DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on November 29, 2024. Claims 1 – 11 are pending and examined below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 29, 2024 has been considered by the Examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in The Republic of Italy on December 01, 2023.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4 - 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. US 11,472,361 B2 to JENKINS et al. (herein after "Jenkins"), already of record from IDS.
(Note: Claim language is in bold typeface, and the Examiner’s comments and cited passages from the prior art reference(s) are in normal typeface.)
As to Claim 1,
Jenkins’ impact event detection system for parked vehicle discloses a motor vehicle (see Fig. 1 ~ illustrates a control transmission schematic of a vehicle telematics device 110) comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
704
842
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a control telecommunication network, an acceleration transducer (see Fig. 2A ~ illustrates a general arrangement of vehicle telematics device 110 comprising an accelerometer 241) configured to
detect a quantity indicative of an acceleration of the motor vehicle and to generate an acceleration signal corresponding to the detected quantity (see at least Fig. 2A ~ accelerometer 241,
PNG
media_image2.png
504
636
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 ~ outlines a process flowchart for performing accelerometer functions based upon crash detection, particularly process method steps 320, and
PNG
media_image3.png
600
552
media_image3.png
Greyscale
see Abstract ~ "an accelerometer generates an interrupt to wake the processor of the telematics device from the sleep mode of operation upon detecting an acceleration event that exceeds a threshold");
a passive safety control unit connected to the control telecommunication network (see at least Fig. 1 ~ vehicle telematics device 110 and communications interface 220, and Col. 9, Lines 26 - 29 ~ impact / crash event data is transmitted across to the control telecommunication network) and configured to
receive the acceleration signal generated by the acceleration transducer (see at least Fig. 2A ~ accelerometer 241, Fig. 3 ~ process method steps 320),
determine from the acceleration signal an impact condition when the detected quantity indicates the satisfaction of a predetermined relationship with a threshold associated with said acceleration (see at least Fig. 2A ~ accelerometer 241, Fig. 3 ~ process method steps 320, and Abstract), and
emit a first and a second impact signal when the impact condition is determined (see at least Col. 3, Lines 55 - 63 and Col. 11, Lines 26 – 42),
the second impact signal being emitted on the control telecommunication network (see at least Col. 3, Lines 55 - 63 ~ "while the processor and telematics device are asleep... accelerometer... continue... to collect and store acceleration data in a continuous FIFO circular queue. Upon an acceleration event, the accelerometer may wake up the processor of the telematics device");
a transceiver connected to the control telecommunication network and configured to receive the first impact signal transmit a wake-up signal to the control telecommunication network in response to the reception of the first impact signal (see at least Fig. 3 ~ outlines a process flowchart for a process method step 310 for a wake time of the telematics device, Col. 3, Lines 51 - 54 ~ "the accelerometer is configured to generate an interrupt that will wake up the processor and/or the telematics device if an acceleration event is detected that exceeds a preset threshold");
a communication control unit connected to the control telecommunication network (see at least Fig. 4 ~ process method steps 422 - 424, reports the impact / crash event and
PNG
media_image4.png
784
448
media_image4.png
Greyscale
see Col. 9, Lines 26 - 29 ~ impact / crash event data is transmitted across to the control telecommunication network); and
a wake-up control unit configured to pick up the wake-up signal from the control telecommunication network and to execute via the control telecommunication network a wake-up procedure causing the communication control unit to wake up (see at least Fig. 2A ~ accelerometer 241, Fig. 3 ~ process method steps 320, Fig. 3 ~ process method steps 414 - 424, and Col. 11, Lines 26 – 42),
so that the communication control unit goes from an idle state to a wake-up state, in response to the picking up of the wake-up signal (see at least Fig. 2A ~ accelerometer 241, Fig. 3 ~ process method steps 320, Fig. 4 ~ outlines a process flowchart for waking-up vehicle telematics device from an idle state (sleep mode) based upon accelerometer 241 detecting an impact event as taught in process method steps 414 - 424 and Col. 11, Lines 26 – 42);
wherein the communication control unit is configured in the wake-up state to pick up the second impact signal from the control telecommunication network and to emit a radio signal outside the motor vehicle in response to the picking up of the second impact signal. (See at least Fig. 2A ~ accelerometer 241, Fig. 3 ~ process method steps 320, Fig. 3 ~ process method steps 414 - 424, and Col. 11, Lines 26 - 42; Jenkins' vehicle telematics device 110 continuously monitors for plurality of impact / crash events as taught in Col. 3, Lines 4 - 13 and Col. 3, Lines 55 - 63 ~ "while the processor and telematics device are asleep... accelerometer... continue... to collect and store acceleration data in a continuous FIFO circular queue. Upon an acceleration event, the accelerometer may wake up the processor of the telematics device").
As to Claim 4,
Jenkins discloses the motor vehicle according to claim 1,
wherein said acceleration comprises a component directed along the direction of the acceleration of gravity. (See Figs. 1, 2A, and Col. 5, Lines 1 - 20 ~ a MEMS 3-axis accelerometer (accelerometer 241) comprises determining acceleration along the direction of the acceleration of gravity).
As to Claim 5,
Jenkins discloses the motor vehicle according to claim 1,
wherein said acceleration is directed along an axis fixed to a body of the motor vehicle. (See Figs. 1, 2A, and Col. 5, Lines 1 - 20 ~ a MEMS 3-axis accelerometer (accelerometer 241)wherein acceleration is directed along an axis fixed to a body).
As to Claim 6,
Jenkins discloses the motor vehicle according to claim 5,
wherein the fixed axis is one between the roll axis, the pitch axis, and the yaw axis of the motor vehicle. (See Figs. 1, 2A, FIG. 6 ~ "illustrates... architecture and data flow for specifying... configuration settings for an accelerometer and gyroscope", Col. 5, Lines 1 - 20 ~ a MEMS 3-axis accelerometer (accelerometer 241) teaches a fixed axis being between a roll axis, pitch axis, and yaw axis of the motor vehicle, and Col. 13, Lines 1 – 9).
As to Claim 7,
Jenkins discloses the motor vehicle according to claim 1,
wherein said acceleration is defined by a vector referred to an orthogonal Cartesian reference system fixed to a body of the motor vehicle. (See Figs. 1, 2A, 6, Col. 5, Lines 1 - 20, and Col. 13, Lines 1 - 9 ~ a MEMS 3-axis accelerometer (accelerometer 241) teaches acceleration as a vector referred to a body fixed orthogonal Cartesian reference system of the vehicle).
As to Claim 8,
Jenkins discloses the motor vehicle according to claim 7,
wherein the Cartesian reference system is three-dimensional. (See Figs. 1, 2A, 6, Col. 5, Lines 1 - 20, and Col. 13, Lines 1 - 9 ~ a MEMS 3-axis accelerometer (accelerometer 241) and subsequent equations in the disclosure teaches acceleration as a three-dimensional Cartesian reference system).
As to Claim 11,
Jenkins discloses the motor vehicle according to claim 1, further comprising
a plurality of wheels, a body, and suspension means suspending the body relative to the wheels (see Col. 10, Lines 7 - 10 and 25 - 31~ vehicle body having wheels),
wherein said acceleration is an acceleration of the body relative to the wheels. (See Fig. 2A ~ accelerometer 241, Fig. 3, and Abstract).
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 2 – 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. US 11,472,361 B2 to JENKINS et al. (herein after "Jenkins") as to claim 1 above, in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2015/0256135 A1 to COIMBRA et al. (herein after "Coimbra").
As to Claim 2,
Jenkins discloses the motor vehicle according to claim 1.
However, Jenkins does not explicitly disclose,
wherein said threshold has a modulus less than 60 m/s^2.
On the other hand, Coimbra rail-to-rail follower circuit system discloses wherein said threshold has a modulus less than 60 m/s^2. (See ¶0040 ~ "method may also include varying the input voltage over time between an upper threshold and a lower threshold, where the reference voltage has a fixed value between the upper threshold and the lower threshold").
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Jenkins impact event detection system with the follower circuit, as taught by Coimbra, to provide rail-to-rail circuit capability for vehicle power performance management, thereby enabling benefits, including, but not limited to: ensuring vehicle reliability, preserving battery health; amperage / power consumption management; and avoiding parasitic battery drain.
As to Claim 3,
Jenkins discloses the motor vehicle according to claim 1.
However, Jenkins does not explicitly disclose,
wherein said threshold has a modulus greater than 18 m/s^2.
On the other hand, Coimbra rail-to-rail follower circuit system discloses wherein said threshold has a modulus greater than 18 m/s^2. (See ¶0040; Coimbra).
To that end, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Jenkins impact event detection system with the follower circuit, as taught by Coimbra, to provide rail-to-rail circuit capability for vehicle power performance management, thereby enabling benefits, including, but not limited to: ensuring vehicle reliability, preserving battery health; amperage / power consumption management; and avoiding parasitic battery drain.
Claims 9 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. US 11,472,361 B2 to JENKINS et al. (herein after "Jenkins") as to claim 1 above, in view of U.S. Patent No. US 6,282,668 B1 to NEUDECKER (herein after "Neudecker").
As to Claim 9,
Jenkins discloses the motor vehicle according to claim 1.
While Jenkins discusses in Col. 7, Lines 45 - 56 ~ "an accelerometer 241… configured for different power consumption requirements… where it switches into sleep mode during periods where the vehicle battery level falls below a… threshold” wherein the passive safety control unit has a quiescent current less than or equal to a quiescent current threshold, Neudecker’s data bus system for motor vehicles discloses wherein the passive safety control unit has a quiescent current less than or equal to a quiescent current threshold. (See Col. 6, Lines 29 - 34 ~ "When all controllable switches 6 are opened, it corresponds to the ground state when the ignition is turned off, whereby the quiescent current usage is minimized in the motor vehicle. The quiescent current usage is only raised slightly in a selective wake state when these selected bus stations are briefly turn on and then off again").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Jenkins impact event detection system with the quiescent current threshold, as taught by Neudecker, to provide vehicle quiescent current management, specifically wherein the battery discharges from a point to where the engine cannot start, thereby enabling benefits, including, but not limited to: ensuring vehicle reliability, preserving battery health; amperage / power consumption management; and avoiding parasitic battery drain.
As to Claim 10,
Jenkins/Neudecker discloses the motor vehicle according to claim 9,
wherein the quiescent current threshold is less than or equal to 150 mA. (See Col. 6, Lines 29 – 34; Neudecker).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to ASHLEY L. REDHEAD, JR. whose telephone number is (571) 272 - 6952. The Examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Thursday, between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, Peter Nolan can be reached Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at (571) 270 – 7016. 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.
/ASHLEY L REDHEAD JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661