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 .
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121 (d) are required in this application because Figs 1-2 shows only generic flow charts with no information presented in each element of the chart. Applicants' invention is unclear from the drawings because a number of methods may fit the same flow diagram. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "an ignition circuit" in line 2. The clause suffers from double inclusion with claim 1 recitation “an ignition circuit.”
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.
Claim(s) 1-4,6-7,11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Katz et al US 2013/0179042.
In Re 1, Katz teaches
An airbag control unit (204,218 fig 2), comprising:
a communication module (construed as the portion of 200 that communicates signals in and out) configured to receive a switch state configuration signal (304 fig 3) including, a configuration request for a switch state (Yes of 304) of an anti-rollover function suppression switch of an anti-rollover function (either first or second roll rate threshold function per fig 4);
a judgment module (310) configured to judge a the validity of the switch state configuration signal; and
a control module configured to control an ignition circuit (inherent to airbag deployment) associated with the anti-rollover function (figs 14-15,21-22) according to the switch state requested to be configured in the switch state configuration signal when the judgment module determines it is determined that the switch state configuration signal is valid (310 Yes, Valid off road mode with slow speed during off road).
2. (Currently amended) The airbag control unit of Claim 1, wherein the ignition circuit associated with the anti-rollover function comprises an airbag (paras 14-15,21-22) ignition circuit.
4. (Currently amended) The airbag control unit of Claim 3 wherein controlling the ignition circuit associated with the anti-rollover function according to the switch state requested to be configured in the switch state configuration signal comprises:
when the configuration request of the switch state is an OFF state (304 no), the ignition circuit associated with the anti-rollover function is controlled to permit deployment of the safety components (306 first roll rate threshold function which includes airbag deployment at lower roll rate, e.g. the airbags would be deployed sooner than when offroading).
6. (Currently amended) The airbag control unit of Claim 1includingadetermine a judgment result indicating
7. (Currently amended) The airbag control unit of Claim 1
when the judgment module determines the judgment module determines
judging whether aa
11. (Currently amended) The airbag control unit of Claim 1 athe judgment module determines
12. (Currently amended) The airbag control unit of Claim 1 when the communication module receives a sensor signal indicating that a vehicle is about to experience an event more dangerous than rollover (front or side or rear collision para 15, where airbag deployment delay is overrode and deployed even when vehicle not in roll over condition).
13. (Currently amended) The airbag control unit of Claim 1, wherein the control module is configured to:generate a return signal, which includes a judgment result of whether the switch state configuration signal is valid, and when the judgment result is that the switch state configuration signal is invalid, the return signal also includes a penalty time,wherein, the penalty time refers to when [[:]] if the switch state configuration signal is determined to be invalid, a
14. (Currently amended) An airbag system for a vehicle (fig 1 abstract), comprising: a human-machine interface (para 23 user input); the anti-rollover function suppression switch; and the airbag control unit of Claim 1 (see claim 1)
15. (Currently amended) The airbag system of Claim 14, wherein the anti-rollover function suppression switch is configured as one of (Markush)[[:]] (i) an operable virtual button capable of being presented on the human-machine interface _ii)[[;]] an operable physical switch [[;]] and (iii)a smart switch that is automatically configured (figs 3-5).
16. (Currently amended) The airbag system of Claim 14, further comprising: an indicator light configured to indicate a
17. (Currently amended) The airbag system of Claim 14, further comprising: a sensor (sensor para 15) configured to detect parameters capable of indicating whether the vehicle is about to experience a collision event.
18. (Currently amended) A method for controlling an airbag system, comprising:receiving a switch state configuration signal including aanaan
19 (Currently amended) A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium (para 32) having executable instructions (figs 3-5) stored thereon that, when executed, cause one or a plurality of processors to perform the method according to Claim 18.
20. (Currently amended) The method of Claim 18, wherein a [[A]] computer program product (para 32) includes causes.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katz et al US 2013/0179042 in view of Nunan et al US 2010/0152949.
In Re 5, Katz teaches the airbag control unit comprises in anevent (collision paras 27-28) that conditions for deploying safety components are satisfied and deployment of the safety components is suppressed (in a collision with suppressed airbag’s under thresholds), and the safety components include airbags.
Katz does not teach however Nunan teaches a vehicle event data recording module (fig 1) configured to record a deployment failure event (step 60 fig 2, in the case of a vehicle event detection, paras 25, 30, the data for the event will be saved even if airbag’s suppressed). Nunan further teaches event recording advantageously allows for reconstruction of collision or accidents para 32. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ) to add Nunan’s vehicle event recording module to Katz’s vehicle to reconstruct accidents.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
wherein judging the validity of the switch state configuration signal comprises: determining a judgment result indicating judging whether a the number of message frames corresponding to the received switch state configuration signal is greater than or equal to a frame number threshold; when [[If]] the judgment result is affirmative, a message with a predetermined number of frames is selected from the received multi-frame messages and one or more of the following judgments are [[is]] performed on the selected message frame; [[.]] If when the results of each judgment are affirmative, the judgment module determines it is judged that the switch state configuration signal is valid, and when the result of at least one judgment is negative, the judgment module determines it is judged that the switch state configuration signal is invalid:[[-]] judging whether errors have occurred during the transmission and storage of each frame of the message;[[-]] judging whether a the field representing athe receiving object of each frame of the message matches a predetermined field; and judging whether the values of the switch states representing the requests in each frame of the message are equal;
wherein the control module is configured to: determine a penalty time when the judgment module determines it is determined that the switch state configuration signal is invalid, wherein the penalty time refers to when the judgment module determines [[:]] If the switch state configuration signal is determined to be invalid, the delay duration after which the anti-rollover function suppression switch can be configured again;
wherein determining the penalty time comprises: when a [[If]] the following judgment result occurs two or more times in succession, the penalty time is determined as athe first delay duration, wherein an : An error occurs during the transmission and storage of the message or a field in the message indicating the receiving object of the message does not match a predetermined field; when a [[If]] the following judgment result occurs, the penalty time is determined as the second delay duration, wherein : The values of the switch states indicated by the requests in the multi-frame messages are not equal; wherein the first delay duration is greater than the second delay duration.
Further the instant invention is novel in that the solution is an airbag control unit that first validates a switch-state configuration request before using it to control a rollover-related ignition circuit. The control unit accepts multi-frame configuration messages, checks them for validity, and only then applies the requested on/off state. If the request is invalid, it can ignore it, fall back to the last valid state, or enforce a temporary penalty delay before another configuration attempt. The system can also automatically release suppression if sensor data indicates a more dangerous event than rollover per model: gpt-5.4-mini summary was generated using USPTO Scout LLM. Scout LLM can make mistakes.
Conclusion
Add application numbers to correspondence to aid examination.
The following are suggested formats for either a Certificate of Mailing or Certificate of Transmission under 37 CFR 1.8(a). The certification may be included with all correspondence concerning this application or proceeding to establish a date of mailing or transmission under 37 CFR 1.8(a). Proper use of this procedure will result in such communication being considered as timely if the established date is within the required period for reply. The Certificate should be signed by the individual actually depositing or transmitting the correspondence or by an individual who, upon information and belief, expects the correspondence to be mailed or transmitted in the normal course of business by another no later than the date indicated.
Certificate of Mailing
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being deposited with the United States Postal Service with sufficient postage as first class mail in an envelope addressed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
on __________.
(Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate:
________________________________________________________
Signature: ______________________________________
Certificate of Transmission by Facsimile
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being facsimile transmitted to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Fax No. (___)_____ -_________ on _____________. (Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate:
_________________________________________
Signature: ________________________________________
Certificate of Transmission via USPTO Patent Electronic Filing System
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being transmitted via the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) patent electronic filing system to the USPTO
on _____________.
(Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate:
_________________________________________
Signature: ________________________________________
Please refer to 37 CFR 1.6(a)(4), 1.6(d) and 1.8(a)(2) for filing limitations concerning transmissions via the USPTO patent electronic filing system, facsimile transmissions and mailing, respectively.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure concerning roll over collision and collision detection and data validation in land vehicles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL C STAUBACH whose telephone number is (571)272-3748. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Interview Agendas can be faxed to examiner at (571)273-3748.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/CARL C STAUBACH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights