DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office action on the merits of Application No. 19/086,870. Claims 11-20 are pending. By preliminary amendment, claims 1-10 have been canceled.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Germany on 3/22/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the DE102024202764.2 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. The interim copy on 3/21/2025 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/27/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
(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 11-12 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lewis (US Patent Publication 20140301550).
Regarding claim 11, Lewis discloses a control system (e.g. “ECU”) for operating a drive train (paragraph [0041], “motor vehicle drivetrain”) of a motor vehicle, comprising: at least one sensor (Fig. 2, “sensor (A)”), each of the at least one sensor being configured to: acquire a measurement signal (e.g. 12) for an assembly (paragraph [0034], “fuel accumulator” and associated with drive train, paragraph [0041]), of the drive train; and transmit an actual identification signal (e.g. 13) for the respective sensor; and at least one control unit, each of the at least one control unit being configured to: receive the actual identification signal transmitted by a respective one of the at least one sensor (14); compare (15) the actual identification signal with a target identification signal for the respective one of the at least one sensor, the target identification signal being stored in the respective control unit (paragraph [0051]); receive and evaluate the measurement signal from the respective one of the at least one sensor (13); and control the operation of the drive train in at least one of an open loop manner or a closed loop manner depending on the measurement signal only when the actual identification signal corresponds to the target identification signal for the respective one of the at least one sensor (e.g. paragraph [0017], “entry into an error memory of the motor vehicle, transition into a failsafe operation of the internal combustion engine, transmission of a report to the vehicle manufacturer”).
Regarding claim 12, Lewis discloses the control system of claim 11, wherein the respective one of the at least one sensor transmits the measurement signal on a first channel, the first channel being a fast channel (Fig. 2, fast data transmission channel 10), and wherein the respective one of the at least one sensor transmits the actual identification signal on a second channel, the second channel being a slow channel Fig. 2, slow data transmission channel 11).
Regarding claim 18, Lewis discloses the control system of claim 11, wherein the at least one control unit comprises a transmission control unit of a transmission of the motor vehicle or a control unit of an electric axle of the motor vehicle (e.g. paragraph [0041], “a PSI5 interface in the area of a motor vehicle drivetrain”).
Regarding claim 19, Lewis discloses a motor vehicle, comprising the control system claim 11 (e.g. paragraph [0034]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis (US Patent Publication 20140301550) in view of Donovan (US Patent Publication 20120158335).
Regarding claim 13, Lewis discloses the control system of claim 12, wherein the respective one of the at least one sensor protocol to transmit the measurement signal and the actual identification signal (paragraph [0041], “PSI5 interface”).
Lewis does not disclose the at least one sensor uses a Single Edge Nibble Transmission.
Donovan teaches a Single Edge Nibble Transmission is a substitute for PSI5 (paragraph [0009]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lewis to incorporate a Single Edge Nibble Transmission of Donovan with a reasonable expectation of success to have the recognized advantage of having high resolution data on low cost systems.
Regarding claim 14, Lewis discloses the control system of claim 11, wherein the respective one of the at least one sensor is a sensor (paragraph [0034]).
Lewis does not disclose one of the at least one sensor is a Hall sensor.
Donovan teaches known to process sensor data of pressure sensors and Hall effect sensors (paragraph [0035]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lewis to incorporate a Hall sensor of Donovan with a reasonable expectation of success to have the recognized advantage of using a same data processing and control across multiple types of sensors.
Claims 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis (US Patent Publication 20140301550) in view of Nishikawa (US Patent Publication 20150321656).
Regarding claim 15, Lewis discloses the control system of claim 11, wherein one of the at least one sensor is a sensor (paragraph [0034], fuel injection).
Lewis does not disclose the sensor is a parking lock sensor
Nishikawa disclose is a parking lock sensor, the parking lock sensor monitoring whether a parking lock of the drive train is engaged or disengaged, the measurement signal corresponding to whether the parking lock of the drive train is engaged or disengaged (paragraph [0070]). Additionally, Nishikawa discloses controlling the fuel injection (paragraph [0035]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lewis to incorporate a parking lock sensor of Nishikawa with a reasonable expectation of success to have the recognized advantage of using a same data processing and control across multiple sensors.
Regarding claim 17, Lewis discloses the control system of claim 11, wherein one of the at least one sensor monitors.
Lewis does not disclose the sensor is a clutch.
Nishikawa disclose is a parking lock sensor, at least one sensor monitors whether a clutch of the drive train is engaged or disengaged, the measurement signal corresponding to whether the clutch of the drive train is engaged or disengaged (paragraph [0070]). Additionally, Nishikawa discloses controlling the fuel injection (paragraph [0035]). The term clutch is interpreted broad enough to include a parking lock.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lewis to incorporate a parking lock sensor of Nishikawa with a reasonable expectation of success to have the recognized advantage of using a same data processing and control across multiple sensors.
Regarding claim 20, Lewis discloses the motor vehicle of claim 19, wherein the motor vehicle is a vehicle.
Lewis does not disclose the motor vehicle is an electric vehicle.
Nishikawa disclose the motor vehicle is an electric vehicle with sensors and electric motor (paragraph [0045]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lewis to incorporate a an electric vehicle of Nishikawa with a reasonable expectation of success to have the recognized advantage of using a same data processing and control across multiple vehicle types.
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis (US Patent Publication 20140301550) in view of Matsuda (US Patent Publication 20220203962).
Regarding claim 16, Lewis discloses the control system of claim 11, wherein one of the at least one sensor is a sensor.
Lewis does not disclose the sensor is a differential lock sensor.
Matsuda discloses is a differential lock sensor, the differential lock sensor monitoring whether a differential lock of the drive train is engaged or disengaged, the measurement signal corresponding to whether the differential lock of the drive train is engaged or disengaged(paragraph [0083]). Additionally, Matsuda discloses sensors for the fuel injection (paragraph [0083]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lewis to incorporate a differential lock sensor of Matsuda with a reasonable expectation of success to have the recognized advantage of using a same data processing and control across multiple sensors.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORI WU whose telephone number is (469)295-9111. The examiner can normally be reached Tues-Thurs 8:00-5:00 CST.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571) 270-5565. 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.
/LORI WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights