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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 12-13, 15-16, 20, and 22-23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 12, 13, and 22-23 contain the acronym ASIL, acronyms should be spelled out in the first instance to facilitate understanding of the claim language.
Claim 13 contains the acronym QM acronyms should be spelled out in the first instance to facilitate understanding of the claim language.
Claims 15-16, and 20 state "and/or" which is informal verbiage and the preferred verbiage should be more simply "at least one of A and B". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 contains a copy/paste typo and recites “The device according to claim 15, any one of the preceding claims” instead of --The device according to claim 15,--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 12-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 12-23 is/are directed to the abstract idea of a mathematical concept and a mental process. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) recite(s) receiving data, determining an impairment. The rejected dependent claims only supply additional steps (mathematical calculations, and mental processes) that a processor must perform. All of these concepts relate to the abstract idea of certain methods of mathematical concepts and mental processes. The concept described in claims 12-23 is/are not meaningfully different than those methods of mathematical concepts and mental processes found by the courts to be abstract ideas. As such, the description in claims 12-23 is an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The hardware is recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of generic computer components that perform the generic functions of [e.g. "transmitting information", "generating information"] common to electronics and computer systems does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation (i.e. mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computing system).
Claims 12-23 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 12-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bechtler et. al. (US Patent Publication 2011/0066321) in view of Fink et. al. (US Patent Publication 2008/0221751) in view of ISO-26262 (ISO-26262-1, ISO-26262-9, Wikipedia-ASIL, Wikipedia-ISO-26262)
Regarding claims 12, and 23, Bechtler discloses a device for unlocking at least one function of a controller of a vehicle, comprising: a control unit operatively configured to: (¶30, 32-34)
determine that an impairment of a part relating to a safety-relevant component of the vehicle has occurred during operation of the vehicle, and that the function of the controller was locked as a safety reaction thereto, (¶34-35, 38, 44)
cause a checking program stored on a storage unit of the vehicle to be executed to check the function of the controller, (¶8-9, 41-42, 51)
unlock the function of the controller depending on a result of the checking program. (¶8-9, 41-42, 51)
Bechtler discloses the ignition cycle to determine that a check is to be performed and thus appears silent as to
Fink however teaches receive a control signal via a data interface of the vehicle; determine based on the control signal that a check of the locked function of the controller is to be performed. (¶3, 10, 24-27)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Bechtler with a control signal via a data interface of the vehicle; determine based on the control signal that a check of the locked function of the controller is to be performed as taught by Fink with a reasonable expectation of success so as to allow for testing and further because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Bechtler discloses “determining whether a … malfunction … exists. If the malfunction is no longer detected … a vehicle control system operates in a … normal operational state” (abstract) but appears to be silent as to ASIL levels.
Nevertheless the limitations of designing to an ASIL level would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. Specifically “Automotive safety integrity level (ASIL) is a risk classification scheme defined by the ISO 26262 - Functional Safety for Road Vehicles standard. … This classification helps defining the safety requirements necessary to be in line with the ISO 26262 standard” (Wiki-ASIL) and further that the ISO 26262 standard is specifically adapted for “Development and integration of automotive functionalities strengthen the need for functional safety and the need to provide evidence that functional safety objectives are satisfied.” Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to “wherein the function of the controller is designed according to a specific ASIL level and relates to the safety- relevant component of the vehicle, which safety-relevant component is designed according to the specific ASIL level; wherein the checking program and the storage unit are designed at least according to the specific ASIL level, wherein the data interface of the vehicle is designed according to a lower ASIL level than the specific ASIL level or without an ASIL level” because a person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to implement an ISO standard particularly an ISO standard to specifically increase safety.
Regarding claim 13, wherein the data interface of the vehicle is designed according to a QM level would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing as a QM level is a part of the ASIL standard. (Wiki-ASIL)
The limitations would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. Specifically “Automotive safety integrity level (ASIL) is a risk classification scheme defined by the ISO 26262 - Functional Safety for Road Vehicles standard. … This classification helps defining the safety requirements necessary to be in line with the ISO 26262 standard” (Wiki-ASIL) and further that the ISO 26262 standard is specifically adapted for “Development and integration of automotive functionalities strengthen the need for functional safety and the need to provide evidence that functional safety objectives are satisfied.” Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to “wherein the function of the controller is designed according to a specific ASIL level and relates to the safety- relevant component of the vehicle, which safety-relevant component is designed according to the specific ASIL level; wherein the checking program and the storage unit are designed at least according to the specific ASIL level, wherein the data interface of the vehicle is designed according to a lower ASIL level than the specific ASIL level or without an ASIL level” because a person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to implement an ISO standard particularly an ISO standard to specifically increase safety.
Regarding claim 14, Fink teaches wherein the control unit is further configured to: check whether the impaired part was repaired or replaced; and in reaction thereto, determine that a check of the function of the controller is to be performed. (Fig 7; ¶9, 30)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the invention of Bechtler with wherein the control unit is further configured to: check whether the impaired part was repaired or replaced; and in reaction thereto, determine that a check of the function of the controller is to be performed as taught by Fink with a reasonable expectation of success so as to allow for testing and further because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 15, Bechtler further discloses wherein the checking program is designed to: perform a current and/or voltage measurement at a connection of the controller; check a measured value of a sensor of the controller; check an availability of a sensor of the controller; and/or check an availability of an interface to an actuator of the controller. (¶40, 48, 51, 54-59, 64-65)
Regarding claim 16, Bechtler further discloses wherein: the current and/or voltage measurement is performed a connection to the safety- relevant component of the vehicle; the check of the measured value is of the at the safety-relevant component; the check of the availability is of the sensor at the safety-relevant component; and/or the check of the availability is of the interface to the actuator of the safety-relevant component. (¶38, 45-46, 66)
Regarding claim 17, Bechtler further discloses wherein the checking program is designed to check multiple different locked functions of the controller. (Fig 4; ¶46)
Regarding claim 18, Bechtler further discloses wherein the control unit is further configured to: identify a function-specific checking program for each of multiple different individual locked functions of the controller, wherein the function-specific checking programs are each designed at least according to the specific ASIL level; cause the function-specific checking programs to be executed; and unlock the individual functions of the controller depending on a result of the respective function-specific checking program. (Fig 4; ¶46)
Although Bechtler is silent as to the ASIL limitation the limitations would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling for the reasons outlined in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 19, Bechtler further discloses wherein the control unit is further configured to: check one or more conditions for the execution of the checking program; and cause the checking program to be executed when the one or more conditions are met. (¶39, 42, 45)
Regarding claim 20, Bechtler further discloses wherein the one or more conditions comprise: a condition with respect to a maximum permissible frequency for the execution of the checking program; and/or a condition with respect to a required restart of the vehicle and/or the controller before executing the checking program; and/or a condition with respect to a required minimum duration between successive executions of the checking program. (¶45)
Regarding claim 21, Bechtler does not appear to explicitly disclose components of a fuel system, nevertheless wherein the safety-relevant component is part of a pressurized container system for storing a fuel for operation of the vehicle would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because appling the ISO standard 26262 would necessarily include the electrical and/or electronic systems relating to the fuel system. (ISO-26262-1)
Regarding claim 22, wherein the device is designed at least according to the specific ASIL level. The limitation would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the same reasons as the ASIL limitations in claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN D HUTCHINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8413. The examiner can normally be reached 7-5 Mon-Thur.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/ALAN D HUTCHINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
