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 .
This Office Action is in response to application 19/045,796 filed on 2/5/2025.
Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending in this application. As per Preliminary Amendment filed on 2/5/2025, claims 1-13 have been amended; claims 14-20 have been newly added. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
The examiner notes the IDS(s) filed on 2/5/2025 and 5/27/2025 has been considered.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 13 of copending Application No. 19/045,844 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Instant Application 19/045,796
Application 19/045,844
Claim 1: A sensor for a vehicle, comprising:
a housing;
a measurement interface configured to capture a measurement variable of the vehicle and configured to generate raw measurement data describing the measurement variable;
a processing means which is configured to process the raw measurement data to form measurement data,
wherein the sensor has at least one protective measure against unauthorized access.
Claim 1: A sensor for a vehicle, comprising:
a housing;
a measurement interface configured to capture a measurement variable of the vehicle and designed to generate raw measurement data describing the measurement variable;
a processor which is configured to process the raw measurement data to form measurement data; a data interface which is configured to exchange data between the sensor and other transmitters or receivers and is connected to the processor for this exchange of data; and a storage section which is configured to store at least one cryptographic key and to make it available exclusively to the processor, wherein the processor is configured to use the at least one key to encrypt, decrypt, or validate data sent or received via the data interface, wherein the storage section is formed as or in a hardware security module, wherein at least one partial area or the entire sensor has shielding against wireless access as a structural protective measure, wherein the shielding of the partial area is realized by a multi-layer structure of the sensor and the partial area to be shielded is shielded by layers of further components of the sensor arranged above this partial area or by appropriately arranged shielding elements.
Claim 13: The sensor according to Claim 1, wherein the sensor is designed, as a protective measure, to detect whether an unauthorized data connection to the sensor has been or is being established.
The examiner notes that the features emphasized above anticipate what is claimed in the limitations of Claim 1 of the Instant Application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or “processing means” used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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, 5, 6, 10, 13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lewis et al. (US 2014/0304511 A1) in view of Klum et al (US 2012/0047374 A1).
Regarding Claim 1;
Lewis discloses a sensor for a vehicle ([0091] - Sensor module 100 according to the present invention is not limited to the processing of rail pressure values or temperature values. Rather, the principle according to the present invention may also be used for detecting other physical variables, in particular in a motor vehicle), comprising:
a measurement interface designed configured to capture a measurement variable of the vehicle and designed configured to generate raw measurement data describing the measurement variable ([0045]-[0047] - FIG. 1 schematically shows a sensor module 100 which is used, for example, in the automotive field for detecting at least one physical variable (pressure, temperature, etc.)... Sensor module 100 processes sensor signal SS. For example, provided that sensor signal SS is present as an analog signal such as an analog voltage, sensor module 100 carries out an analog-digital conversion, so that digital measured values SS' which represent the physical variable or sensor signal SS are obtained. These measured values SS' may be relayed to an external component 200 via a second interface unit 120. External component 200 may be, for example, a control unit of a motor vehicle and [0059]-[0060] - For example, sensor module 100 may be provided for detecting a so-called rail pressure, i.e., a pressure in a pressure accumulator (rail or common rail) of a fuel system of a motor vehicle. In addition to the rail pressure, sensor module 100 may also detect a temperature (see specific embodiment 100 according to FIG. 2) and [0063]); [and]
a processing means which is configured to process the raw measurement data to form measurement data ([0045]-[0047] - FIG. 1 schematically shows a sensor module 100 which is used, for example, in the automotive field for detecting at least one physical variable (pressure, temperature, etc.)... Sensor module 100 processes sensor signal SS. For example, provided that sensor signal SS is present as an analog signal such as an analog voltage, sensor module 100 carries out an analog-digital conversion, so that digital measured values SS' which represent the physical variable or sensor signal SS are obtained. These measured values SS' may be relayed to an external component 200 via a second interface unit 120. External component 200 may be, for example, a control unit of a motor vehicle and [0059]-[0060] - For example, sensor module 100 may be provided for detecting a so-called rail pressure, i.e., a pressure in a pressure accumulator (rail or common rail) of a fuel system of a motor vehicle. In addition to the rail pressure, sensor module 100 may also detect a temperature (see specific embodiment 100 according to FIG. 2) and [0063]).
Lewis fails to explicitly disclose:
housing; [and]
wherein the sensor has at least one protective measure against unauthorized access.
However, in an analogous art, Klum teaches
housing ([0011]); [and]
wherein [a] “device” has at least one protective measure against unauthorized access ([0013] - [0018] - Accordingly, the tamper sensitive material 106 can be disposed to protect one or more electronic components by sensing attempted access of (e.g., tampering with) the one or more electronic components).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Klum to the sensor of Lewis to include housing; [and] wherein [a] “device” has at least one protective measure against unauthorized access.
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Klum to Lewis to do so as it provides / allows physical device security “which” is essential when a device holding ... data... (Klum, [0001]).
Regarding Claim 5;
Lewis in view of Klum disclose the sensor to Claim 1.
Lewis further discloses the sensor ([0091).
Klum further teaches wherein the “device” is designed to deactivate itself when the housing is opened without authorization ([0014] - If tampering is sensed by the tamper sensitive material 106, the data within the one or more memory devices can be zeroized. In one example, the one or more memory devices holding the data can comprise volatile memory, and zeroizing the data can include removing power from the one or more memory devices, thereby removing the data from the memory).
Regarding Claim 6;
Lewis in view of Klum disclose the sensor to Claim 1.
Lewis further discloses the sensor ([0091).
Klum further teaches wherein the “device” is configured to deactivate itself non-destructively when the housing is opened without authorization ([0014] - If tampering is sensed by the tamper sensitive material 106, the data within the one or more memory devices can be zeroized. In one example, the one or more memory devices holding the data can comprise volatile memory, and zeroizing the data can include removing power from the one or more memory devices, thereby removing the data from the memory).
Similar rationale and motivation is noted for the combination of Klum to Lewis in view of Klum, as per claim 1, above.
Regarding Claim 10;
Lewis in view of Klum disclose the sensor to Claim 1.
Lewis further discloses the sensor ([0091).
Klum further teaches wherein a detection means is provided on the housing and is configured to detect the opening of the housing ([0014] - If tampering is sensed by the tamper sensitive material 106, the data within the one or more memory devices can be zeroized. In one example, the one or more memory devices holding the data can comprise volatile memory, and zeroizing the data can include removing power from the one or more memory devices, thereby removing the data from the memory and [0021] - Moreover, upon merely opening the housing 104 (e.g., separating the first part 104-1 from the PCB 102), the data in the one or more memory devices can be zeroized, thus providing increased protection for the highly protected components 108.).
Similar rationale and motivation is noted for the combination of Klum to Lewis in view of Klum, as per claim 1, above.
Regarding Claim 13;
Lewis in view of Klum disclose the sensor to Claim 1.
Lewis further discloses a vehicle, having a sensor according to Claim 1 ([0091]).
Regarding Claim 16;
Lewis in view of Klum disclose the sensor to Claim 1.
Lewis further discloses wherein the sensor is a pressure sensor, wherein the measurement variable captured via the measurement interface is a pressure ([0059]-[0060] - For example, sensor module 100 may be provided for detecting a so-called rail pressure, i.e., a pressure in a pressure accumulator (rail or common rail) of a fuel system of a motor vehicle. In addition to the rail pressure, sensor module 100 may also detect a temperature (see specific embodiment 100).
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lewis et al. (US 2014/0304511 A1) in view of Klum et al (US 2012/0047374 A1) and further in view of OuYang et al. (US 2010/0286477 A1).
Regarding Claim 2;
Lewis in view of Klum disclose the sensor to Claim 1.
Lewis further discloses the sensor ([0091).
Klum further teaches wherein at least one partial area or entirely of the “device” has shielding ([0011] - The electronic device 100 can also include a tamper sensitive material 106 (e.g., a security shield, anti-tamper material) disposed to protect one or more of the electronic Lewis in view of Klum on the PCB 102).
Similar rationale and motivation is noted for the combination of Klum to Lewis in view of Klum, as per claim 1, above.
Lewis in view of Klum fails to explicitly disclose wherein at least one partial area or entirely of the sensor has shielding against wireless access as structural protective measure.
However, in an analogous art, OuYang teaches wherein at least one partial area or entirely of the “device” has shielding against wireless access as structural protective measure ([0021] - In some instances, the visualization sensor of the visualization sensor module is present in a housing, where the housing may include a grounder outer conductive layer which serves as an RF shield component).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of OuYang to the sensor of Lewis in view of Klum to include wherein at least one partial area or entirely of the “device” has shielding against wireless access as structural protective measure.
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of OuYang to Lewis in view of Klum to do so as it provides / allows to inhibits, if not completely prevents, an ambient RF field from reaching and interacting with circuitry of the ... sensor (OuYang, [0019]).
Regarding Claim 3;
Lewis in view of Klum and OuYang disclose the sensor to Claim 2.
Lewis further discloses the sensor ([0091).
Klum and OuYang both further teach wherein the shielding of the at least one partial area is realized by shielding elements providing within the housing of the “device” or on one or more walls of the housing, or wherein the housing of the “device” includes shielding elements (Klum, [0011] - The electronic device 100 can also include a tamper sensitive material 106 (e.g., a security shield, anti-tamper material) disposed to protect one or more of the electronic components on the PCB 102 and OuYang, [0021] - In some instances, the visualization sensor of the visualization sensor module is present in a housing, where the housing may include a grounder outer conductive layer which serves as an RF shield component).
Similar rationale and motivation is noted for the combination of Klum and/or OuYang to Lewis in view of Klum and OuYang, as per claim 1 and/or 2, above.
Regarding Claim 4;
Lewis in view of Klum and OuYang disclose the sensor to Claim 2.
Lewis further discloses the sensor ([0091).
Klum further teaches wherein the shielded of the at least one partial area is realized by a multi-layer structure of the “device” and the partial area to be shieled is shielded by layers of further components of the “device” arranged above the at least one partial area or by appropriately arranged shielding elements ([0013] - In an example, the tamper sensitive material 106 can be integrated into the housing 104, for example, into the first part 104-1 of the housing 104. For example, the tamper sensitive material 106 can be integrated into the housing 104 by bonding one or more layers of the tamper sensitive material 106 to a surface of the housing 104. The tamper sensitive material 106 can be disposed about the housing 104 such that when the housing 104 is secured around the PCB 102, the tamper sensitive material 106 covers one or more of the electronic components on the PCB 102. Accordingly, the tamper sensitive material 106 can be disposed to protect one or more electronic components by sensing attempted access of (e.g., tampering with) the one or more electronic components.)
Similar rationale and motivation is noted for the combination of Klum to Lewis in view of Klum, as per claim 1, above.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lewis et al. (US 2014/0304511 A1) in view of Klum et al (US 2012/0047374 A1) and further in view of Canter (US 2016/0232109 A1).
Regarding Claim 7;
Lewis in view of Klum disclose the sensor to Claim 1.
Lewis further discloses the sensor ([0091).
Lewis in view of Klum fails to explicitly disclose wherein... is configured to be reactivated after deactivation by means of one or more cryptographic keys provided for this purpose.
However, in an analogous art, Canter teaches wherein... is configured to be reactivated after deactivation by means of one or more cryptographic keys provided for this purpose ([0019] - A user supplied key will allow encrypted data residing in the flash memory 12 to be recovered after a tamper attempt signal is input to the control circuitry 20 on a pin 24 (see below).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Canter the sensor of Lewis in view of Klum to include wherein... is configured to be reactivated after deactivation by means of one or more cryptographic keys provided for this purpose
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Canter to Lewis in view of Klum to do so as it provides / allows reprogramming (Canter, [0019]).
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lewis et al. (US 2014/0304511 A1) in view of Klum et al (US 2012/0047374 A1) and further in view of Heffner (US 2007/0157682 A1).
Regarding Claim 8;
Lewis in view of Klum disclose the sensor to Claim 1.
Lewis further discloses the sensor ([0091).
Lewis in view of Klum fails to explicitly disclose wherein the sensor is configured to permanently deactivate itself by destruction when the housing is opened without authorization.
However, in an analogous art, Heffner teaches wherein the “device” is configured to permanently deactivate itself by destruction when the housing is opened without authorization ([0021] - In some embodiments response element 114 is a thermal battery for generating sufficient heat to damage the physical components carrying the data to be protected).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Heffner the sensor of Lewis in view of Klum to include wherein the “device” is configured to permanently deactivate itself by destruction when the housing is opened without authorization
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Heffner to Lewis in view of Klum to do so as it provides / allows protecting data on electronic components (Heffner, [0019]).
Regarding Claim 9;
Lewis in view of Klum and Heffner disclose the sensor to Claim 1.
Lewis further discloses the sensor ([0091).
Heffner further teaches wherein the “device” is configured to achieve destruction by specifically overloading a circuit of the sensor ([0021] - In some embodiments response element 114 is a thermal battery for generating sufficient heat to damage the physical components carrying the data to be protected).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Heffner the sensor of Lewis in view of Klum to include wherein the “device” is configured to achieve destruction by specifically overloading a circuit of the sensor
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Heffner to Lewis in view of Klum to do so as it provides / allows protecting data on electronic components (Heffner, [0019]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lewis et al. (US 2014/0304511 A1) in view of Klum et al (US 2012/0047374 A1) and further in view of Mayor (US 2002/0027502 A1).
Regarding Claim 11;
Lewis in view of Klum disclose the sensor to Claim 1.
Lewis in view of Klum fail to explicitly disclose wherein the sensor is configured, as a protective measure, to detect whether an unauthorized data connection to the sensor has or is being established.
However, in analogous art, Mayor teaches wherein the sensor is configured, as a protective measure, to detect whether an unauthorized data connection to the sensor has or is being established. ([0013] - The optional sensors may include "reefer" (refrigeration unit) fault sensors and an unauthorized tractor trailer connection sensor. The alarm system also may include an optional pager transmitter, an automatic vehicle location interface, and a panic button receiver.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Heffner the sensor of Lewis in view of Klum to include wherein the “device” is configured to achieve destruction by specifically overloading a circuit of the sensor
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Mayor to Lewis in view of Klum to do so as it provides / allows tracking and reporting security and operational aspects ... (Mayor, [0005]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lewis et al. (US 2014/0304511 A1) in view of Klum et al (US 2012/0047374 A1) and further in view of Husslein et al. (US 2021/0354752 A1).
Regarding Claim 12;
Lewis in view of Klum disclose the sensor to Claim 1.
Lewis in view of Klum fail to explicitly disclose wherein the sensor is an angle sensor and the measurement variable captured via the measurement interface is a measurement variable which describes a rotational movement of a rotatably provided element, wherein the rotatably provided element is a steering column or an element of a vehicle steering system, from whose rotational movement a steering angle can be determined.
However, in analogous art, Husslein teaches wherein the sensor is an angle sensor and the measurement variable captured via the measurement interface is a measurement variable which describes a rotational movement of a rotatably provided element, wherein the rotatably provided element is a steering column or an element of a vehicle steering system, from whose rotational movement a steering angle can be determined ([0055] - Firstly, a measurement signal is generated by means of the torque and/or steering angle sensor 22 (step S1). Depending on the embodiment of the torque and/or steering angle sensor 22, the measurement signal contains items of information about a torque which acts in the steering column 14, and/or items of information about an angle of rotation of the steering column 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Husslein the sensor of Lewis in view of Klum to include wherein the sensor is an angle sensor and the measurement variable captured via the measurement interface is a measurement variable which describes a rotational movement of a rotatably provided element, wherein the rotatably provided element is a steering column or an element of a vehicle steering system, from whose rotational movement a steering angle can be determined
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Husslein to Lewis in view of Klum to do so as it provides / allows in which the measurement noise is reliably reduced over the entire frequency range without changing the frequency components of the useful signal (Husslein, [0007])
Claim(s) 14, 15, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lewis et al. (US 2014/0304511 A1) in view of Klum et al (US 2012/0047374 A1) and further in view of Suzuki et al. (US 20170240183 A1).
Regarding Claim 14;
Lewis in view of Klum disclose the sensor to Claim 1.
Lewis in view of Klum fail to explicitly disclose wherein the sensor is a rotation rate sensor, wherein the measurement variable captured via the measurement interface includes a yaw, pitch and/or roll rate of a vehicle, in which the sensor is provided.
However, in an analogous art, Suzuki teaches wherein the sensor is a rotation rate sensor, wherein the measurement variable captured via the measurement interface includes a yaw, pitch and/or roll rate of a vehicle, in which the sensor is provided ([0064] - The yaw rate sensor is a detector that detects a yaw rate (rotation angular velocity) around a vertical axis passing through the center of gravity of the vehicle. For example, a gyro sensor is used as the yaw rate sensor. The yaw rate sensor outputs, to the ECU 10, yaw rate information including the yaw rate of the vehicle.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Suzuki the sensor of Lewis in view of Klum to include wherein the sensor is a rotation rate sensor, wherein the measurement variable captured via the measurement interface includes a yaw, pitch and/or roll rate of a vehicle, in which the sensor is provided.
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Suzuki to Lewis in view of Klum to do so as it provides / allows detecting information depending on a running status of the vehicle (Husslein, [0060])
Regarding Claim 15;
Lewis in view of Klum disclose the sensor to Claim 1.
Lewis in view of Klum fail to explicitly disclose wherein the sensor is an acceleration sensor, wherein the measurement variable captured via the measurement interface is an acceleration.
However, in an analogous art, Suzuki teaches wherein the sensor is an acceleration sensor, wherein the measurement variable captured via the measurement interface is an acceleration ([0063] - The acceleration sensor is a detector that detects an acceleration of the vehicle. For example, the acceleration sensor includes a longitudinal acceleration sensor for detecting a longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle and a lateral acceleration sensor for detecting a lateral acceleration of the vehicle. The acceleration sensor outputs, to the ECU 10, acceleration information including the acceleration of the vehicle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Suzuki the sensor of Lewis in view of Klum to include wherein the sensor is an acceleration sensor, wherein the measurement variable captured via the measurement interface is an acceleration.
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Suzuki to Lewis in view of Klum to do so as it provides / allows detecting information depending on a running status of the vehicle (Husslein, [0060])
Regarding Claim 17;
Lewis in view of Klum disclose the sensor to Claim 1.
Lewis in view of Klum fail to explicitly disclose wherein the sensor is a force sensor, wherein the measurement variable captured via the measurement interface is a force
However, in an analogous art, Suzuki teaches wherein the sensor is a force sensor, wherein the measurement variable captured via the measurement interface is a force ([0067] - The brake pedal sensor is a detector that detects a stroke amount of a brake pedal. The stroke amount of the brake pedal is, for example, a pedal position of the brake pedal with respect to a reference position. The reference position may be a fixed position or a variable position depending on a predetermined parameter. The brake pedal sensor is provided to a shaft portion of the brake pedal, for example. The brake pedal sensor may detect an operation force of the brake pedal (e.g. force on the brake pedal, oil pressure of a master cylinder, and so force). The brake pedal sensor outputs, to the ECU 10, operation information depending on the stroke amount or the operation force of the brake pedal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Suzuki the sensor of Lewis in view of Klum to include wherein the sensor is a force sensor, wherein the measurement variable captured via the measurement interface is a force.
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Suzuki to Lewis in view of Klum to do so as it provides / allows detecting information depending on a running status of the vehicle (Husslein, [0060])
Regarding Claim 18;
Lewis in view of Klum disclose the sensor to Claim 1.
Lewis in view of Klum fail to explicitly disclose wherein the sensor is a speed sensor, wherein the measurement variable captured via the measurement interface is a speed.
However, in an analogous art, Suzuki teaches wherein the sensor is a speed sensor, wherein the measurement variable captured via the measurement interface is a speed ([0062] - [0062] The vehicle speed sensor is a detector that detects a speed of the vehicle. For example, a wheel speed sensor is used as the vehicle speed sensor. The wheel speed sensor is provided to a wheel of the vehicle or a drive shaft rotating together with the wheel and detects a rotational speed of the wheel. The vehicle speed sensor outputs, to the ECU 10, vehicle speed information (wheel speed information) including the speed of the vehicle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Suzuki the sensor of Lewis in view of Klum to include wherein the sensor is a speed sensor, wherein the measurement variable captured via the measurement interface is a speed.
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Suzuki to Lewis in view of Klum to do so as it provides / allows detecting information depending on a running status of the vehicle (Husslein, [0060])
Regarding Claim 19;
Lewis in view of Klum disclose the sensor to Claim 1.
Lewis in view of Klum fail to explicitly disclose wherein the sensor is a position sensor, wherein the measurement variable captured via the measurement interface is a position of a movable element.
However, in an analogous art, Suzuki teaches wherein the sensor is a position sensor, wherein the measurement variable captured via the measurement interface is a position of a movable element ([0067] - The brake pedal sensor is a detector that detects a stroke amount of a brake pedal. The stroke amount of the brake pedal is, for example, a pedal position of the brake pedal with respect to a reference position. The reference position may be a fixed position or a variable position depending on a predetermined parameter. The brake pedal sensor is provided to a shaft portion of the brake pedal, for example. The brake pedal sensor may detect an operation force of the brake pedal (e.g. force on the brake pedal, oil pressure of a master cylinder, and so force). The brake pedal sensor outputs, to the ECU 10, operation information depending on the stroke amount or the operation force of the brake pedal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Suzuki the sensor of Lewis in view of Klum to include wherein the sensor is a position sensor, wherein the measurement variable captured via the measurement interface is a position of a movable element.
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Suzuki to Lewis in view of Klum to do so as it provides / allows detecting information depending on a running status of the vehicle (Husslein, [0060])
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lewis et al. (US 2014/0304511 A1) in view of Klum et al (US 2012/0047374 A1) and further in view of Koyama et al. (US 2010/0059011 A1).
Regarding Claim 20;
Lewis in view of Klum disclose the sensor to Claim 1.
Lewis in view of Klum fail to explicitly disclose wherein the sensor is a level sensor, wherein the measurement variable captured via the measurement interface is a level of a vehicle body of a vehicle, in which the sensor is provided; or wherein the sensor is an oil level sensor, wherein the measurement variable captured via the measurement interface is an oil level.
However, in an analogous art, Koyama teaches wherein the sensor is a level sensor, wherein the measurement variable captured via the measurement interface is a level of a vehicle body of a vehicle, in which the sensor is provided; or wherein the sensor is an oil level sensor, wherein the measurement variable captured via the measurement interface is an oil level (Abstract and [0059])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Koyama the sensor of Lewis in view of Klum to include wherein the sensor is a level sensor, wherein the measurement variable captured via the measurement interface is a level of a vehicle body of a vehicle, in which the sensor is provided; or wherein the sensor is an oil level sensor, wherein the measurement variable captured via the measurement interface is an oil level.
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Suzuki to Lewis in view of Klum to do so as it provides / allows detection precision (Koyama, [0004]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 attached.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARI L SCHMIDT whose telephone number is (571)270-1385. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am - 6pm (MDT).
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, Luu Pham can be reached at (571)270-5002. 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.
/KARI L SCHMIDT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2439
Prosecution Insights