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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TenHouten (US 20110304202), in view of KR101575492, hereon KR’492.
With respect to claim 1, 10 and 18, TenHouten discloses a parameter setting method in the context of a vehicle safety system. Specifically, TenHouten at para [0009] teaches that “a method for disconnecting electrical power in an automobile upon detecting a crash event is provided,” thereby disclosing a method as recited. TenHouten further teaches determining vehicle conditions based on operational parameters. For example, para [0040] discloses that a crash detection unit includes “accelerometer(s), pressure sensor(s), speed sensor(s), gyroscope(s) for sensing a condition of the vehicle,” and para [0041] discloses that a processor determines that a crash event has occurred when thresholds are met. Additionally, para [0043] teaches that a processor determines the type of crash event. These disclosures collectively teach determining a crash condition based on vehicle operation parameters, However, TenHouten does not explicitly teach determining a pre-collision level representing a probability that the vehicle is about to crash. Instead, TenHouten determines crash occurrence or type after or at the time of impact. KR ’492 addresses this deficiency. KR ’492 teaches that an airbag control unit detects a collision condition using sensor data and generates a corresponding signal, for example, “an airbag control unit (ACU) detects a collision signal based on sensor data and outputs a control signal,” and further teaches that “the system determines a collision condition using signals from vehicle sensors.” (para 0006-0008), These teachings demonstrate real-time evaluation of vehicle conditions based on sensor inputs and would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the use of such sensor-based detection prior to collision to anticipate crash conditions. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify TenHouten to determine a pre-collision level based on vehicle operation parameters, where the level represents a likelihood of an impending crash; TenHouten further discloses setting a response based on crash severity, For example, para [0060] teaches that “in the event of a minor crash… sever battery power to [certain components],” whereas “in a major crash… cuts off battery power to all electrical system components.” This teaches adjusting electrical system behavior based on crash condition. However, TenHouten does not explicitly disclose setting a duration of unloading a voltage from an electric component. KR ’492 teaches a high-voltage control system that performs controlled shutdown of electrical systems, for example, “a high-voltage controller performs a high-voltage shutdown operation in response to a collision signal.” (para 0007), thus, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of TenHouten to include control over the duration of voltage unloading, as controlling the timing of electrical shutdown is a known design consideration for improving safety, reducing arcing, and protecting components.
With respect to claims 2 and 11, TenHouten discloses several operation parameters of the vehicle. Para [0040] teaches the use of speed and acceleration sensors, and para [0030] discloses systems such as antilock braking systems being part of the vehicle network. However, TenHouten does not explicitly disclose additional parameters such as accelerator pedal opening, brake pedal stroke, autonomous emergency braking activation, or relative distance and speed to an obstacle. KR ’492 teaches the use of signals from multiple vehicle systems processed by an airbag control unit, indicating integration of various vehicle dynamic inputs in determining collision conditions (para 0007, 0015), thus, It would have been obvious to include additional vehicle operation parameters such as braking input, pedal position, and relative motion data, as these are routinely used in vehicle safety and collision detection systems to improve detection accuracy and responsiveness.
With respect to claims 3 and 12, TenHouten discloses classifying crash conditions into different levels, such as “minor crash” and “major crash” as described in para [0043] and para [0060]. This teaches that different levels correspond to different system responses. However, TenHouten does not explicitly disclose that different levels correspond to different durations of unloading voltage. KR ’492 teaches controlled shutdown of high-voltage systems in response to detected conditions, implying that shutdown behavior can be managed by a controller (para 0002)., thus, It would have been obvious to vary the duration of voltage unloading based on the determined level, since TenHouten already varies system response based on severity and KR ’492 teaches controlled shutdown, and modifying the timing of shutdown is a predictable design variation that improves safety and system performance.
With respect to claims 4 and 13, TenHouten discloses multiple levels of crash severity, but only distinguishes between at least two levels, such as minor and major crashes. TenHouten does not explicitly disclose four levels ranked in ascending order. KR ’492 teaches continuous sensor-based detection of collision conditions, which inherently supports graded evaluation of crash conditions (para 0002-0008) thus, It would have been obvious to expand the number of classification levels to include additional intermediate levels, such as level zero through level three, as increasing the granularity of classification is a known approach to improve control precision and system responsiveness, the specific number of levels represents a design choice that would have been arrived at through routine optimization; accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the crash detection and power disconnection method of TenHouten in view of KR ’492 to include pre-collision determination and controlled high-voltage unloading based on detected vehicle conditions, including varying unloading durations according to different levels, as such modification merely involves combining known elements according to their established functions to achieve predictable results, namely improved vehicle safety and reduced electrical hazards during collision events.
With respect to claim 9, TenHouten discloses a vehicle electrical system that includes multiple voltage domains and power management components. Specifically, TenHouten at para [0030] teaches that the vehicle includes various electrical subsystems such as “antilock brakes, airbags, fuel pump(s), and other electrical components,” which are powered through a vehicle electrical system, additionally, para [0059] discloses that a battery management unit (BMU) controls electrical power distribution and “emits a battery disconnect signal… severing a power connection between the battery and the electrical system components.” These disclosures demonstrate that the vehicle includes electrical power conversion and distribution architecture involving different voltage levels, however, TenHouten does not explicitly disclose a DC/DC converter configured to convert one DC voltage to another DC voltage, nor does it explicitly disclose that an operation voltage of an electric component is greater than a smaller one of two DC voltages, KR ’492 addresses this deficiency. KR ’492 teaches a high-voltage vehicle electrical architecture that includes conversion between different voltage levels, for example, a high-voltage system supplying power to components and interfacing with lower-voltage systems through power control circuitry. KR ’492 further teaches that a high-voltage controller manages electrical power and performs shutdown operations in response to detected conditions, indicating the presence of multiple voltage domains and conversion between them (para 0019-0027), thus, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the vehicle electrical system of TenHouten to include a DC/DC converter as taught by KR ’492, since DC/DC converters are well-known and commonly used in electric and hybrid vehicles to convert high-voltage battery output to lower-voltage systems for auxiliary components. Incorporating such a converter would have been a predictable design choice to enable compatibility between high-voltage and low-voltage subsystems. Furthermore, configuring the electric component to operate at a voltage greater than one of the converted voltages represents an inherent characteristic of multi-voltage vehicle systems and would have been an obvious implementation detail arising from the inclusion of multiple voltage domains.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 and 14-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MASUD AHMED whose telephone number is (571)270-1315. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-8:30 PM PST with IFP.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at 571 270 3976. 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.
MASUD . AHMED
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657A
/MASUD AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights