DETAILED ACTION
This is the First Office Action on the Merits and is directed towards claims 13-24 as preliminarily amended and filed on 04/02/2025.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Priority is claimed as set forth below, accordingly the earliest effective filing date is 11/14/2022 (20221114).
The present application, effectively 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 under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
This application is a 371 of PCT/EP2023/078952 filed on 10/18/2023, which claims priority to GERMANY Patent Application 10 2022 212 049.3 filed on 11/14/2022 (20221114).
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609 [R-07.2022], Applicant's 04/02/2025 AND 04/10/2026 submission(s) of Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)(s) is/are acknowledged by the Examiner and the reference(s) cited therein has/have been considered in the examination of the claim(s) now pending. A copy of the submitted IDS(s) initialed and dated by the Examiner is/are attached to the instant 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 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) 13, 15- 19 and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 10162689 A1 to BENZINGER, MATTHIAS et al. (hereinafter Benzinger which is cited in the 04/02/2025 IDS).
Regarding claim 13 Benzinger teaches a method for evaluating redundant signals in a motor vehicle, comprising the following steps:
comparing a first signal is compared with a second signal (in for example:
“According to a first solution, the device according to the invention contains device according to the known from the prior art directions for monitoring arranged in a vehicle Sensor means, at least a first and a second sensor tel, with which measured values for a first physical Size can be determined. I.e. the device according to the invention at least points to the detection of the first physical quantity two redundant sensors. The first and the second sensor together form a first sensor group. Furthermore points the device according to the invention providing means with those with the sensors belonging to the first sensor group processed measured values and at least two redundant evaluation means are supplied. In the least two redundant evaluation means is used to detect a fault lers that on at least one of the first sensor group belonging sensor means occurs, a comparison is carried out. For this purpose, the measured values of the first sensor means are compared with the Measured values of the second sensor means compared.”);
and comparing a result of the comparison with a threshold value (see para:
“Advantageously, we carry out the comparison at least one deviation quantity is determined, which is the deviation between the measured values of the first sensor means and the measurements values of the second sensor means describes. This deviation size is compared to an associated threshold where If there is a sensor error, the deviation variable is greater than the associated threshold. With the rejection size is, for example, a difference size, which is the difference between the measured values of the two Sensor means describes, or by a quotient size, that the Relationship between the measured values of the two sensor means writes. The use of the difference size also has the intent part that any existing offsets in the sensor signals are largely eliminated.”);
wherein the threshold value is determined depending on a statistical analysis of the first and second signals (see para:
“Advantageously, the converted measured values before they fed to the evaluation means and evaluated there, in the computer means filtered and / or processed. At correspond Adequate dimensioning of the filter media is achieved with the filtering averaged over time. By using it the mean values of the measured values determined with the sensor means te, the influence of a possible error is halved, whereby the monitoring threshold can be doubled. This can meet the requirements for the manufacture of the sensor medium be reduced.“)
and depending on information on a driving situation of the motor vehicle (see para:
“The first physical quantity is a Transverse dynamics of the vehicle descriptive size, the one steer-by-wire control device supplied as an input variable becomes. In this case, the threshold is advantageous is determined as follows: The threshold value is determined as a function of ei determined value for the maximum permissible track offset, which the vehicle should accept if an error occurs in one of the may have sensor means belonging to the first sensor group, and to no significant difference between that of the Fah the desired course and the actual driving of the vehicle leads a course. At the first physical quantity it can the lateral acceleration or the yaw rate of the Act vehicle or the steering angle or the steering wheel angle.”).
Regarding claim 15 and the limitation the method according to claim 13, wherein the statistical analysis includes at least one calculation step selected from a group including: calculating an absolute difference, calculating a moving standard deviation, calculating a moving average (see para:
“Advantageously, the converted measured values before they fed to the evaluation means and evaluated there, in the computer means filtered and / or processed. At correspond Adequate dimensioning of the filter media is achieved with the filtering averaged over time. By using it the mean values of the measured values determined with the sensor means te, the influence of a possible error is halved, whereby the monitoring threshold can be doubled. This can meet the requirements for the manufacture of the sensor medium be reduced. “).
Regarding claim 16 and the limitation the method according to claim 13, wherein the information on the driving situation is selected from a group including: integration time, vehicle velocity, safety limit, maximum expected deceleration (see paras:
“For the sensor means with which the roll or pitch movement or the longitudinal or vertical acceleration of the vehicle is determined, the threshold values can be determined accordingly Way to be set. In these cases, you may have to instead of the maximum permissible transverse offset of the vehicle other sizes can be used as a starting point….
… assuming that the lateral acceleration ay is less than or maximum equal to the ma is the maximum possible lateral acceleration.
The maximum deviation of the measured value determined using the sensor means from the measured variable corresponds to the sum of the influences listed above.Maximum measurement error = offset error+ Linearity error+ Sensitivity error+ Crosstalk errors+ g sensitivity error+ Dynamic error+ Angle error+ Vibration error+ Transformation error.”).
Regarding claim 17 and the limitation the method according to claim 13, wherein the method is carried out in conjunction with an inertial measurement unit (see paras:
“For example, the following sensor groups can be present in a vehicle:A first sensor group, the sensor means belonging to the first sensor group being a first and a second rotation rate sensor for detecting the rotational movement of the vehicle about its vertical axis, and / ora second sensor group consisting of a first and a two-th rotation rate sensor for detecting the rotational movement of the vehicle around its longitudinal axis, and / ora third sensor group consisting of a first and a two th rate sensor for detecting the rotational movement of the vehicle around its transverse axis, and / ora fourth sensor group consisting of a first and a two th acceleration sensor for detecting the lateral acceleration of the vehicle, and / ora fifth sensor group consisting of a first and a two th acceleration sensor for detecting the longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle, and / ora sixth sensor group consisting of a first and a second acceleration sensor for detecting the vertical acceleration of the vehicle, and / ora seventh sensor group consisting of a first and a two th sensor means for detecting the steering wheel angle or the steering angle of the wheels.”)
Wherein it is understood that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that these sensors connote inertial measurement sensors given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI)).
MPEP 2141.03 Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art [R-01.2024]
The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. Factors that may be considered in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art may include: (A) "type of problems encountered in the art;" (B) "prior art solutions to those problems;" (C) "rapidity with which innovations are made;" (D) "sophistication of the technology; and" (E) "educational level of active workers in the field. In a given case, every factor may not be present, and one or more factors may predominate." In re GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573, 1579, 35 USPQ2d 1116, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962, 1 USPQ2d 1196, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Environmental Designs, Ltd. V. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696, 218 USPQ 865, 868 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
"A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
The level of disclosure in the specification of the application under examination or in relevant references may also be informative of the knowledge and skills of a person of ordinary skill in the art. For example, if the specification is entirely silent on how a certain step or function is achieved, that silence may suggest that figuring out how to achieve that step or function is within the ordinary skill in the art, provided that the specification complies with 35 U.S.C. 112. Uber Techs., Inc. v. X One, Inc., 957 F.3d 1334, 1339, 2020 USPQ2d 10476 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ("The specification of the '593 patent is entirely silent on how to transmit user locations and maps from a server to a user's mobile device, suggesting that a person of ordinary skill in the art was more than capable of selecting between the known methods of accomplishing this. The '593 patent confirms that its invention, including any necessary plotting, ‘utilizes existing platforms and infrastructure’ and does not ‘require development of new cell phone or PDA technology, nor do[es it] require development of new cellular communication infrastructure.’")
The "hypothetical ‘person having ordinary skill in the art’ to which the claimed subject matter pertains would, of necessity have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art." Ex parte Hiyamizu, 10 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1988) (The Board disagreed with the examiner’s definition of one of ordinary skill in the art (a doctorate level engineer or scientist working at least 40 hours per week in semiconductor research or development), finding that the hypothetical person is not definable by way of credentials, and that the evidence in the application did not support the conclusion that such a person would require a doctorate or equivalent knowledge in science or engineering.).
References which are not prior art may be relied upon to demonstrate the level of ordinary skill in the art at or around the relevant time. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1098, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("Evidence of contemporaneous invention is probative of ‘the level of knowledge in the art at the time the invention was made.’" (citing In re Farrenkopf, 713 F.2d 714, 720, 219 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983))); Ecolochem, Inc. v. S. California Edison Co., 227 F.3d 1361, 1379, 56 USPQ2d 1065, 1079 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ("The fact of near-simultaneous invention, though not determinative of statutory obviousness, is strong evidence of what constitutes the level of ordinary skill in the art." (quoting The Int’l Glass Co. v. United States, 408 F.2d 395, 405, 159 USPQ 434, 442 (Ct. Cl. 1969))). See also Thomas & Betts Corp. v. Litton Sys., Inc., 720 F.2d 1572, 1580-81, 220 USPQ 1, 7 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("Thus, the [unpublished internal materials], though not technically prior art, were, in effect, properly used as indicators of the level of ordinary skill in the art to which the invention pertained.").
Moreover, references not available as prior art may be relevant to establishing "a motivation to combine which is implicit in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art." Nat'l Steel Car, Ltd. v. Can. Pac. Ry., Ltd., 357 F.3d 1319, 1337-38, 69 USPQ2d 1641, 1656 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that a drawing made by an engineer that was not prior art can, nonetheless, "... be used to demonstrate a motivation to combine implicit in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art.").
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are NOT imported into the claims. The Examiner must give the claim language the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) the claims allow.
See MPEP 2111.01 Plain Meaning [R-10.2024], which states
II. IT IS IMPROPER TO IMPORT CLAIM LIMITATIONS FROM THE SPECIFICATION
"Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing recent cases wherein the court expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("Inter US-20100280751-A1 1pretation of descriptive statements in a patent’s written description is a difficult task, as an inherent tension exists as to whether a statement is a clear lexicographic definition or a description of a preferred embodiment. The problem is to interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims."); Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Although the specification discussed only a single embodiment, the court held that it was improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the method claims did not impose a specific order on the performance of the method steps, and the specification did not directly or implicitly require a particular order). See also subsection IV., below. When an element is claimed using language falling under the scope of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph (often broadly referred to as means- (or step-) plus- function language), the specification must be consulted to determine the structure, material, or acts corresponding to the function recited in the claim, and the claimed element is construed as limited to the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (see MPEP § 2181- MPEP § 2186).
In Zletz, supra, the examiner and the Board had interpreted claims reading "normally solid polypropylene" and "normally solid polypropylene having a crystalline polypropylene content" as being limited to "normally solid linear high homopolymers of propylene which have a crystalline polypropylene content." The court ruled that limitations, not present in the claims, were improperly imported from the specification. See also In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("'[C]laims are not to be read in a vacuum, and limitations therein are to be interpreted in light of the specification in giving them their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.'" (quoting In re Okuzawa, 537 F.2d 545, 548, 190 USPQ 464, 466 (CCPA 1976)). The court looked to the specification to construe "essentially free of alkali metal" as including unavoidable levels of impurities but no more.).”
Regarding claim 18 and the limitation the method according to claim 17, wherein signals from at least one acceleration sensor are evaluated (see the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 17 above incorporated herein by reference).
Regarding claim 19 and the limitation the method according to claim 17, wherein signals from at least one rotation rate sensor are evaluated (see the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 17 above incorporated herein by reference, especially “a second sensor group consisting of a first and a two-th rotation rate sensor”).
Regarding claim 21 and the limitation the method according to claim 13, wherein a counter is incremented when the threshold value is exceeded (given the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) see para:
“In addition, to ensure reliable signal transmission between the sensor means and the ejector located in the control unit to ensure that there is no analog data a data bus, for example a CAN bus. Around check the function of the data transmission and thus the data bus To be able to, a so-called embassy counter can be used to determine whether the output of the measured values on the data bus without interference follows. On the other hand, in addition to the actual measured values additional redundant, predetermined information on the data Bus are issued to the recipient, for assessment the function of data transmission.”).
Regarding claim 22 and the limitation the Method according to claim 21, wherein the counter is decremented when the result of the comparison falls below threshold value (given the BRI see para:
“It is also advantageous in the first concept if the in the evaluation means filtered and / or processed measurement te and / or the results of the comparison via a bus system be fed to the control device. The second concept it is also advantageous if the in the calculator means filtered or processed measured values via a bus system in the control device included evaluation means leads. As a bus system or data bus, for example a CAN bus can be used. The use of a data bus instead of an analog data line has the advantage that the transmitted measured values not due to EMC interference falsified, which is the case with analog transmission can be. This will improve the quality of surveillance of the sen increased safety means, because it can be monitored for minor errors become. You can also set up various monitors be performed. For example, with the help of a Message counter are checked whether data is transmitted at all be. Or, with the help of a cross-check Evaluation of bit errors can be detected.”).
Regarding claim 23 and the limitation an arrangement for evaluating redundant signals in a motor vehicle, wherein the arrangement is configured to:
compare a first signal is compared with a second signal;
and compare a result of the comparison with a threshold value;
wherein the threshold value is determined depending on a statistical analysis of the first and second signals and depending on information on a driving situation of the motor vehicle (see the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 13 above incorporated herein by reference).
Regarding claim 24 and the limitation the arrangement according to claim 23, wherein the arrangement is configured for use in conjunction with an inertial measurement unit (see the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 17 above incorporated herein by reference).
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.
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.
Claim 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 10162689 A1 to BENZINGER, MATTHIAS et al. (hereinafter Benzinger which is cited in the 04/02/2025 IDS) as applied to the claims above in view of US 6282496 B1 to Chowdhary; Mahesh.
Regarding claim 14 Benzinger does not appear to expressly disclose however in analogous art Chowdhary teaches the limitation the method, wherein a random walk is first ascertained within a framework of the statistical analysis, taking into account an integration of the first and second signals over time in for example, the figures below:
PNG
media_image1.png
517
734
media_image1.png
Greyscale
And associated descriptive texts:
“(4) In an embodiment of the invention roll and pitch of the vehicle can be calculated by integrating the signals from angular rate sensors for roll, pitch and yaw axis. The roll and pitch of the vehicle, calculated in this manner can be used to transform measured accelerations for the vehicle from a non-inertial to a quasi-inertial frame of reference. The approach itself is subject to several limitations. First, any offset error or bias in an angular rate signal will produce an error in the calculated angle after integration, and this error will increase linearly with time. Second, random noise in the signals from the angular rate sensors will produce a random walk in the calculated angle after integration. In another embodiment of the invention angulation of the vehicle is more accurately determined using a combination of angular rate sensors together with accelerometers or inclinometers. The signals from these instruments can be combined to produce measurements of the angulation of the vehicle that are accurate and stable for long periods of time (e.g. SEE FIG. 3).”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the signal integration disclosed in Chowdhary with the signal filtration taught in Benzinger with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have “combined to produce measurements of the angulation of the vehicle that are accurate and stable for long periods of time” as taught by Chowdhary above.
Claims 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 10162689 A1 to BENZINGER, MATTHIAS et al. (hereinafter Benzinger which is cited in the 04/02/2025 IDS) as applied to the claims above in view of US 20210263535 A1 to Fendt; Günter Anton.
Regarding claim 20 Benzinger does not appear to expressly disclose however in analogous art Fendt teaches the limitation the wherein the method is used in an autonomously operated vehicle, wherein faults relevant to autonomous driving scenarios are taken into account (in for example paras:
“[0040] In normal operation, the first vehicle-relevant data and in operation in the event of a fault the second vehicle-relevant data may accomplish autonomous driving-in-a-group operation. Normal operation means that the data transmitting interface is functional and the following vehicle that is tracking behind receives the first data. Operation in the event of a fault means a fault or failure of the data transmitting interface or of the first transmission medium.
[0054] In some embodiments, in normal operation the first vehicle-relevant data are used and in operation in the event of a fault the second vehicle-relevant data are used for autonomous driving operation in a group.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Fendt with the vehicle taught in Benzinger with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have “more reliable driving safety” as taught by Fendt Para(s):
“[0038] In some embodiments, in the event of a sporadic disruption of the data transmitting interface, for example in a radio-based data transmitting interface, due to jammers or other frequencies that are generated by other systems operating in the same frequency range or by mixed frequencies and harmonics and/or by systems without interference suppression or faulty systems, the second data receiving interface is still available as a substitute for receiving the second redundant data. With the additional second data receiving interface, an alternative communication can take place immediately without loss of time, since the second data receiving interface is already included in the non-fault situation between the vehicles immediately following one another and ensures permanent parallel data transmission. This contributes to more reliable driving safety in the group.”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as teaching, inter alia, the state of the art of evaluating redundant signals at the time of the invention. For example:
US 6073262 A to Larkin; Louis J. et al. teaches, inter alia a Method and apparatus for estimating an actual magnitude of a physical parameter on the basis of three or more redundant signals in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
PNG
media_image2.png
427
756
media_image2.png
Greyscale
“An apparatus includes at least three redundant signals each indicative of a sensed magnitude of a parameter. Parity space and fuzzy logic techniques may be used to provide a signal representing an estimate of the actual magnitude of the parameter. A method for generating an estimate of an actual magnitude of a parameter provides at least three redundant signals may use parity space and fuzzy logic to produce a signal representing an estimate of the actual magnitude of the parameter.”.
US 6317666 B1 to List; Helmut et al. teaches, inter alia a Method for analyzing the driveability of motor vehicles in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“This invention relates to a procedure for analyzing and influencing the driveability of motor vehicles, including the following steps:
Conducting tests on a real vehicle to obtain measurement variables describing its driveability;
Continuous monitoring to check whether at least one of a number of predefined trigger conditions is fulfilled, i.e., whether a certain set of variables takes on certain values;
If the trigger condition is fulfilled, computation of a profile of several ratings representing vehicle driveability from one or more measured values, using predefined functional relationships.
An improvement of analysis and control is achieved by deriving from the measurements at least one variable representing the type of driver of the vehicle concerned, and by determining the value of at least one control variable influencing vehicle driveability as a function of the value of the driver-related variable, such that the profile of the several ratings closely approaches a predetermined profile depending on the variable representing the type of driver.”.
US 6625527 B1 to Ding; Eve Limin et al. teaches, inter alia a Sensor system with monitoring device in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“A sensor system with monitoring device wherein the sensor system includes at least two redundant sensors for gathering a process reference variable or process measured variable of a process, and in that the monitoring device includes a first subtractor for producing a first difference between the sensor output signals, a first and a second differentiator for the time derivative of the sensor output signals, a second subtractor for producing a second difference between the differentiated sensor output signals, and a fault analysis device by which the first and the second difference is respectively compared with a predeterminable first or second threshold value, and a fault message is produced when at least one of the differences exceeds the threshold value concerned.”.
CN 117734599 A to KAHLE, I et al. teaches, inter alia Method and apparatus for operating a vehicle for highly automated driving in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
PNG
media_image3.png
407
548
media_image3.png
Greyscale
“The invention relates to a method for operating a highly automated driving vehicle. In the reading step, a plurality of redundant sensor signals are read from interfaces of a plurality of redundant vehicle sensors. In the calculating step, the reference signal is calculated by using the sensor signals. In the forming step, a difference between each sensor signal and a reference signal is formed to generate a difference characteristic value representing the difference. In the performing step, a comparison of the difference characteristic value and the evaluation threshold value is performed so as to generate an evaluation result for each sensor signal. The evaluation threshold is located between a predefined safety threshold for a safety critical deviation of the sensor signal and a predefined safety threshold for a measured tolerance related deviation of the sensor signal. In the determining step, an evaluation parameter of the sensor signal is determined based on the evaluation result. In the providing step, output data including sensor signals and evaluation parameters is provided for output to an interface to a vehicle device for highly automated driving for operation of the vehicle.”.
US 6879969 B2 to Engstrom; Johan et al. teaches, inter alia a System and method for real-time recognition of driving patterns in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“System and method for real-time, automatic, recognition of large time-scale driving patterns employs a statistical pattern recognition framework, implemented by means of feed-forward neural network utilizing models developed for recognizing, for example, four classes of driving environments, namely highway, main road, suburban traffic and city traffic, from vehicle performance data. A vehicle control application effects changes in vehicle performance aspects based on the recognized driving environment.”.
US 20130103252 A1 to Bentele-Calvoer; Stephan et al. teaches, inter alia a METHOD AND DEVICE FOR RECOGNIZING A DEVIATION OF A YAW-RATE SIGNAL OF A YAW-RATE SENSOR in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“A method for recognizing a deviation of a yaw-rate signal of a sensor of a vehicle is proposed which includes a step of receiving a piece of information regarding a linear acceleration of the vehicle, and a step of receiving the yaw-rate signal, which represents a yaw rate of the vehicle. A step of analyzing the yaw-rate signal takes place when the linear acceleration is smaller than a first threshold value, in order to recognize the deviation of the yaw-rate signal.”.
US 20170089723 A1 to Heide; Dirk et al. teaches, inter alia METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR VERIFYING MEASURED DATA in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“The disclosure relates to a method for verifying measured data from at least one sensor system. The measured data directly or indirectly describe values of physical quantities The values of indirectly described physical quantities are calculated from the measured data and/or from known physical and/or mathematical relationships. At least three values describing an identical quantity are subjected in pairs to a mutual comparison. In addition, at least two of the at least three values describing an identical quantity are determined independently of one another by at least one sensor system. A third value describing an identical quantity is determined by a basic sensor system. The disclosure further relates to a corresponding system and a use of the system.”.
US 20180372506 A1 to KÜPPER; Achim teaches, inter alia a METHOD FOR MONITORING AT LEAST TWO REDUNDANT SENSORS in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“The invention relates to a method for monitoring at least two redundant sensors, which are in particular arranged in a chemical plant or an aircraft, comprising providing a first sensor signal of a first sensor, the first sensor signal comprising at least one measured value, providing at least one further sensor signal from a further sensor, the further sensor signal comprising at least one further measured value, generating a first analysis signal from the first sensor signal, generating at least one further analysis signal from the further sensor signal, determining at least one relationship between the first sensor signal and the further sensor signal at least in dependence on the first analysis signal and the further analysis signal over a time horizon, comparing the relationship with at least one admissible range, and, depending on the result of the comparison, determining whether at least one sensor of the two redundant sensors is faulty.”.
US 20180045832 A1 to Ibrahim; Faroog et al. teaches, inter alia Positioning quality filter for the V2X technologies in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“This provides methods and systems for V2X applications, such as forward collision warning, electronic emergency brake light, left turn assist, work zone warning, signal phase timing, and others, mainly relying on a GNSS positioning solution transmitted via the Dedicated Short-Range Communications (DSRC) to/from the roadside units and onboard units in other V2X-enabled vehicles. However, the positioning solution from a GNSS may be deteriorated by noise and/or bias due to various error sources, e.g., time delay, atmospheric effect, ephemeris effect, and multipath effect. This offers a novel quality filter that can detect noise and the onset of drift in GNSS signals by evaluating up to four metrics that compare the qualities of kinematic variables, speed, heading angle change, curvature, and lateral displacement, obtained directly or derived from GNSS and onboard vehicle sensors. This is used for autonomous cars and vehicle safety, with various examples/variations.”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LAWSON GREENE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-6876. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-THUR 7-5:30PM (EST) or via email at DanielL.GreeneJr@USPTO.GOV under the guidance of MPEP [R-09.2017] Section 502.03 Communications via Internet Electronic Mail (email) [R-07.2015].
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached on (571) 272-7298. 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.
/DANIEL L GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665 20261003
