevant. Determining the one or more causal chains 105 for an MSA function 101 based on the SW modules 111, 112, 113 is typically very complex (Ransberger Marinus et al. par. 23).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Lantzsch Volker et al., Ransberger Marinus et al. and Yamaki disclose The method as claimed in claim 18, wherein the input signal is a BUS signal that is applied to a signal input of the control unit.
BUS 17 show in the figure 1 of Lantzsch Volker et al. reference.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Lantzsch Volker et al., Ransberger Marinus et al. and Yamaki disclose The method as claimed in claim 9, further comprising: checking whether the input signal is sent from an additional control unit for the vehicle as an output signal; automatically checking whether the output signal from the additional control unit is displayed as on-board diagnostics-monitored;
For example, the engine start-stop system (MSA) 101 is OBD-relevant because the vehicle may no longer be able to drive electrically under certain conditions of the start-stop system (in such a case, the combustion engine would always run). This means that all sensor, actuator and communication signals 132, 133, 134 connected to the MSA 101 via the engine electronics 100 are also OBD-relevant. Consequently, the various causal chains 105 from the MSA function 101 to the sensors 102, actuators 103 and communication units 104 must be traced back in order to identify which vehicle components or which vehicle signals 132, 133, 134 are specifically OBD-relevant. Determining the one or more causal chains 105 for an MSA function 101 based on the SW modules 111, 112, 113 is typically very complex (Ransberger Marinus et al. par. 23).
and outputting a warning signal if an on-board diagnostic property of the input signal and the output signal, as verified by both control units, are inconsistent.
In step S11, a signal for driving an actuator as a diagnosis target is outputted. In step S12, the ECU checks whether there are predetermined changes in input parameters for the diagnosis, the input parameters for the diagnosis being given by input values of, e.g., operating status parameters and control parameters that are changed with operation of the actuator (Yamaki par. 65). Then, if there are predetermined changes in the input parameters for the diagnosis, it is determined in step S13 that the actuator as the diagnosis target is normal as detailed in diagnosis examples (1) to (8) explained below. If there are no predetermined changes in the input parameters for the diagnosis, it is determined in step S14 that the actuator as the diagnosis target is abnormal. Note that, in all of the diagnosis examples (1) to (8) explained below, a final abnormality determination is made when an abnormal state has continued over a predetermined time or over a predetermined number of rotations (Yamaki par. 66). Finally, if the actuator itself under the diagnosis or any associated (accompanied) system is determined as being in the abnormal state, the warning lamp 85 is lit up or blinked for issuing the alarm to the driver. This diagnosis process is thereby brought into an end (Yamaki par. 82). In step S51, whether an input value to the diagnosis target (wiring system including the sensor or wiring system including the actuator) or an output value from the diagnosis target continuously indicates a too small or too large value that is never taken in the normal condition, i.e., a value beyond the range specified in specifications, is determined by checking a signal level at a corresponding input or output port of the I/O interface 77 during the diagnosis time that is set in consideration of effects of noise, etc. (Yamaki par. 124).
According to the cited passages, examiner interprets the system perform a comparison for determine the abnormal state when there is a deviate between a input value and a predetermine storage value.
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Lantzsch Volker et al., Ransberger Marinus et al. and Yamaki disclose The method as claimed in claim 22, wherein the input signal is a sensor signal that is applied to a signal input of the control unit.
For example, the engine start-stop system (MSA) 101 is OBD-relevant because the vehicle may no longer be able to drive electrically under certain conditions of the start-stop system (in such a case, the combustion engine would always run). This means that all sensor, actuator and communication signals 132, 133, 134 connected to the MSA 101 via the engine electronics 100 are also OBD-relevant. Consequently, the various causal chains 105 from the MSA function 101 to the sensors 102, actuators 103 and communication units 104 must be traced back in order to identify which vehicle components or which vehicle signals 132, 133, 134 are specifically OBD-relevant. Determining the one or more causal chains 105 for an MSA function 101 based on the SW modules 111, 112, 113 is typically very complex (Ransberger Marinus et al. par. 23).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Lantzsch Volker et al., Ransberger Marinus et al. and Yamaki disclose The method as claimed in claim 22, wherein the input signal is a BUS signal that is applied to a signal input of the control unit.
BUS 17 show in the figure 1 of Lantzsch Volker et al. reference.
Claims 17, 21 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lantzsch Volker et al. DE 102005044236, in view of Ransberger Marinus et al. DE 102015222592, in view of Yamaki US 20020161495 and further in view of Yokoyama et al. US 5821860.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Lantzsch Volker et al., Ransberger Marinus et al. and Yamaki teach all the limitation in the claim 14.
The combination of Lantzsch Volker et al., Ransberger Marinus et al. and Yamaki do not explicitly teach The method as claimed in claim 14, further comprising using a connection matrix when verifying whether the signal connection is present between the input signal and the at least one on-board diagnostics-relevant output signal.
Yokoyama et al. teach The method as claimed in claim 14, further comprising using a connection matrix when verifying whether the signal connection is present between the input signal and the at least one on-board diagnostics-relevant output signal. (Yokoyama et al. US 5821860 abstract; col. 7 lines 40-67; figures 1-8)
As shown in FIG. 6, pieces of information input to units or nodes (i.e. neurons) of the input layer are meandering amount data Xj (j=1 to n). These pieces of information are weighted by weights constituting a connection matrix, and input to units or nodes of the intermediate layer. An output from each of the units of the intermediate layer is determined e.g. by a sigmoidal function. Similarly to the data processing carried out when data items are transferred from the input layer to the intermediate layer, outputs from the units of the intermediate layer weighted by weights constituting a connection matrix are input to the output layer, and the output layer delivers the resulting data as the driving condition-indicative parameter POP. A POP value, which is determined by the sigmoidal function, falls between "0" and "1.0", and a larger POP value indicates a more degraded driving condition of the driver (Yokoyama et al. col. 7 lines 40-55).
Therefore, it would have been obviously to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to substitute a connection matrix, as taught by Yokoyama et al. reference into a connection from Lantzsch Volker et al., Ransberger Marinus et al. and Yamaki reference to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Lantzsch Volker et al., Ransberger Marinus et al., Yamaki and Yokoyama et al. disclose The method as claimed in claim 18, further comprising using a connection matrix when verifying whether the signal connection is present between the input signal and the at least one on-board diagnostics-relevant output signal. (Yokoyama et al. US 5821860 abstract; col. 7 lines 40-67; figures 1-8)
As shown in FIG. 6, pieces of information input to units or nodes (i.e. neurons) of the input layer are meandering amount data Xj (j=1 to n). These pieces of information are weighted by weights constituting a connection matrix, and input to units or nodes of the intermediate layer. An output from each of the units of the intermediate layer is determined e.g. by a sigmoidal function. Similarly to the data processing carried out when data items are transferred from the input layer to the intermediate layer, outputs from the units of the intermediate layer weighted by weights constituting a connection matrix are input to the output layer, and the output layer delivers the resulting data as the driving condition-indicative parameter POP. A POP value, which is determined by the sigmoidal function, falls between "0" and "1.0", and a larger POP value indicates a more degraded driving condition of the driver (Yokoyama et al. col. 7 lines 40-55).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Lantzsch Volker et al., Ransberger Marinus et al., Yamaki and Yokoyama et al. disclose The method as claimed in claim 22, further comprising using a connection matrix when verifying whether the signal connection is present between the input signal and the at least one on-board diagnostics-relevant output signal.
As shown in FIG. 6, pieces of information input to units or nodes (i.e. neurons) of the input layer are meandering amount data Xj (j=1 to n). These pieces of information are weighted by weights constituting a connection matrix, and input to units or nodes of the intermediate layer. An output from each of the units of the intermediate layer is determined e.g. by a sigmoidal function. Similarly to the data processing carried out when data items are transferred from the input layer to the intermediate layer, outputs from the units of the intermediate layer weighted by weights constituting a connection matrix are input to the output layer, and the output layer delivers the resulting data as the driving condition-indicative parameter POP. A POP value, which is determined by the sigmoidal function, falls between "0" and "1.0", and a larger POP value indicates a more degraded driving condition of the driver (Yokoyama et al. col. 7 lines 40-55).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 01/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the remark applicant argues in substance:
Applicant argument: First, applicant argues that the combination of Lantzsch Volker et al. and Ransberger Marinus et al. failed to teach “indicating that the input signal is potentially on-board diagnostic-relevant if the signal connection is present between the input signal and the at least one output signal” as cited in the independent claim 9 and second applicant argue that there would be no reason to incorporate the method of Ransberger Marinus et al. reference because it performs analysis offline using descriptive text files. Finally, applicant argue that there is no rationale or predictable result in combining the connection matrix teachings of Yokoyama et al. reference with the combined teachings of Lantzsch Volker et al. and Ransberger Marinus et al. in a way that arrives at the invention as recited in the claim 13.
Examiner response: First, examiner respectfully submit that the combination of Lantzsch Volker et al. and Ransberger Marinus et al. failed to teach “indicating that the input signal is potentially on-board diagnostic-relevant if the signal connection is present between the input signal and the at least one output signal” as cited in the independent claim 9 as follow:
Ransberger Marinus et al. reference disclose determining active chain 105 between signals 132, 133 and 134 and software modules associated with an OBD-relevant function. As described in Ransberger Marinus et al. reference, these active chains are determined by analyzing relationship between input signals and output signals of the software modules. The purpose of this analysis is to identify which vehicle signal are OBD-relevant as mention above. By determining that a signal participates in an active chain associated with an OBD-relevant functions, Ransberger Marinus et al. reference effectively identifies or flags those signals as being relevant to OBD behavior. Such identification corresponds to the limitation claimed above “indicating that the input signal is potentially on-board diagnostic-relevant if the signal connection is present between the input signal and the at least one output signal”. Since art of the record still read on the claim, therefore the rejection stand. Please see a rejection above.
Second, examiner respectfully submit that it is obviously for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching as taught in Ransberger Marinus et al. reference into Lantzsch Volker et al. reference as follow:
Both references Lantzsch Volker et al. and Ransberger Marinus et al. address analysis of OBD-related behavior in vehicle control systems.
Lantzsch Volker et al. reference evaluates OBD functionality of vehicle control units during diagnostic testing.
Ransberger Marinus et al. reference determines which signals influence OBD-relevant software functions
Therefore, it would have been obviously to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the signal relationship determination of Ransberger Marinus et al. reference to the diagnostic testing framework of Lantzsch Volker et al. reference in order to improve identification of signals that affect OBD-relevant behavior.
Apply this known signal-dependency analysis to improve the diagnostic evaluation of vehicle control units represents a predictable user prior art elements according to their established functions, consistent with the reasoning set forth in KSR International Co. V. Teleflex Inc.
Finally, examiner respectfully submit that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a clear rationale to combine these teachings as follow:
References Lantzsch Volker et al., Ransberger Marinus et al. and Yokoyama et al. all concern analysis of signal relationship in a system.
Lantzsch Volker et al. reference teach test OBD-relevant signals in a vehicle control unit.
Ransberger Marinus et al. reference teach identifies which signal influence OBD-relevant functions (active chains).
Yokoyama et al. reference teach a connection matrix for representing dependencies between inputs and output in a network
Therefore, using a connection matrix to represent the relationship identified in the modify system of Lantzsch Volker et al. and Ransberger Marinus et al. reference active chains is a straightforward and predictable application of known technology.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, there is a predictable result of representing active chains in a connection matix enables verification of signal connections and indication of potentially OBD-relevant inputs. Therefore, the combination of Lantzsch Volker et al., Ransberger Marinus et al. and Yokoyama et al. reasonably suggests using a connection matrix to verify signal connections as recited in the claim 13.
Since arts of record still read on the claim, therefore the rejection stand. Please a rejection above.
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 THANG D TRAN whose telephone number is (408)918-7546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 pm (pacific time).
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, Brian A Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/THANG D TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2686
/BRIAN A ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2686