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 .
Abstract Objections
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract uses phrases which can be implied, such as “The invention relates to” and legal phraseology, such as “by means of.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “a computer program product” should be “[[a]]the computer program product” since the limitation is already recited in claim 10.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 8 recite an abstract idea in the form of mental processes without significantly more.
Regarding eligibility step 1, the claimed invention of claims 1 and 8 falls into at least one of the enumerated categories of processes and apparatuses. Therefore, claims 1 and 8 pass step 1.
Proceeding to eligibility step 2A, the claimed invention of claims 1 and 8 is directed to a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of an abstract idea. The claimed invention of claims 1 and 8 is directed to processes that compare the differential signal with at least one threshold value and determine that the differential signal exceeds the at least one threshold value using generic computer components which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 1 and 8 recite an element – taking or carrying out a measure. The term “measure” is not further limited such that it amounts to no more than insignificant extra solution activity including data transmitting or outputting. Accordingly, this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Proceeding to eligibility step 2B, claims 1 and 8 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the element of taking or carrying out a measure amounts to no more than insignificant extra solution activity. Insignificant extra solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claims 1 and 8 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7 and 9, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, if any, in the dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with claims 1 and 8.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 10 does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the recitation “a computer program product for the control device (3) according to Claim 8, the computer program product including executable code,” given its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses transitory media, such as signals, carrier waiver, or the like. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Claim 11 suggests that “computer program product” as recited in claim 10 encompasses a signal by reciting “A data carrier with a computer program product according to claim 10.”
Claim 11 does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the recitation “A data carrier with a computer program product,” given its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses transitory media, such as signals, carrier waiver, or the like. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nada (US 2001/0029414 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nada discloses a method for checking the plausibility of a parameter involved in operation of a vehicle system of a motor vehicle, comprising:
checking the plausibility of the parameter sensed by a first sensor by means of a second sensor (Nada at para. [0077]: “Fault Detection for Accelerator sensors”; para. [0078]: “The accelerator Sensor 165 comprises two sensors 165a and 165b having different characteristics”), wherein the second sensor likewise senses the parameter, by the examination of a first sensor signal (n(S1)) from the first sensor with a second sensor signal (n(S2)) from the second sensor (Nada at para. [0078]: “The output signals AP1 and AP2 of the two sensors 165a and 165b are inputted to the master control CPU 272”), wherein checking the plausibility comprises:
forming a differential signal (Δn) between the first sensor signal (n(S1)) and the second sensor signal (n(S2)) (Nada at para. [0101]: “FIG. 9 shows variations induced in an output signal when a fault event No. 5 (Differential Fault) has occurred in the two accelerator sensors 165a and 165b);
comparing the differential signal with at least one threshold value (thd1, thd2) (Nada at para. [0101]: “The difference between the two output signals AP1 and AP2 must lie within a Substantially constant appropriate range when the accelerator Sensors operate normally”); and
determining that the differential signal (Δn) exceeds the at least one threshold value (thd1, thd2) continuously for longer than a particular amount of time (tft1, tft2) associated with the at least one threshold value (thd1, thd2) (Nada at para. [0102]: “The fault detector 272a concludes that the sensor 165a or 165b has developed a fault (time t5) if it is confirmed that the irregular difference has persisted for a predetermined period Δt5”); and
taking a measure (Nada at para. [0103]: “The master control CPU 272 determines the accelerator opening on the basis of the normally operating Second sensor 165b without using the faulty first sensor 165a beyond the time t5. Consequently, the vehicle can be continuously controlled even when one of the two sensors 165a and 165b develops a fault”).
Regarding claim 2, Nada discloses the method according to claim 1.
Nada further discloses comprising:
comparing the differential signal (Δn) with a first threshold value (thd1) and a second threshold value (thd2) (Nada at para. [0101]: “FIG. 9 shows variations induced in an output signal when a fault event No. 5 (Differential Fault) has occurred in the two accelerator sensors 165a and 165b. The difference between the two output signals AP1 and AP2 must lie within a Substantially constant appropriate range when the accelerator Sensors operate normally”; The appropriate range must have a lower limit and an upper limit (i.e., “first threshold value” and “second threshold value”));
wherein the measure is carried out when the differential signal (Δn) either exceeds the first threshold value (thd1) continuously for longer than a first amount of time (tft1) associated with the first threshold value (thd1) (Nada at para. [0102]: “The fault detector 272a concludes that the sensor 165a or 165b has developed a fault (time t5) if it is confirmed that the irregular difference has persisted for a predetermined period Δt5”; para. [0103]: “The master control CPU 272 determines the accelerator opening on the basis of the normally operating Second sensor 165b without using the faulty first sensor 165a beyond the time t5. Consequently, the vehicle can be continuously controlled even when one of the two sensors 165a and 165b develops a fault”) or exceeds the second threshold value (thd2) continuously for longer than a second amount of time (tft2) associated with the second threshold value (thd2).
Regarding claim 3, Nada discloses the method according to claim 2.
Nada further discloses wherein the second threshold value (thd2) is selected to be greater than the first threshold value (thd1) (Nada at para. [0101]: “FIG. 9 shows variations induced in an output signal when a fault event No. 5 (Differential Fault) has occurred in the two accelerator sensors 165a and 165b. The difference between the two output signals AP1 and AP2 must lie within a Substantially constant appropriate range when the accelerator Sensors operate normally”; The appropriate range must have an upper limit (i.e., “second threshold”) selected to be greater than a lower limit (i.e., “first threshold value”)) and the first amount of time (tft1) is selected to be greater than the second amount of time (tft2) (This limitation is treated as an alternative element since the limitation is further limiting the alternative element of claim 2, “exceeds the second threshold value (thd2) continuously for longer than a second amount of time (tft2) associated with the second threshold value (thd2)”).
Regarding claim 4, Nada discloses the method according to claim 2.
Nada further discloses wherein comparing the differential signal (Δn) with the first threshold value (thd1) and with the second threshold value (thd2) are performed in parallel (Nada at para. [0101]: “FIG. 9 shows variations induced in an output signal when a fault event No. 5 (Differential Fault) has occurred in the two accelerator sensors 165a and 165b. The difference between the two output signals AP1 and AP2 must lie within a Substantially constant appropriate range when the accelerator Sensors operate normally”; The appropriate range must have a lower limit and an upper limit (i.e., “first threshold value” and “second threshold value”) and the difference between the two output signals (i.e., “differential signal”) is compared to the lower limit and the upper limit of the appropriate range in parallel).
Regarding claim 5, Nada discloses the method according to claim 1.
Nada further discloses comprising generating a request (15) for emergency operation as the measure, in which safe operation of the motor vehicle is carried out (Nada at para. [0103]: “The master control CPU 272 determines the accelerator opening on the basis of the normally operating Second sensor 165b without using the faulty first sensor 165a beyond the time t5. Consequently, the vehicle can be continuously controlled even when one of the two sensors 165a and 165b develops a fault”).
Office Note: The limitation “in which safe operation of the motor vehicle is carried out” is not given patentable weight because the limitation simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited (See MPEP § 2111.04).
Regarding claim 6, Nada discloses the method according to Claim 1.
Nada further discloses comprising determining a rotational speed of a drive motor of the motor vehicle as a parameter (Nada at para. [0103]: “The master control CPU 272 determines the accelerator opening on the basis of the normally operating Second sensor 165b without using the faulty first sensor 165a beyond the time t5”; para. [0113]: “FIG. 12 shows a method for setting the accelerator opening AOP when one of two accelerator Sensors has developed a fault”; para. [0118]: “FIG. 13 shows an example of maps showing relation between a torque command value and a vehicle Speed, one of which is to be selected in accordance with the accelerator opening AOP”; para. [0119]: “The torque command value Tr is set based on the map if the accelerator opening AOP is Set in accordance with the method of FIG. 12. The master control CPU 272 sets the rotational Speeds and torque distribution of the three prime movers 150, MG1, and MG2 in accordance with the torque command value Tr and vehicle Speed”; The rotational speeds of the motors are determined in accordance with the torque command value Tr and vehicle speed, which are determined based on the accelerator opening, which is determined based on the sensor output of the non-faulty sensor).
Regarding claim 7, Nada discloses the method according to Claim 6.
Nada further discloses comprising incorporating the parameter into a control or a control system for at least one safety function of the vehicle system (1) (Nada at para. [0119]: “The torque command value Tr is set based on the map if the accelerator opening AOP is Set in accordance with the method of FIG. 12. The master control CPU 272 sets the rotational Speeds and torque distribution of the three prime movers 150, MG1, and MG2 in accordance with the torque command value Tr and vehicle Speed”).
Regarding claim 8, Nada discloses a transmission control device (3) (Nada at para. [0048]: “The control system 200 comprises a main ECU 210, a brake ECU 220, a battery ECU 230, and an engine ECU 240”) configured to determine a parameter which can be incorporated during operation of a vehicle system (1) (Nada at para. [0078]: “The accelerator Sensor 165 comprises two sensors 165a and 165b having different characteristics”), wherein the control device (3) is configured to detect the parameter via a first sensor and to check the plausibility of the parameter via a second sensor which also detects the parameter (Nada at para. [0077]: “Fault Detection for Accelerator sensors”; para. [0078]: “The accelerator Sensor 165 comprises two sensors 165a and 165b having different characteristics”), for which purpose the control device (3) inspects a first sensor signal (n(S1)) of the first sensor with a second sensor signal (n(S2)) of the second sensor (Nada at para. [0078]: “The output signals AP1 and AP2 of the two sensors 165a and 165b are inputted to the master control CPU 272”) by forming a differential signal (Δn) between the first sensor signal (n(S1)) and the second sensor signal (n(S2)) and comparing it with at least one threshold value (thd1, thd2) (Nada at para. [0101]: “FIG. 9 shows variations induced in an output signal when a fault event No. 5 (Differential Fault) has occurred in the two accelerator sensors 165a and 165b. The difference between the two output signals AP1 and AP2 must lie within a Substantially constant appropriate range when the accelerator Sensors operate normally”), and wherein the control device (3) is configured to carry out a measure if the difference signal (Δn) continuously exceeds the at least one threshold value (thd1, thd2) for longer than an amount of time (tft1, tft2) associated with the at least one threshold value (thd1, thd2) (Nada at para. [0102]: “The fault detector 272a concludes that the sensor 165a or 165b has developed a fault (time t5) if it is confirmed that the irregular difference has persisted for a predetermined period Δt5”; para. [0103]: “The master control CPU 272 determines the accelerator opening on the basis of the normally operating Second sensor 165b without using the faulty first sensor 165a beyond the time t5. Consequently, the vehicle can be continuously controlled even when one of the two sensors 165a and 165b develops a fault”).
Regarding claim 9, Nada discloses the control device (3) according to claim 8.
Nada further discloses wherein the control device is further configured to carry out the method according to Claim 2 (See rejections regarding claim 2).
Regarding claim 10, Nada discloses a computer program product for the control device (3) according to Claim 8.
Nada further discloses the computer program product including executable code that is configured to check the plausibility of a parameter implemented by following steps (Nada at para. [0010]: “computer programs for executing the functions of Such control devices and methods”):
checking the plausibility of the parameter sensed by a first sensor by means of a second sensor (Nada at para. [0077]: “Fault Detection for Accelerator sensors”; para. [0078]: “The accelerator Sensor 165 comprises two sensors 165a and 165b having different characteristics”), wherein the second sensor likewise senses the parameter, by the examination of a first sensor signal (n(S1)) from the first sensor with a second sensor signal (n(S2)) from the second sensor (Nada at para. [0078]: “The output signals AP1 and AP2 of the two sensors 165a and 165b are inputted to the master control CPU 272”) wherein checking the plausibility comprises:
forming a differential signal (Δn) between the first sensor signal (n(S1)) and the second sensor signal (n(S2)) (Nada at para. [0101]: “FIG. 9 shows variations induced in an output signal when a fault event No. 5 (Differential Fault) has occurred in the two accelerator sensors 165a and 165b);
comparing the differential signal with at least one threshold value (thd1, thd2) (Nada at para. [0101]: “The difference between the two output signals AP1 and AP2 must lie within a Substantially constant appropriate range when the accelerator Sensors operate normally”); and
determining that the differential signal (Δn) exceeds the at least one threshold value (thd1, thd2) continuously for longer than a particular amount of time (tft1, tft2) associated with the at least one threshold value (thd1, thd2) (Nada at para. [0102]: “The fault detector 272a concludes that the sensor 165a or 165b has developed a fault (time t5) if it is confirmed that the irregular difference has persisted for a predetermined period Δt5”); and
taking a measure (Nada at para. [0103]: “The master control CPU 272 determines the accelerator opening on the basis of the normally operating Second sensor 165b without using the faulty first sensor 165a beyond the time t5. Consequently, the vehicle can be continuously controlled even when one of the two sensors 165a and 165b develops a fault”).
Regarding claim 11, Nada discloses a data carrier with a computer program product according to claim 10 (Nada at para. [0010]: “data Signals embodied in a carrier wave including Such computer programs”; See rejections of claim 10).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be found in the attached PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JISUN CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-0710. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Scott Browne can be reached at (571)270-0151. 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.
/JISUN CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights