VWGoA - Ex. 1009
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Petitioner
`Case No. IPR2015-00276
`1
`
`
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Petitioner
`Case No. IPR2015-00276
`1
`
`
`
` TJNI TED S TATES PATEN T AND TRADEWK QFFI CE
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O.BD}{145U
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`vuwmusptogov
`
`DO NOT USE IN PALM PRINTER
`
`(THIRD PARTY REQUESTER‘S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS)
`
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`
`ONE BROADWAY
`
`NEW YORK, NY 10004
`
`EX PARTE REEXAMINATION COMMUNICATION TRANSMI'I'I'AL FORM
`
`REEXAMINATION CONTROL NO. 90/013252.
`
`PATENT NO. 5954 781.
`
`ART UNIT 3992.
`
`Enclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office in the above identified ex parte reexamination proceeding (37 CFR 1.550(f)).
`
`Where this copy is supplied after the reply by requester, 37 CFR 1.535, or the time for filing a
`reply has passed, no submission on behalf of the ex parte reexamination requester will be
`acknowledged or considered (37 CFR 1.550(9)).
`
`PTOL-465 (Rev.O7-O4)
`
`2
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/013,252
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`1.
`
`The present application is being examined under the pre—AIA first to invent provisions.
`
`DECISION GRANTING EX PARTE REEXAMINATION
`
`A Request for ex parte reexamination affecting claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15 and
`
`17 — 32 of United States Patent Number 5,954,781 (hereafter “the ‘781 Patent”) has been
`
`submitted on 05/22/2014.
`
`Extensions of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) will not be permitted in these proceedings
`
`because the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136 apply only to "an applicant" and not to parties in a
`
`reexamination proceeding. Additionally, 35 U.S.C. 305 requires that ex parte reexamination
`
`proceedings "will be conducted with special dispatch" (37 CFR 1.550(a)). Extensions of time in
`
`ex parte reexamination proceedings are provided for in 37 CFR 1.550(c).
`
`Prosecution History
`
`The ‘781 Patent was issued on September 21 1999 from US Application Serial No.
`
`08/813,270, hereinafter “the ‘270 Application”, filed on March 10, 1997.
`
`The prosecution history of the ‘781 Patent includes:
`
`The '270 application was filed on March 10, 1997 with 32 claims, of which application
`
`claims 1, 14, 18, and 27 were the only independent claims. Among these independent claims,
`
`application claim 1 included a fuel overinjection circuit, application claim 14 included a fuel
`
`overinjection circuit, an upshift notification circuit, and a downshift notification circuit,
`
`3
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/013,252
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`application claim 18 included a vehicle proximity alarm, and application claim 27 included a fuel
`
`overinjection circuit and a vehicle proximity alarm.
`
`In the only Office Action, dated August 6, 1998, application claims 1, 2 and 4 to 6 were
`
`rejected as obvious in view of US. Patent No. 4,901,701 to Chasteen (copy attached as Exhibit
`
`3), application claim 3 was rejected as obvious in view of the combination of Chasteen and US.
`
`Patent No. 4,631,515 to Blee et al. (copy attached as Exhibit 4), and application claims 7, 18 to
`
`24, 27, and 28 were rejected as obvious in view of the combination of Chasteen and US. Patent
`
`No. 5,708,584 to Doi et al. (copy attached as Exhibit 5).
`
`In the Office Action, the Examiner stated that application claims 8 to 13, 25, 26, and 29
`
`to 32 included allowable subject matter. Specifically, the Examiner stated that application claims
`
`8, 25, and 29 included allowable subject matter on the basis that "the prior art fails to disclose an
`
`upshift notification circuit coupled to the processor subsystem, the upshift notification circuit
`
`issuing a notification that the engine of the vehicle is being operated at an excessive engine speed
`
`and the processor determines when to activate the upshift notification circuit." Similarly, the
`
`Examiner stated that application claims 11, 26, and 31 included allowable subject matter on the
`
`basis that "the prior art fails to disclose a downshift notification circuit coupled to the processor
`
`subsystem, the downshift notification circuit issuing a notification that the engine of the vehicle
`
`is being operated at an insufficient engine speed and the processor determines when to activate
`
`the downshift notification circuit." In addition, application claims 14 — 17, which included both
`
`an upshift notification circuit and a downshift notification circuit, were allowed on the basis that:
`
`4
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/013,252
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`the prior art fails to disclose an upshift notification circuit coupled to the processor
`
`subsystem, the upshift notification circuit issuing a notification that the engine of the
`
`vehicle is being operated at an excessive engine speed and the processor determines when
`
`to activate the upshift notification circuit and a downshift notification circuit coupled to
`
`the processor subsystem, the downshift notification circuit issuing a notification that the
`
`engine of the vehicle is being operated at an insufficient engine speed and the processor
`
`determines when to activate the downshift notification circuit.
`
`In response to this Office Action, the applicant submitted an Amendment on February 8,
`
`1999 with numerous amendments, see the response to Office Action and the Request pages 6 —
`
`13 for further explanation. The “270 Application was subsequently allowed, see Notice of
`
`Allowance dated 04/21/1999 or the Request pages 13 and 14 for further details. The Examiner
`
`stated in their reasons for allowance that:
`
`{TC fifikut‘t'i$5.?3:3.
`, >e Nu “Mia“, m».
`
`.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/013,252
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`
`
`<
`.;
`-
`,c. -.-.-.,-;~;
`.- I.
`;. c~;
`.. units“: new}: :: at.
`
`.. .éiiuvaI-usuig 3:.
`
`Proposed Substantial New Question of Patentability
`
`Third Party Requester (“Requester”) identifies the following printed publications as
`
`evidence that a substantial new question should be raised in the Request, see pp. l5—l6.
`
`1.
`
`Automotive Electronics Handbook, by Ronald Jurgen (“Jurgen”), attached as
`
`exhibit ll.
`
`2.
`
`US. Patent No. 5,477,452 to Milunas et a1. ("Saturn ‘452”), attached as exhibit
`
`l2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`US. Patent No. 4,559,599 to Habu et a1. ("Toyota “599”), attached as exhibit l3.
`
`German Patent Application Publication No. 29 26 070 (“Volkswagen “070”),
`
`attached as exhibit l4.
`
`5.
`
`US. Patent No. 5,357,438 to DaVidian (”DaVidian”), attached as exhibit 15.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/013,252
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`US. Patent No. 4,061,055 to Iizuka et al. ("Nissan “055”), attached as exhibit 16.
`
`US. Patent No. 5,121,324 to Rini et al. (”Mack ‘324”), attached as exhibit 17.
`
`US. Patent No. 3,925,753 to Auman et al. (”GM ‘452”), attached as exhibit 18.
`
`PCT Publication No. WO 96/02853 (“Tonkin”), attached as exhibit 19.
`
`Requester has alleged a substantial new question, “SNQ”, of patentability in light of
`
`proposed rejections which are stated below:
`
`0 The 1St Proposed Rejection: Claim 1 is alleged as Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103(a) in View of the Combination of Jurgen and Saturn '452.
`
`o The 2Ild Proposed Rejection: Claims 1, 7, and 13 are alleged as Obvious Under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) in View of the Combination of Jurgen and Toyota '599.
`
`o The 3rd Proposed Rejection: Claims 1, 7, and 13 are alleged as Obvious Under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) in View of the Combination of Jurgen and Volkswagen '070.
`
`o The 4th Proposed Rejection: Claims 17—23 and 26 are alleged as Obvious Under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in View of the Combination of Jurgen, Toyota '599, and
`
`Davidian.
`
`o The 5th Proposed Rejection: Claims 17—23 and 26 are alleged as Obvious Under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in View of the Combination of Jurgen, Volkswagen '070, and
`
`Davidian.
`
`o The 6th Proposed Rejection: Claims 17—21 and 23 are alleged as Obvious Under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in View of the Combination of Jurgen, Saturn '452, and
`
`Davidian.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/013,252
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`o The 7th Proposed Rejection: Claims 28—30 are alleged as Obvious Under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) in View of the Combination of Jurgen and Nissan '055.
`
`o The 8th Proposed Rejection: Claims 28—30 are alleged as Obvious Under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) in View of the Combination of Jurgen and Mack '324.
`
`o The 9th Proposed Rejection: Claims 28—30 are alleged as Obvious Under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) in View of the Combination of Jurgen and GM '753.
`
`o The 10th Proposed Rejection: Claim 31 is alleged as Anticipated Under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(b) by Davidian.
`
`o The llth Pro osed Re'ection: Claims 31 and 32 are alleged as Obvious Under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) in View of the Combination of Tonkin and Doi et al.
`
`Requester has proposed rejections for dependent claims that are not the basis for the SNQ, which
`
`are stated below:
`
`0 The 12th Proposed Rejection: Claims 2, 4, and 5 are alleged as Obvious Under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) in View of the Combination of Jurgen, Saturn '452, and Chasteen.
`
`o The 13th Proposed Rejection: Claims 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, and 15 are alleged as
`
`Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in View of the Combination of Jurgen, Toyota
`
`'599, and Chasteen.
`
`o The 14th Proposed Rejection: Claims 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, and 15 are alleged as
`
`Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in View of the Combination of Jurgen,
`
`Volkswagen '070, and Chasteen.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/013,252
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`o The 15th Proposed Rejection: Claim 18 is alleged as Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103(a) in View of the Combination of Jurgen, Toyota '599, Davidian, and Tonkin.
`
`o The 16th Proposed Rejection: Claim 18 is alleged as Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103(a) in View of the Combination of Jurgen, Volkswagen '070, Davidian, and
`
`Tonkin.
`
`o The 17th Proposed Rejection: Claim 18 is alleged as Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103(a) in View of the Combination of Jurgen, Saturn '452, Davidian, and Tonkin.
`
`o The 18th Proposed Rejection: Claims 24 and 25 are alleged as Obvious Under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) in View of the Combination of Jurgen, Saturn '452, Davidian and
`
`Chasteen.
`
`o The 19th Proposed Rejection: Claims 24, 25, and 27 are alleged as Obvious Under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in View of the Combination of Jurgen, Toyota '599, Davidian
`
`and Chasteen.
`
`o The 20th Proposed Rejection: Claims 24, 25, and 27 are alleged as Obvious Under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in View of the Combination of Jurgen, Volkswagen '070,
`
`Davidian and Chasteen.
`
`o The 21St Proposed Rejection: Claim 32 is alleged as Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103(a) in in View of the combination of Davidian and Tonkin.
`
`Analysis of Substantial New Question of Patentability
`
`9
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/013,252
`
`Page 9
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`A SNQ of patentability is raised by a cited patent or printed publication when there is a
`
`substantial likelihood that a reasonable examiner would consider the prior art patent or printed
`
`publication important in deciding whether or not the claim is patentable. A SNQ of patentability
`
`is not raised by prior art presented in a reexamination request if the Office has previously
`
`considered (in an earlier examination of the patent) the same question of patentability as to a
`
`patent claim favorable to the patent owner based on the same prior art patents or printed
`
`publications. In re Recreative Technologies, 83 F.3d 1394, 38 USPQ2d 1776 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
`
`The substantial new question of patentability rnay be based on art previously con sitiered by the
`
`foice if the r°"erenee is presented in a new Eight or a different way that escr peel review during
`
`earlier examination. MFEP fiZ‘Zlo.
`
`it is not sufficient that a request for reexarni nation merely proposes one or more
`
`rejections of a patent clairn or eiainis as a basis for reexamination. it must first be demonstrated
`
`that a patent or printed publication that is relied upon in a proposed. rejection presents a new,
`
`nonvcurnnlative teehnoiogical teaching that was not previously considered anti disenssed on the
`
`record during the prosecution of the application that resulted in the patent for which
`
`reexamination is requested, and during the prosecution of any other prior proceeding involving
`
`the patent for which reexamination is requested. MP5? §22 l 6.
`
`Basis of SNQ
`
`The ‘781 Patent was issued on September 21, 1999 from the ‘270 Application, filed on
`
`March 10, 1997. The previous Examiner of the ‘270 Application concluded the reasons for
`
`allowance for claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 17 — 27 was the prior art failed to teach
`
`10
`
`10
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/013,252
`
`Page 10
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`or suggest upshift or downshift notification circuits. Therefore the limitations that are the basis of
`
`the SNQ of patentability affecting independent claims 1, 7, 13, 17, 23, 26, and their dependent
`
`claims 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 18 — 22, 24, 25 and 27, teaches the upshift or downshift and reads as
`
`follows:
`
`“an upshift notification circuit coupled to said processor subsystem, said upshift
`
`notification circuit issuing a notification that said engine of said vehicle is being
`
`operated at an excessive speed.”
`
`OR
`
`“a downshift notification circuit coupled to said processor subsystem, said
`
`downshift notification circuit issuing a notification that said engine of said vehicle
`
`is being operated at an insufficient engine speed.”
`
`With respect to claims 28 — 30, the applicant in the original prosecution emphasized
`
`that the prior art failed to teach a fuel overinjection notification circuit that is activated based
`
`on three sensors: a road speed sensor, a throttle position sensor, and a manifold pressure
`
`sensor. Therefore the limitation disclosed in independent claim 28 which is the basis of the SNQ
`
`of patentability, and also affecting dependent claims 29 and 30, reads as follows:
`
`“said fuel overinjection notification circuit issuing a notification that excessive
`
`fuel is being supplied to said engine of said vehicle.;said processor subsystem
`
`determining whether to activate said fuel overinjection notification sensor based
`
`upon data received from said road speed sensor, said throttle position sensor and
`
`said manifold pressure sensor.”
`
`11
`
`11
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/013,252
`
`Page 11
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`With respect to claims 31 and 32, the applicant in the original prosecution emphasized
`
`that the prior art failed to teach a vehicle proximity alarm that is activated based upon three
`
`parameters: (1) road speed, as determined by a road speed sensor; (2) separation, as
`
`determined by a radar detector; and (3) a vehicle speed/stopping distance table stored in a
`
`memory subsystem. The prosecution history focused on a vehicle proximity alarm
`
`that is activated based on these three parameters and was the basis for the reasons for allowance
`
`on these claims. Therefore the limitation disclosed in independent claim 31 which is the basis of
`
`the SNQ of patentability, also affecting dependent claim 32, reads as follows:
`
`“said processor subsystem determining whether to activate said vehicle proximity
`
`alarm circuit based upon separation distance data received from said radar
`
`detector, vehicle speed data received from said road speed sensor and said first
`
`vehicle speed/stopping distance table stored in said memory subsystem.”
`
`Alleged SNQ based upon Jurgen
`
`Jurgen is presented to determine if a SNQ of patentability regarding Independent claims
`
`1, 7, l3, 17, 23, 26, 28 ofthe ‘781 Patent is raised as stated in the First to Ninth proposed
`
`rejections, see above. Jurgen was not present as prior art in prior prosecutions of the application
`
`which became the ‘781 Patent.
`
`Jurgen discloses an electronic engine control system that receives sensor inputs,
`
`evaluates them, and determines the necessary outputs to provide for optimal drivability.
`
`12
`
`12
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/013,252
`
`Page 12
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`(Jurgen, page 12.1). Jurgen also discloses that these sensors monitor engine speed (page 7.6),
`
`road speed (pages 7.8, 14.3), manifold pressure (pages 2.5, 2.7), and throttle position (page
`
`12.21). Jurgen also discloses that the use of processor subsystems to receive inputs from these
`
`sensors was known. (Pages 12.1, 13.6, 22.6). "During the entire operating time of the vehicle,
`
`the ECUs are constantly supervising the sensors they are connected to." (Page 22.6). Jurgen
`
`illustrates these hardware parts:
`
`
`
`i‘..‘I/frrrn’r/(r;r¢¢¢1«~oLMAW4<{I}J/ry,,,,
`‘
` .a/IJIJJJIL'Z'I.
`
`‘ kssvssomz
`
`
`
`
`
`Jurgen also discloses that the transmission can be controlled by calculating the necessary shift
`
`points based upon throttle position, the accelerator pedal position (e.g., throttle position), and the
`
`vehicle speed. “In the event that the particular shift characteristic is crossed (excessive/
`
`insufficient) by one of either of the two input valves, the electronic ECU releases the shift by
`
`13
`
`13
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/013,252
`
`Page 13
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`activating the related actuator. This can be a direct shift into the target gear or by a serial
`
`activation of specific actuators in a fixed sequence to the target gear, depending on the
`
`transmission hardware design." (Page 13.9). "The shift point limitations are made, on the one
`
`hand, by the highest admissible engine speed for each application." Id. The TCU (transmission
`
`control unit) stores shift maps that provide notifications to the transmission regarding whether
`
`and when to shift. (Page 13.14). Jurgen, therefore, discloses "an upshift[/downshift] notification
`
`circuit coupled to said processor subsystem, said upshift[/downshift] notification circuit issuing a
`
`notification that said engine of said vehicle is being operated at an excessive[/insufficient] speed"
`
`as taught in Independent claims 1, 7, 13, 17, 23, and 26.
`
`Accordingly, these teachings would be important to a reasonable examiner in deciding
`
`patentability as to at least Independent claims 1, 7, l3, 17, 23, and 26 of the ‘781 Patent. Further,
`
`
`Jurgen teachings are new and non—cumulative. Accordingly, Jurgen raises a substantial new
`
`question of patentability as to at least independent claims 1, 7, l3, 17, 23, and 26 of the ‘781
`
`Patent that have not been decided in a previous examination. Dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12,
`
`15, 18 — 22, 24, 25, and 27 are brought in at least due to their dependency on Independent claims
`
`1, 7, 13, 17, 23, and 26.
`
`Jurgen discloses fuel injection notification circuit, which issues a notification to shut off
`
`fuel in certain situations. For Example, the ECU disclosed in Jurgen can shut of fuel in certain
`
`situation by evaluating the throttle position, engine RPM, and vehicle speed. (Page 12.4).
`
`Additionally, the ECU can shut off fuel injectors when a maximum speed is achieved (page
`
`12.14). The ECU provides a notification to the fuel injectors when a fuel cutoff state is reached.
`
`14
`
`14
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/013,252
`
`Page 14
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Jurgen discloses based upon data received from said plurality of sensors, when to activate said
`
`fuel injection circuit and when to activate said upshift/downshift notification circuit. For
`
`example, the combination of the ECU, which monitors all of the vehicle's sensors (see above)
`
`and the TCU, which stores the shift maps, can send notification circuits to the fuel injectors
`
`and/or the transmission in order to alleviate a fuel overinjection condition or shift the engine.
`
`Accordingly, Jurgen teachings, either alone or in combination with a secondary reference,
`
`would be important to a reasonable examiner in deciding patentability as to at least Independent
`
`claim 28 of the ‘781 Patent. Further, Jurgen teachings are new and non—cumulative.
`
`
`Accordingly, Jurgen raises a substantial new question of patentability as to at least independent
`
`claim 28 of the ‘781 Patent that have not been decided in a previous examination. Dependent
`
`claims 29 and 30 are brought in at least due to their dependency on Independent claim 28.
`
`Alleged SNQ based upon Saturn ‘452
`
`Saturn ‘452 Patent is presented to determine if a SNQ of patentability regarding
`
`Independent claims 1, 13, 17, 23, and 26 of the ‘781 Patent is raised as stated in the First and
`
`Sixth proposed rejection, see above. Saturn “452 was not present as prior art in prior prosecutions
`
`of the application which became the ‘781 Patent.
`
`Saturn ‘452 discloses an upshift notification circuit connected to the control unit, which
`
`indicates "via line 60 the state of an upshift indicator light or equivalent visual display." Col. 2,
`
`lines 42 to 55. Therefore, it is seen that Saturn '452 discloses "an upshift notification circuit
`
`coupled to said processor subsystem, said um notification circuit issuing a notification that
`
`said engine of said vehicle is being operated at an excessive speed" and "said processor
`
`15
`
`15
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/013,252
`
`Page 15
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`subsystem determining, based upon data received from said plurality of sensors, .
`
`.
`
`. when to
`
`activate said upshift notification circuit." as taught in Independent claims 1, 17, and 23.
`
`Accordingly, these teachings would be important to a reasonable examiner in deciding
`
`patentability as to at least Independent claims 1, 17, and 23 of the “781 Patent. Further, Saturn
`
`
`“452 teachings are new and non—cumulative. Accordingly, Saturn “452 raises a substantial new
`
`question of patentability as to at least independent claims 1, 17, and 23 of the “781 Patent that
`
`have not been decided in a previous examination. Dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 18 — 22, 24, and 25
`
`are brought in at least due to their dependency on Independent claims 1, 17, and 23.
`
`Alleged SNQ based upon Toyota ‘599
`
`Toyota “599 is presented to determine if a SNQ of patentability regarding Independent
`
`claims 1, 7, 13, 17, 23, and 26 of the “781 Patent is raised as stated in the Second and Forth
`
`proposed rejections, see above. Toyota “599 was not present as prior art in prior prosecutions of
`
`the application which became the “781 Patent.
`
`Toyota “599 discloses a “shift indication apparatus coupled to a plurality of sensors. An
`
`overview of this system is illustrated in Figure l:
`
`
`
`16
`
`16
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/013,252
`
`Page 16
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Toyota '599 discloses that indicator lamps that tell the driver to shift up or shift down are lit by
`
`the microcomputer in order to tell the driver when to shift to improve fuel economy "Namely, in
`
`this step, the speed change operation indicating signal is applied to the indicator or display 10
`
`from the microcomputer 5 through the 1/0 port 6. As a result, a particular lamp in this case, a
`
`shift up indicating lamp in the indicator 10, is illuminated, thus indicating to the drive that the
`
`speed change from current shift position to the one step shifting up position SP+1 is preferable."
`
`Col. 5, line 63 to col. 6, line 2. "However, only when either one of the assumed fuel consumption
`
`rates above is better than the current fuel consumption rate Bc, the corresponding shift—up lamp
`
`or shift—down lamp in the indicator 10 is illuminated, thus indicating the necessity of the speed
`
`change operation." E.g. col. 7, lines 29 to 38. Therefore, Toyota '599 discloses "an
`
`upshift[/downshift] notification circuit coupled to said processor subsystem, said
`
`upshift[/downshift] notification circuit issuing a notification that said engine of said vehicle is
`
`being operated at an excessive[/insufficient] speed" and "said processor subsystem determining,
`
`based upon data received from said plurality of sensors,.. when to activate said
`
`upshift[/downshift] notification circuit.”
`
`Accordingly, these teachings would be important to a reasonable examiner in deciding
`
`patentability as to at least Independent claims 1, 7, l3, 17, 23, and 26 of the ‘781 Patent. Further,
`
`
`Toyota ‘599 teachings are new and non—cumulative. Accordingly, Toyota ‘599 raises a
`
`substantial new question of patentability as to at least independent claims 1, 7, 13, 17, 23, and 26
`
`of the ‘781 Patent that have not been decided in a previous examination. Dependent claims 2, 4,
`
`17
`
`17
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/013,252
`
`Page 17
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 18 — 22, 24, 25, and 27 are brought in at least due to their dependency on
`
`Independent claims 1, 7, 13, 17, 23, and 26.
`
`Alleged SNQ based upon Volkswagen ‘070
`
`Volkswagen ‘070 is presented to determine if a SNQ of patentability regarding
`
`Independent claims 1, 7, l3, 17, 23, and 26 of the ‘781 Patent is raised as stated in the Third and
`
`Fifth proposed rejections, see above. Volkswagen ‘070 was not present as prior art in prior
`
`prosecutions of the application which became the ‘781 Patent.
`
`Volkswagen ‘070 discloses:
`
`-t:{1m.t‘as3§;iiu3§ (‘
`
`Volksw “ '
`'
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`\nv‘mmbm ’Q'Iil} leMfi‘dx" mm
`
`: has an upshéi't in: {im
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Accordingly, these teachings would be important to a reasonable examiner in deciding
`
`patentability as to at least Independent claims 1, 7, l3, 17, 23, and 26 of the ‘781 Patent. Further,
`
`
`Volkswagen ‘070 teachings are new and non—cumulative. Accordingly, Volkswagen “070 raises
`
`18
`
`18
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/013,252
`
`Page 18
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`a substantial new question of patentability as to at least independent claims 1, 7, 13, 17, 23, and
`
`26 of the “781 Patent that have not been decided in a previous examination.
`
`Alleged SNQ based upon Davidian
`
`Davidian is presented to determine if a SNQ of patentability regarding claims 17, 23, 26,
`
`and 31 of the “781 Patent is raised as stated in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Tenth proposed
`
`rejection, see above. Davidian was not present as prior art in prior prosecutions of the application
`
`which became the “781 Patent.
`
`Davidian discloses a memory subsystem that stores a vehicle speed/stopping distance
`
`table. ”Computer module 90 also includes information about the vehicle braking distances as a
`
`function of speed. This is preferably in the form of a look-up table, for example, provided by the
`
`manufacturer for predetermined defined conditions concerning road type, skidding danger,
`
`vehicle load and tires pressure, and is stored in a ROM (read-only memory) of the
`
`microcomputer so that it can be changed periodically if necessary. ” Col. 9, lines 20 to 27. This
`
`memory subsystem is a part of the microcomputer 4, as illustrated in FIG. 6A. Therefore,
`
`Davidian discloses "a memory subsystem, coupled to said processor subsystem, said memory
`
`subsystem storing a first vehicle speed/stopping distance table." Davidian discloses a vehicle
`
`proximity alarm circuit, which activates a collision alarm when a calculated "Collision Distance"
`
`is close to a calculated "Stopping Distance." "A determination is also made of the collision
`
`distance CD which is equal to the stopping distance SD divided by the collision safety factor
`
`CSF, e.g., 1.25 in the example illustrated above, such that should the distance between the
`
`vehicle and the object come within the collision distance CD, the collision alarm is then
`
`19
`
`19
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/013,252
`
`Page 19
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`actuated." Col. 12, line 59 to col. 13, line 11. The collision alarm, may be an audio alarm or a
`
`visual alarm. Col. 9, lines 52 to 56. The determination whether to activate the collision alarm is
`
`made by the calculation module 90, which is part of the microcomputer 4. See col. 12, line 27
`
`("Operation of the Calculation Module 90"). Therefore, Davidian discloses "a vehicle proximity
`
`alarm circuit coupled to said processor subsystem, said vehicle proximity alarm circuit issuing an
`
`alarm that said vehicle is too close to said object." Davidian also discloses that the processor
`
`subsystem determines when to activate the proximity alarm based on (1) separation distance data
`
`(received from the front vehicle space sensor 8); (2) vehicle speed data (received form vehicle
`
`speed sensor 12); and (3) the vehicle speed/stopping distance table stored in memory. The radar
`
`input, the vehicle speed input, and the vehicle speed/stopping distance tables are all located in
`
`the calculation module 90, which it uses to calculate stopping distance and collision distance.
`
`Therefore, Davidian discloses "said processor subsystem determining whether to activate said
`
`vehicle proximity alarm circuit based upon separation distance data received from said radar
`
`detector, vehicle speed data received from said road speed sensor and said first vehicle
`
`speed/stopping distance table stored in said memory subsystem.”
`
`Accordingly, these teachings would be important to a reasonable examiner in deciding
`
`patentability as to at least Independent claim 31 of the ‘781 Patent. Further, Davidian teachings
`
`
`are new and non—cumulative. Accordingly, Davidian raises a substantial new question of
`
`patentability as to at least independent claim 31 of the ‘781 Patent that have not been decided in
`
`a previous examination. Dependent claim 32 is brought in at least due to their dependency on
`
`Independent claim 31.
`
`20
`
`20
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/013,252
`
`Page 20
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Davidian does not disclose ““an upshift notification circuit coupled to said processor
`
`subsystem, said upshift notification circuit issuing a notification that said engine of said vehicle
`
`is being operated at an excessive speed,” OR ““a downshift notification circuit coupled to said
`
`processor subsystem, said downshift notification circuit issuing a notification that said engine of
`
`said vehicle is being operated at an insufficient engine speed.” Davidian teachings alone would
`
`not be pertinent to a reasonable examiner in deciding patentability as to at least Independent
`
`claims 1, 17, 23, and 26 of the “781 Patent. Accordingly, Davidian does not raises a substantial
`
`new question of patentability as to independent claims 1, 17, 23, and 26 of the “781 Patent.
`
`Alleged SNQ based upon Nissan ‘055
`
`Nissan “055 is presented to determine if a SNQ of patentability regarding Independent
`
`claim 28 of the “781 Patent is raised as stated in the Seventh proposed rejection, see above.
`
`Nissan “055 was not present as prior art in prior prosecutions of the application which became
`
`the “781 Patent.
`
`Nissan “055 discloses a control system that "controls the number of fuel injected
`
`cylinders" in order to increase fuel economy. Abstract. Figure 1 of Nissan '055 discloses that a
`
`throttle opening sensor and vehicle velocity sensor are inputs to the system:
`
`21
`
`21
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/013,252
`
`Page 21
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`
`
`Nissan '055 discloses that "when the signal from the vehicle velocity sensor 2 exceeds a
`
`predetermined level and at the same time the signal from the throttle opening sensor 1 falls
`
`below another predetermined level, the control unit 4 determines the number of cylinders to
`
`which fuel is actually injected based on the two signals applied and stops injection of fuel to
`
`specified one or more cylinders." Col. 2, lines 59 to 66. Nissan '055 does not refer to the use of a
`
`manifold pressure sensor.
`
`Nissan “055 does not disclose "said processor subsystem determining whether to activate
`
`said fuel overinjection notification sensor based upon data received from said road speed sensor,
`
`said throttle position sensor and said manifold pressure sensor" since Nissan “055 does not take
`
`into consideration the manifold pressure in their determination.
`
`Nissan “055 teachings alone would not be pertinent to a reasonable examiner in deciding
`
`patentability as to at least Independent claim 28 of the “781 Patent. Accordingly, Nissan “055
`
`alone does not raise a substantial new question of patentability as to independent claim 28 of the
`
`“781 Patent.
`
`22
`
`22
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/013,252
`
`Page 22
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Alleged SNQ based upon Mack ‘324
`
`Mack “324 is presented to determine if a SNQ of patentability regarding Independent
`
`claim 28 of the “781 Patent is raised as stated in the Eighth proposed rejection, see above. Mack
`
`“324 was not present as prior art in prior prosecutions of the application which became the “781
`
`Patent.
`
`Mack “324 discloses an engine and vehicle management and control system. Figure 1 of
`
`Mack '324 illustrates an overview of the system:
`
`
`
`The fuel injection control module 200 in Mack '324 contains a microprocessor 2001, and
`
`receives inputs from sensors 201 and outputs a fuel quantity signal 203 and a fuel shut\—off
`
`enable signal 207. Col. 2, lines 33 to 27. Figure 3 illustrates the details of the fuel injection
`
`control module:
`
`23
`
`23
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 90/013,252
`
`Page 23
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`
`
`Inputs to the fuel injection control module include sensor inputs from "an accelerator pedal
`
`position sensor 2005, an engine speed sensor 2005, a coolant temperature sensor 2006, a fuel
`
`rack position sensor 2007, and a torque limiter switch 2008."
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
