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 .
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the communications filed on May 29, 2026. Claims 3-6 and 8-11 are currently pending, Claims 1-2 and 7 being cancelled.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application TW131146981, filed on December 04, 2024. Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to the declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application. No action by the applicant is required at this time.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 3-6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 3 and 8 recite: “a gyroscope configured to detect a shift in the center of gravity ‘…’ of the vehicle …”. A gyroscope cannot directly detect a shift in the center of gravity, because it measures angular velocity, but instead measures how fast an object is rotating around an axis. The gyroscope may detect the uncontrolled rotation, and send the data to the vehicle, which may indicate a collision or a change of the center of gravity. It is unclear how the gyroscope can measure the shift in the center of gravity alone.
Claims 4 and 9 recite: “wherein the condition is that the shift in the center of gravity exceeds a threshold …”. It is unclear how the shift in the center of gravity is determined, with just the use of a gyroscope. Determining the shift in the center of gravity before and during a collision requires a fusion of sensors and predictive crash systems to determine the change in the center of gravity in real-time or if a collision is deemed likely. No support for such elements appears to be provided within the written description.
Claims 4 and 9 recite: “wherein … an angle of the shift in the center of gravity is within a specific range …” and Claims 5 and 10 recite “wherein the specific range is 135 to 225 degrees and 315 to 45 degrees …”. It is unclear how the angle range is determined, or if the range merely indicates designating a frontal or rear-end collision, which causes the center of gravity to shift in the reverse or forward directions, respectively. The Examiner is interpreting this language to mean that the center of gravity shifts in a direction opposite from the impact of a collision (e.g., if a collision happens in the forward quadrant of the vehicle, the center of gravity of the vehicle will shift backwards toward the rear quadrant of the vehicle), to indicate which protection measures to activate.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 3-4, 6, 8-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0182041 A1, to Watson (hereinafter referred to as Watson), in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0370471 A1, to Bracalente, et al (hereinafter referred to as Bracalente).
As per Claim 1, and similarly for Claim 8, Watson discloses the features of a vehicle ‘…’ collision active and passive protection system (e.g. Paragraph [0030]; the safety restraint actuators (30) may include, but are not limited to, a seat belt pretensioner (32) operatively connected to a seat belt (34), a thorax air bag inflator (36), a roll curtain (38), etc., may provide protection from both rollover and side-impact crashes), comprising:
a ‘…’ collision sensor (e.g. Paragraphs [0030]-[0031]; where the rollover detection system (10) detects a vehicle rollover using accelerometers and angular rate sensors) configured to
detect whether a vehicle is involved in a collision (e.g. Paragraph [0073], [0080]; where a roll event has been detected);
a gyroscope configured to detect a shift in a center of gravity and uncontrolled rotation of the vehicle (e.g. Paragraphs [0027], [0030], [0180]; where the angular rate sensor (20) may include a gyroscope, for determining the change in angular velocity when the rotation of the vehicle causes the height (Z.sub.CG) of the center of gravity (CG) of the vehicle to increase); and
an inflatable curtain controller (e.g. Paragraph [0030]; where the processor controls the safety restraint actuators (30), including a thorax air bag inflator (36), a roll curtain (38), or an overhead air bag inflator (40)) configured to
activate the inflatable curtain to protect passengers when the vehicle collides and the shift in the center of gravity meets a condition (e.g. Paragraph [0030]; where the safety restraint actuators (30) may be adapted to deploy to provide protection responsive to rollovers or crashes to mitigate occupant injury).
Watson fails to disclose every feature of a vehicle rear collision active and passive protection system, comprising a rear bumper collision sensor.
However, Bracalente, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a method for sensing vehicle conditions, where the vehicle safety system (100) includes sensors mounted in the area of a front bumper, and one or more rear crash sensors (114) mounted rearward in the vehicle (10), for example in the area of a rear bumper, to determine of the crash has occurred from the rear (e.g. Paragraphs [0024]-[0026]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the vehicle rollover detection system Watson, with the feature of using sensors around the vehicle in the system of Bracalente, in order to determine where the impact originate from and distinguish the type of crash (see at least Paragraphs [0026] of Bracalente).
As per Claim 4, and similarly for Claim 9, Watson, in view of Bracalente, teaches the features of Claims 3 and 8, respectively, and Watson further discloses the features of wherein the condition is that the shift in the center of gravity exceeds a threshold, and an angle of the shift in the center of gravity is within a specific range (e.g. Paragraphs [0039]-[0041], [0077], [0179]-[0180]; where a rollover condition is determined if the measurement of the lateral acceleration and longitudinal angular velocity is outside a range, or if the roll angle exceeds a roll threshold; and where the lateral kinetic energy is determined to be greater than the potential energy, raising the vehicle center of gravity, and indicative of a rollover condition (i.e., shift in center of gravity exceeds a threshold)).
As per Claim 6, and similarly for Claim 11, Watson, in view of Bracalente, teaches the features of Claims 3 and 8, respectively, and Watson further discloses the features of further comprising: a seat belt controller configured to tighten a seat belt when the vehicle is involved in the collision (e.g. Paragraphs [0030]-[0031], [0060]; where the processor controls the actuation of safety restraint actuators (30), including a seat belt pretensioner (32) connected to the seatbelt (34), and may be actuated in response to detected a rollover condition).
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson, in view of Bracalente, as applied to Claims 4 and 10 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0198446 A1, to Erb, et al (hereinafter referred to as Erb).
As per Claim 5, and similarly for Claim 10, Watson, in view of Bracalente, teaches the features of Claims 4 and 10, respectively, but the combination of Watson, in view of Bracalente, fails to teach every feature of wherein the specific range is 135 to 225 degrees and 315 to 45 degrees.
However, Erb, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a vehicle safety system, where the system determines if an in-zone impact (i.e., between the A and C pillars, or a side impact), or off-zone impact has occurred (i.e., an oblique, frontal, or rear end collision) is detected, and when an off-zone collision is detected, the center of gravity shifts, and a side air bag or inflatable curtain may be deployed between the left-hand front door and an occupant in the left-hand front seat, and where if both the rate of yaw, angular, and lateral accelerations exceed respective thresholds, the safety system will output an activation signal to activate one or more passive impact protection devices (i.e., a type of collision is determined, and the zone correlates to side impacts and frontal/ oblique impacts, which correlate to roughly 90 degree quadrants for classifying a vehicle) (e.g. Paragraphs [0007], [0042]-[0044], [0050]; Figures 1, 3).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to further modify the vehicle rollover detection system Watson, in view of Bracalente, with determining a shift in the center of gravity to be within a designated range in the system of Erb, in order to which safety protection systems to activate (see at least Paragraphs [0042] of Erb).
While Watson, in view of Bracalente and Erb, do not explicitly teach the features of wherein the specific range is 135 to 225 degrees and 315 to 45 degrees, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to provide a range of 135 to 225 degrees of 315 to 45 degrees, in order to determine where an impact occurred, and activate appropriate safety mechanisms in response.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Miyata, et al (U.S. 2017/0232919 A1), which teaches a method for controlling activation of an occupant protection device.
Recknagel, et al (EP 1783007 A1), which teaches a method for activating an occupant protection system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MERRITT LEVY whose telephone number is (571)270-5595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0630-1600.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at (571) 272-9855. 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.
/MERRITT LEVY/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/KYLE J KINGSLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights