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 .
1. This Office Action is in response to an amendment filed on 4/11/2026.
2. This is a Final Office Action on the merit. Claims 12-31are currently pending, wherein claims 12-14, 16-17, 21 are amended; claims 23-31 are new.
3. Examiner notes that the fundamentals of the rejection are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Priority
4. Applicant claims a DE application with priority date back to 8/08/2022, this date is considered.
Response
5. The examiner withdraws previous rejections (3/13/2026); however, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive on prior art rejections because the cited prior art already taught what applicant claims as owning an intellectual property (e.g. Cahill et al US Pub 20200286880 A).
The following is a quotation of 35 USC. 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 in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner m which the invention was made.
6. Claims 12-25, and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Cahill’880 (US Pub. 20100286880 A1) in view of Uisee Technologies (WO2021056556A1).
A. Per independent claim 12: Cahill’880 teaches a safety system for a motor vehicle, comprising: a control device/controller to carry out a test run (see Cahill’880 claim 1) , when activated, a plurality of vehicle functions are actuated, in succession/sequential and automatically, for testing (e.g., using BITE automatically sequences events, see Cahill’880 para.[0007], [[0032], [0058]-[0059]).
Cahill’880 may not expressly disclose that a test is run automatically; however, it has been very normal to preset a test time for one with ordinary skill in the art to activate a Build-In-Self-Test (BITE).
Uisee Technologies discloses that a test time of a motorcycle can be preset on pg. 22, 3rd para. “The time for adding virtual data to the data detected by the real sensor can be predetermined according to the scene, or it can be random”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Cahill’880 with Uisee Technologies to perform an automatic testing on a motorcycle because that motor could be run/scheduled a testing at an available preset time (a changed parameter/environment) to increase a test accuracy – this automatic maintenance activity has been successfully done.
B. Per dependent claim 13: Cahill’880 also teaches a controller to automatically run/start a test (e.g., sending a signal, see Cahill’880 FIG. 5, para. [0058]).
C. Per dependent claim 14: Cahill’880 also teaches a controller to process information from an environment of the motor vehicle in order to activate the test run (i.e., using a camera or using a manually input information, see Cahill’880 para. [0024]).
D. Per dependent claim 15: Cahill’880 teaches information comprises a position of a driver (an aircraft operator during flight), and actions of the driver: braking simulations (see Cahill’880 para. [0060]).
E. Per dependent claim 16: Cahill’880 also teaches a control device to activate the test run when a driver is present (e.g., during a flight, see Cahill’880 para. [0060]); and a readiness of the driver to depart/landing are identified: an aircraft landing light/announcement when everything on that aircraft is ready (see Cahill’880 para. [0060]).
F. Per dependent claim 17: Cahill’880 also teaches a controller comprises communication units, including a receiving unit which are designed to interact in order to activate the test run (see Cahill’880 para. [0040]).
G. Per dependent claim 18: Cahill’880 also suggests a communication unit is assigned to a pilot, based on a mobile device of the aircraft operator/pilot (e.g., a conventional communication port on an aircraft computer: a head set, see Cahill’880 para. [0023], [0038]).
H. Per dependent claim 19: Cahill’880 also suggests a display that displays a result of the test run (e.g., monitoring output signals, see Cahill’880 para. [0024]).
I. Per claim 20: Cahill’880 in view of Uisee Technologies teaches a motorcycle comprising a safety system (e.g., a brake system, see Uisee Technologies pg. 13, paragraph 1)
J. Per independent claim 21: Cahill’880 in view of Uisee Technologies, also teaches steps of: automatically actuating a test run; and providing a control device in a motor vehicle that is configured to carry out the test run (i.e., “an on-vehicle automatic driving test device is applied” see Uisee Technologies pg. 27 line 4).
K. Per dependent claim 22: Cahill’880 also teaches a control device to activate the test run when a driver is present (e.g., during a flight, see Cahill’880 para. [0060]); and a readiness/intention of the driver to depart/landing are identified: an aircraft landing light/announcement when everything on that aircraft is ready (see Cahill’880 para. [0060]).
L. Per dependent claim 23. Uisee Technologies suggests that a safety test includes testing brake
pads, (see Uisee Technologies pg. 13, 1st paragraph).
M. Per dependent claim 24. Uisee Technologies also discloses that a motor vehicle could be a motorcycle (see Uisee Technologies “The motor vehicle may include, but is not limited to, an automobile, an electric vehicle, a motorcycle, an electric motorcycle, etc.” pg. 25, 2nd para.).
N. Per dependent claim 25: Uisee Technologies suggests that a controller/microprocessor is
parameterizable to predefine which vehicle functions are to be actuated during the test run (since “parameterizable” can be interpreted as to set/define or establish the parameters or limits of something – this claimed limitation: (i.e., following an order or not following an order) is suggested by Uisee Technologies pg. 9 , first para.; see also Covington (US Pat. 11527110 B2) col. 34 line 53 to col. 35 line 5; col.46 lines 56-65; and col.13 lines 40-55).
O. Per dependent claim 29. Applicant claims a preset time for a test run using time control (planning/setting time to actuate/sending a signal to run test automatically). This limitation is suggested by Cahill’880 in view of Uisee Technologies (e.g., inputting a preset signal to a controller Uisee Technologies discloses that a test time of a motorcycle can be preset on pg. 22, 3rd para. “The time for adding virtual data to the data detected by the real sensor can be predetermined according to the scene, or it can be random”).
P. Per dependent claim 30. Applicant claims functional tests could be a brake pad test (see Cahill’880 para.[0002]), and a tire pressure test (e.g., from BITE’s results on a vehicle’s dashboard, see Calhill’880 para.[0007]).
Q. Per dependent claim 31. Applicant claims about displaying a result of the test run on a display of the motor vehicle (e.g., displaying GREEN for TRUE/RED for FALSE lights on a vehicle’s dashboard after running BITE – see Cahill’880 para.[0006]).
7. Claims 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Cahill’880 in view of Uisee Technologies and in view of Wang et al (US Pat 11367142 B1).
Per dependent claim 26: The rationales and references for a rejection of claim 12 are incorporated. Cahill’880 in view of Uisee Technologies does not disclose a helmet of the driver; however, Wang’142 suggest a headset is reasonably go with the helmet for electronic communications (e.g., sending a wireless signal to test the vehicle, see Wang’142 col. 17 line 62 to col. 18 line 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Cahill’880 and Uisee Technologies with Wang’142 to send a recognizable wireless signal for performing a test before starting a trip to avoid any problem from that motorcycle – this kind of practice/preparation has been successfully done on vehicle to prepare for a trip.
B. Per dependent claim 27: Wang’142 suggests using a helmet (to communicate) for recognition (e.g., using a vehicle’s ID, see Wang’142 col. 17 line 62 to col. 18 line 19).
C. Per dependent claim 28: Uisee Technologies also suggests about using a sonar sensor to estimate a recognizable distance to test a motorcycle (see Uisee Technologies pg. 16 lines 1-2).
Conclusion
8. Pending claims 12-31 are still rejected. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cuong H Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-6759 (email address is cuong.nguyen@uspto.gov). The examiner can normally be reached on M - F: 10:30AM- 6:30PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, BENDIDI RACHID can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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 https//ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/CUONG H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights