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 .
Claims 1 – 15, 17 – 21 remain pending in the application and have been fully considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 3, 5 – 9, 11 – 13, 17 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wada et al. (US 2018/0375881).
Regarding Claim 1:
Wada et al. teaches a driving safety system for a motor vehicle, comprising: a first wheel speed sensor (101), wherein the first wheel speed sensor is configured to determine an actual wheel speed on a wheel; and a driving safety control unit (200) configured to receive a wheel speed signal generated by the first wheel speed sensor, wherein the wheel speed signal represents the actual wheel speed, wherein the wheel speed signal is transmitted via an unsecured transmission channel between the first wheel speed sensor and the driving safety control unit (Fig 1, via 30, paragraphs 0065 – 0067), wherein the driving safety control unit is configured to receive a locomotion signal (130) that correlates with the actual vehicle speed and to compare the locomotion signal with the wheel speed signal to check the wheel speed signal for plausibility (Fig 6, paragraphs 0105 – 0107), and wherein the locomotion signal is transmitted to the driving safety control unit via a secure transmission channel (paragraph 0192).
Regarding Claim 2:
Wada et al. teaches the secure transmission channel comprises an authentication method for the locomotion signal (Fig 6, paragraph 0192).
Regarding Claim 3:
Wada et al. teaches the secure transmission channel comprises an encryption of the locomotion signal (paragraph 0192).
Regarding Claim 5:
Wada et al. teaches the driving safety control unit is configured to compare the wheel speed signal received via the unsecured transmission channel with the locomotion signal received via the secure transmission channel to enable plausibility checking, and wherein the driving safety control unit is configured to generate an error message and/or initiate a specific action based on a detection of a deviation (Fig 3 – 7, paragraph 0106).
Regarding Claim 6:
Wada et al. teaches wherein the wheel speed signal comprises a first wheel speed signal, the driving safety system further comprising: a second wheel speed sensor, wherein the driving safety control unit is configured to receive a second wheel speed signal generated by the second wheel speed sensor via the secure transmission channel, and wherein the second wheel speed signal generated by the second wheel speed sensor corresponds to the locomotion signal (Fig 1, paragraph 0065).
Regarding Claim 7:
Wada et al. teaches a third wheel speed sensor associated with a specific wheel of the motor vehicle, wherein driving safety control unit is configured to: receive a third wheel speed signal generated by the third wheel speed sensor; and compare the third wheel speed signal and the locomotion signal to check a wheel speed of the specific wheel for plausibility (Fig 1, paragraph 0065).
Regarding Claim 8:
Wada et al. teaches the second wheel speed sensor is configured to transmit the locomotion signal wirelessly to the driving safety control unit (Fig 1 – 5).
Regarding Claim 9:
Wada et al. teaches the driving safety control unit is configured to communicate with at least one second control unit (100) installed in the motor vehicle via the secure transmission channel, wherein the at least one second control unit is configured to receive a third wheel speed signal from the second wheel speed sensor via a different secure transmission channel and to transmit the third wheel speed signal via the secure transmission channel to the driving safety control unit, and wherein the third wheel speed signal corresponds to the locomotion signal (paragraph 0065, Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 11:
Wada et al. teaches the driving safety control unit is configured to communicate with at least one second control unit (100) installed in the motor vehicle via the secure transmission channel, and wherein the driving safety control unit is configured to receive, from the at least one second control unit and via a different secure transmission channel, a speed signal corresponding to the locomotion signal (paragraph 0065, Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 12:
Wada et al. teaches an acceleration sensor (201), wherein the driving safety control unit is configured to receive, via the secure transmission channel, an acceleration signal generated by the acceleration sensor, wherein the acceleration signal corresponds to the locomotion signal (Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 13:
Wada et al. teaches the driving safety control unit is configured to communicate with at least one second control unit installed in the motor vehicle via the secure transmission channel, and wherein the driving safety control unit is configured to receive from the at least one second control unit, and via a different secure transmission channel, an acceleration signal corresponding to the locomotion signal (Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 15:
See rejection of Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 17:
Wada et al. teaches the driving safety system is part of a two-circuit brake control system comprising, and wherein the two-circuit brake control system includes the second wheel speed sensor (Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 18:
Wada et al. teaches the driving safety system is part of a four-circuit brake control system comprising, and wherein the four-circuit brake control system includes the second wheel speed sensor (Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 19:
See rejection of Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 20:
See rejection of Claim 2 above.
Regarding Claim 21:
See rejection of Claim 3 above.
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 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.
Claim(s) 4, 10, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada et al. (US 2018/0375881) and in view of Foster et al. (US 2022/0348227).
Regarding Claim 4:
Wada et al. is silent the secure transmission channel complies with requirements of an ISO/SAE 21434 standard for cyber security in vehicles.
However, Foster et al. teaches a secure transmission channel complies with requirements of an ISO/SAE 21434 standard for cyber security in vehicles (paragraph 0072).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the security standard type taught by Foster et al. in the system of Wada et al. in order to allow for secure communication.
Regarding Claim 10:
Wada et al. is silent to a GPS module, wherein the driving safety control unit is configured to receive a speed signal generated by the GPS module via the secure transmission channel, and wherein the speed signal generated by the GPS module corresponds to the locomotion signal.
However, Foster et al. teaches a GPS module, wherein the driving safety control unit is configured to receive a speed signal generated by the GPS module via the secure transmission channel, and wherein the speed signal generated by the GPS module corresponds to the locomotion signal (paragraph 0061, Fig 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the GPS module of Foster et al. in the system of Wada et al. in order to determine vehicle speed.
Regarding Claim 14:
Wada et al. is silent to the at least one second control unit is an airbag control unit with an integrated inertial measuring unit, which is configured to detect an acceleration of the motor vehicle, and wherein the acceleration signal indicates the acceleration of the motor vehicle.
However, Foster et al. teaches the at least one second control unit is an airbag control unit with an integrated inertial measuring unit, which is configured to detect an acceleration of the motor vehicle, and wherein the acceleration signal indicates the acceleration of the motor vehicle (paragraph 0017).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide IMU of Foster et al. in order to utilize data related to vehicle speed for determinations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LONG T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1899. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 - 5:00.
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.
/LONG T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747