throbber
PTO/SB/57 (O9-14)
`Approved for use through 07/31/2015. OMB 0651-0064
`U_S_ Patent and Trademark Office; U_S_ DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`Under the Pa = rwork Reduction Act of 1995. no r rsons are r uired to res nd to a collection of information unless it dis la 3 a valid OMB control number.
`(Also referred to as FORM PTO-1465)
`
`REQUEST FOR EX PARTE REEXAMINATION TRANSMITTAL FORM
`
`Address to:
`Mail Stop Ex Perle Reexam
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.0. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Attorney Docket No.:
`
`Date: 00T0b9' 27» 2014
`
`1.
`
`This is a request for ex parte reexamination pursuant to 37 CFR 1.510 of patent number 5=732v375
`issued M-vcli24 1998
`. The request is made by:
`
`third party requester.
`a patent owner.
`2. The name and address of the person requesting reexamination is:
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
`2200 Ferdinand Porsche Drive
`
`Herndon, VA 20171
`
`Requester asserts I:Ismal| entity status (37 CFR 1.27) or E] certifies micro entity status (37 CFR 1.29). Only a
`patent owner requester can certify micro entity status. Form PTO/SB/15A or B must be attached to certify micro
`entity status.
`
`is enclosed to cover the reexamination fee, 37 CFR 1.20(c)(1);
`4. |:' a. A check in the amount of$
`‘:1 b. The Director is hereby authorized to charge the fee as set forth in 37 CFR 1.20(c)(1)
`to Deposit Account No.
`;
`
`Payment by credit card. Form PTO-2038 is attached; or
`|:] c.
`Payment made via EFS-Web.
`d.
`Any refund should be made by |:] check or credit to Deposit Account No. 110600
`37 CFR 1.26(c). If payment is made by credit card, refund must be to credit card account.
`
`A copy of the patent to be reexamined having a double column format on one side of a separate paper is
`enclosed. 37 CFR 1.510(b)( ).
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7. El CD—ROM or CD-R in duplicate, Computer Program (Appendix) or large table
`I:]
`Landscape Table on CD
`
`8. D Nucleotide and/or Amino Acid Sequence Submission
`If applicable, items a. — c. are required.
`
`a. |:] Computer Readable Form (CRF)
`
`b. Specification Sequence Listing on:
`
`i. El CD-ROM (2 copies) or CD-R (2 copies); or
`
`ii. E] paper
`
`c. I:] Statements verifying identity of above copies
`
`9.
`10.
`11.
`
`12.
`
`A copy of any disclaimer, certificate of correction or reexamination certificate issued in the patent is included.
`Reexamination of c|aim(s) 1 and 7
`is requested.
`A copy of every patent or printed publication relied upon is submitted herewith including a listing thereof on
`Form PTO/SBl08, PTO-1449, or equivalent.
`
`An English language translation of all necessary and pertinent non-English language patents and/or printed
`publications is included.
`
`[Page 1 of 2]
`This collection of information is required by 37 CFR 1510. The information is required to obtain or retain a benefit by the public which is to file (and by the USPTO
`to process) a request for reexamination. Confidentiality is governed by 35 U.S.C. 122 and 37 CFR 1.11 and 1.14. This collection is estimated to take 18 minutes to
`complete, including gathering, preparing, and submitting the completed application form to the USPTO_ Time will vary depending upon the individual case. Any
`comments on the amount of time you require to complete this form and/or suggestions for reducing this burden. should be sent to the Chief Information Officer.
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, U.S. Department of Commerce, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria. VA 22313-1450. DO NOT SEND FEES OR COMPLETED FORMS
`TO THIS ADDRESS. SEND TO: Mail Stop Ex Parte Reexam, Commissioner for Patents, P.0. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
`If you need assistance in completing the fomi. call 1-800-PTO-9199 and select option 2.
`
`|PR2016-01382 - Ex. 1010
`
`Toyota Motor Corp., Petitioner
`1
`
`

`
`PTO/SB/57 (09-14)
`Approved for use through 07/31/2015. OMB 0651-0064
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; US. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`Under me Paerwork Reduction Act of 1995, no ersons are : uired to resend to a colleaion or information unless it dis la 5 a valid OMB control number.
`
`13.
`
`The attached detailed request includes at least the following items:
`a. A statement identifying each substantial new question of patentability based on prior patents and printed
`publications. 37 CFR 1.510(b)(1).
`
`b. An identification of every claim for which reexamination is requested, and a detailed explanation of the pertinency
`and manner of applying the cited art to every claim for which reexamination is requested. 37 CFR 1.510(b)(2).
`
`14. D A proposed amendment is included (only where the patent owner is the requester). 37 CFR 1.510(e).
`15.
`It is certified that the statutory estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. 315(e)(1 ) or 35 U.S.C. 325(e)(1) do not prohibit
`requester from filing this ex parte reexamination request. 37 CFR 1.510(b)(6).
`
`16.
`
`a. It is certified that a copy of this request (if filed by other than the patent owner) has been served in its entirety on
`the patent owner as provided in 37 CFR 1.33(c).
`The name and address of the party served and the date of service are:
`
`Mark A. Navarre. Delco Electronics Corporation. ERC Building Mail Stop D 32
`
`P.O. Box 9005, Kokomo, Indiana 46904
`
`Date of Service: October 27- 2014
`; or
`Cl b. A duplicate copy is enclosed sinoe service on patent owner was not possible. An explanation of the efforts
`made to serve patent owner is attached. 1 MPEP 2220.
`
`17. Correspondence Address: Direct all communication about the reexamination to:
`
`The address associated with Customer Number:
`
`26545
`
`Firm or
`Individual Name
`
`OR
`
`El
`Address
`
`Country
`
`2”’
`
`18.
`
`The patent is currently the subject of the following concurrent proceeding(s):
`Copending reissue Application No.
`
`Copending reexamination Control No.
`
`Copending Interference No.
`
`Copending litigation styled:
`Please see attached continuation sheet.
`
`WARNING: Information on this form may become public. Credit card infomiation should not be
`included on this fonn. Provide credit card information and authorization on PTO-2038.
`
`/Clifford A. Ulrich/
`
`C”"°'d A- Umch
`
`Authorized Signature
`
`Typed/Printed Name
`
`October 27. 2014
`
`Date
`
`42194
`Registration No.
`
`[Page 2 of 2]
`
`|:] For Patent Owner Requester
`
`For Third Party Requester
`
`

`
`Privacy Act Statement
`
`The Privacy Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-579) requires that you be given certain information in connection with your
`submission of the attached form related to a patent application or patent. Accordingly, pursuant to the requirements of
`the Act, please be advised that: (1) the general authority for the collection of this information is 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2); (2)
`furnishing of the information solicited is voluntary; and (3) the principal purpose for which the information is used by the
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is to process and/or examine your submission related to a patent application or
`patent.
`If you do not furnish the requested information. the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office may not be able to
`process and/or examine your submission, which may result in termination of proceedings or abandonment of the
`application or expiration of the patent.
`
`The information provided by you in this form will be subject to the following routine uses:
`
`1. The information on this form will be treated confidentially to the extent allowed under the Freedom of
`Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C 552a). Records from this system of records may
`be disclosed to the Department of Justice to determine whether disclosure of these records is required by the
`Freedom of Information Act.
`
`A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, in the course of presenting evidence
`to a court, magistrate, or administrative tribunal,
`including disclosures to opposing counsel in the course of
`settlement negotiations.
`A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a Member of Congress submitting a
`request involving an individual. to whom the record pertains. when the individual has requested assistance from
`the Member with respect to the subject matter of the record.
`A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a contractor of the Agency having
`need for the information in order to perform a contract. Recipients of information shall be required to comply
`with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(m).
`A record related to an International Application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty in this system of
`records may be disclosed, as a routine use,
`to the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property
`Organization, pursuant to the Patent Cooperation Treaty.
`A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to another federal agency for purposes
`of National Security review (35 U.S.C. 181) and for review pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C.
`218(c)).
`to the Administrator. General
`A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use.
`Services, or his/her designee. during an inspection of records conducted by GSA as part of that agency's
`responsibility to recommend improvements in records management practices and programs, under authority of
`44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906. Such disclosure shall be made in accordance with the GSA regulations governing
`inspection of records for this purpose, and any other relevant (i.e., GSA or Commerce) directive. Such
`disclosure shall not be used to make determinations about individuals.
`
`A record from this system of records may be disclosed. as a routine use, to the public after either publication of
`the application pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 122(b) or issuance of a patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 151. Further, a
`record may be disclosed, subject to the limitations of 37 CFR 1.14, as a routine use, to the public if the record
`was filed in an application which became abandoned or in which the proceedings were terminated and which
`application is referenced by either a published application, an application open to public inspection or an issued
`patent.
`to a Federal, State, or local
`A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use.
`enforcement agency, if the USPTO becomes aware of a violation or potential violation of law or regulation.
`
`law
`
`

`
`Request for Ex Purre Reexamination
`0fU.S. Patent No. 5.732375
`
`CONTINUATION SHEET OF PAGE 2 OF FORM PTO/SB/57
`
`18d.
`
`Copending litigation styled:
`
`SIGNAL IP, INC. v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC, Case No. 2: I 4-cv-031 13-
`
`JAK (JEMX) (C.D. Cal.)
`
`SIGNAL IP, INC. v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Case No. 2: 14-cv-02454-JAK
`
`(JEMX) (C.D. Cal.)
`
`SIGNAL IP, INC. v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-03111-JAK (JEMx)
`(C.D. Cal.)
`
`SIGNAL IP, INC. v. FIAT U.S.A., INC.. Case No. 2:14-cv-13864-AJT-MAM (E.D. Mich.)
`
`SIGNAL IP, INC. v. FORD I1/IOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 5:14-CV-13729-JCO-PJK (ED.
`Mich.)
`
`SIGNAL IP, INC. v. KIA Ii/IOTORS AMERICA, INC., Case No. 2:14-cv-02457-JAK (JEMX) (CD.
`Cal.)
`
`SIGNAL IP, INC. v. MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC._, Case No. 8:14-cv-00491-JAK
`
`(JEMX) (C.D. Cal.)
`
`SIGNAL IP, INC. v. MITSUBISHI MOTORS NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 8:14—cv—00497-
`JAK (JEMx) (C.D. Cal.)
`
`SIGNAL IP, INC. v. NISSAN NORTHAMERICA, INC., Case No. 2:14-CV-02962-JAK (JEMX)
`(C .D. Cal.)
`
`Page 1 of 1
`
`

`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In Re Patent of
`
`Patent No.
`
`Issued
`
`Title
`
`Application Serial No.
`
`Filed
`
`Requester
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`Robert John Cashler
`
`5,732,375
`
`March 24, 1998
`
`METHOD OF lNHlBlTlNG OR ALLOWING
`AIRBAG DEPLOYMENT
`
`08/566,029
`
`December 1, 1995
`
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
`
`4.‘EFS‘WEB
`Mall Stop Ex Parte Reexam
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`
`“e'e“T3"‘ Alexandria. Virginia 22313-1450
`
`L2§§‘?‘§?1e%er'§'?hé"S‘n33§3 £12335‘£52125?Z?$n'Z.‘?§2?,.§l1‘?°$'?n2i§"‘L';'a’
`the Office electronic filing system on October 27 2014.
`Signature: /Helen Taml
`
`REQUEST FOR EX PARTE REEXAMINATION
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5 732 375 PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R.
`
`SIR:
`
`Volkswagen Group of America,
`
`Inc.
`
`("Requester” or “VWGoA”),
`
`through its
`
`undersigned counsel, hereby respectfully requests ex parte reexamination of U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,732,375 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 302 and the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.510.
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`IDENTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 1.5 I 0(b)(2) .......................................... ..I
`
`II.
`
`COPY OF THE *375 PATENT PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 1.510(b)(4) ....................... ..1
`
`III. PROCEEDINGS RELATED TO THE *375 PATENT ...................................................... ..1
`
`Iv. THE ’375 PATENT AND ITS PROSECUTION ............................................................... ..2
`
`V.
`
`CITATIONS OF PRIOR ART PATENTS AND PRINTED PUBLICATIONS THAT
`
`RAISE SUBSTANTIAL NEW QUESTIONS OF PATENTABILITY .......................... ..8
`
`V1.
`
`STATEMENTS IDENTIFYING EACH SUBSTANTIAL NEW QUESTION OF
`PATENTABILITY PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § l.510(b)(l) ....................................... ..9
`
`VII. DETAILED EXPLANATIONS PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 1.5l0(b)(2) ...................... ..9
`
`VIII. VWGoA’s PROPOSED GROUNDS OF REJECTION ................................................... ..20
`
`IX. FEE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 1.5l0(a) ..................................................................... ..21
`
`x.
`
`CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § l.5I0(b)(5) ......................................... ..21
`
`x1. CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § l.5l0(b)(6) ......................................... ..2l
`
`XII. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. .22
`
`

`
`EXHIBITS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375, entitled “Method of Inhibiting or Allowing
`Airbag Deployment,” issucd March 24, 1998, to Robert John Cashlcr
`
`“First Amended Complaint For Patent Infringement” filed on July 11,
`2014 in SIGNAL IP, INC. v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AAIERIC/1,
`
`INC. et al., Case No.2:14-cv-031I3-JAK(JEMx)(C.D. Cal.)
`
`Listing of Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications that Raise
`Substantial New Questions of Patentability Affecting the Claims of
`U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375
`
`German Utility Patent Publication G 91 11 479.9 to F+G Negamos
`Sicherheitselektronik GmbH
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,474,327 to Schousek
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,170,364 to Gross et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,232,243 to Blackburn et al.
`
`Exhibit 1
`
`Exhibit 2
`
`Exhibit 3
`
`Exhibit 4
`
`Exhibit 5
`
`Exhibit 6
`
`Exhibit 7
`
`Exhibit 8
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`

`
`I.
`
`IDENTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § l.5I0§b[j2[
`
`Ex parte reexamination of claims 1 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375 (“the ”375
`
`patent”) is requested.
`
`II.
`
`COPY OF THE ’375 PATENT PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § l.510§b[j4[
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § l.5l0(b)(4), annexed hereto as Exhibit
`
`1
`
`is a copy of the
`
`entire ’375 patent including the front face, drawings, specification and claims (in double
`
`column format) for which ex parle reexamination is requested.
`
`To the best of Requcster’s knowledge, as of the date of this Request, no disclaimer,
`
`certificate of correction, or reexamination certificate has been issued in connection with the
`
`"375 patent.
`
`III.
`
`PROCEEDINGS RELATED TO THE ’375 PATENT
`
`Although Requester is not obligated to inform the Office of proceedings related to the
`
`’375 patent, the Office is hereby informed of the following proceedings, which are pending as
`
`of the date of this Request, that relate to the ’375 patent:
`
`SIGNAL IP, INC. v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA,
`
`INC. et al., Case No. 2:14-ev-03113-JAK (JEMX) (C.D. Cal.) —
`original complaint Filed on April 23, 2014, first amended
`complaint filed on July ll, 20l4 (copy annexed hereto as
`Exhibit 2) naming Requester Volkswagen Group of America,
`Inc. among the defendants.
`
`SIGNAL IP, INC. V. AA/IERICAN HONDA IWOTOR CO., INC.
`
`2: 14-cv-02454-JAK (JEMx)
`Case No.
`Amended Complaint filed on July 13, 2014
`
`(C.D. Cal.), First
`
`SIGNAL IP, INC. v. B.-MW OF NORTH AIWERIC4, LLC, Case
`
`No. 2:14-cv-03111-JAK (JEMX) (C.D. Cal.), Complaint filed
`on April 23, 2014
`
`SIGNAL IP, INC. v. FIAT U.S.A., INC. at al., Case No. 2: l4-cv-
`
`13864-AJT-MAM (E.D. Mich.), First Amended Complaint
`filed on June l 1, 2014
`
`SIGNAL IP, INC. v. FORD Il/IOTOR COIIIPANY, Case No.
`
`5:14-cv-l3729-JCO-PJK (ED. Mich.), Complaint
`April 23,2014
`
`filed on
`
`SIGNAL IP., INC. v. KIA Il/IOTORS AIl/[ERIC/1, INC., Case No.
`2:14-cv-02457-JAK (JEMX) (C.D. Cal.), Complaint filed on
`April I, 20l4
`
`

`
`SIGNAL IP., INC. V. A/IAZDA 11/IOTOR OF AAIERICA, INC,
`
`Case No. 8:14-cv-00491-JAK (JEMx) (C.D. Cal.), Complaint
`filed on April 1, 2014
`
`SIGNAL IP,
`
`INC.
`
`v.
`
`I“I[TSUBISHI A-IOTORS NORTH
`
`AIWERICA, INC, Case No. 8:14-cv-00497-JAK (JEMX) (C.D.
`Cal.), Complaint filed on April 1, 2014
`
`SIGNAL IP, INC. v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case
`No. 2:14-ev-02962-JAK (JEMX) (CD. Cal.), First Amended
`Complaint filed on July 23, 2014
`
`IV.
`
`THE ’375 PATENT AND ITS PROSECUTION
`
`A.
`
`The ’37S Patent
`
`The ’375 patent is entitled “Method of Inhibiting or Allowing Airbag Deployment”
`
`and was issued on March 24. 1998 from U.S. Application Serial No. 08/566,029 (“the ‘O29
`
`application”), filed December 1, l995.
`
`The alleged invention of the ’375 patent is directed to a method for using seat sensors
`
`to determine seat occupancy for control of airbag deployment. Col. 1,
`
`lines 7 to 9. For
`
`example, according to the ‘375 patent. a child in an infant seat may occupy a passenger seat
`
`in a vehicle, and in such instances it may be desirable to inhibit airbag deployment. Col. 1,
`
`lines 13 to 30.
`
`In purporting to determine whether an adult or a child occupies the passenger seat in a
`
`vehicle, and if a child in an infant seat occupies the seat, whether it is facing the front or the
`
`rear of the Vehicle, the ’375 patent, referring to Figure 2, describes that a dozen pressure
`
`sensors, placed at positions on the passenger seat, are coupled with a microprocessor that
`
`interprets the data and determines whether to deploy or inhibit deployment of an airbag. Col.
`
`2. line 63 to col. 3, line 10. Figure 2, which illustrates sensors both in the center of the seat
`
`bottom as well as near the edges of the seat, is reproduced below.
`
`

`
`FlG-2
`
`51015202530354045
`
`
`
`Specifically, the ’375 patent describes that if the total force measured by the weight
`
`sensors in the passenger seat is above a certain upper threshold, deployment is allowed, while
`
`ifthe total force is below a certain lower threshold, deployment is inhibited. Col. 5, lines I2
`
`to 15.
`
`If the total
`
`force is between the upper and lower thresholds,
`
`the local
`
`force
`
`measurements of force sensor groups are compared to high and low thresholds. If any local
`
`sensor group (e.g._. from the front, rear, left, or right of the seat) has a force above that
`
`prescribed high threshold, deployment is allowed. Col. 5. lines 15 to 19.
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution of the ’375 Patent
`
`The below discussion of the prosecution of the ’375 patent is limited to claims 1 and
`
`7, i.e., the claims for which reexamination is requested.
`
`As described above, the ‘029 application was filed December 1, 1995. As filed, the
`
`‘O29 application included 22 claims, including independent claim 1 and dependent claim 7,
`
`which depends from claim 1. Claim l,' as filed, is reproduced below:
`
`1. A method of airbag control in a vehicle having an array of
`force sensors on the passenger seat coupled to a controller for
`determining permission for airbag deployment based on sensed
`force and force distribution comprising the steps of:
`
`measuring the force detected by each sensor;
`
`calculating the total force of the sensor array;
`
`Claim 1 ofthe ‘O29 application issued as claim I of the ‘S75 patent. i'.e., the only independent claim for
`1
`which reexamination is requested herein.
`
`

`
`allowing deployment if the total force is above a first threshold
`and inhibiting deployment if the total force is below a second
`threshold;
`
`defining seat areas each having a group of sensors;
`
`determining a local pressure area when the total
`concentrated in a seat area;
`
`force is
`
`for each group calculating the group force as the sum of sensor
`forces;
`
`for a group in a local pressure area, allowing deployment if the
`group force is greater than a threshold for that group;
`
`determining a fitzzy value for the array; and
`
`allowing deployment if the fuzzy value exceeds a threshold.
`
`On March 27,
`
`l997, an Office Action was mailed in which claims 1 and 17 were
`
`rejected as obvious in View of the combination of U.S. Patent No. 5,474,327 (“Schousek”)
`
`and U.S. Patent No. 5,570,301 (“Barrus”).
`
`With respect to the obviousness rejection of claims l and 7, the Examiner stated:
`
`in a vehicle
`Schousek discloses a method of airbag control
`having an array of force sensors on the passenger seat coupled
`to controller for determining permission for airbag deployment
`based on sensed force and force distribution comprising the
`steps of measuring the force detected by each sensor
`calculating the total
`force of the sensor array, allowing
`deployment if the total force is above a first threshold and
`inhibiting deployment
`if the total force is below a second
`threshold, defining seat areas each having a group of sensors
`(see figure 5A and the related text). Schousek also discloses
`that
`the method includes the steps of determining a local
`pressure area when the total force is concentrated in a seat area
`and calculating the group force as the sum of sensor forces, and
`allowing deployment
`if the group force is greater than a
`threshold for that group (see figure SA, steps 70, 82, 64, 86 and
`the related text’).
`
`Office Action, pages 3 to 4.
`
`While the Examiner concluded that Schousek does not include “a step of determining
`
`a fuzzy value for the array and allowing deployment if the fuzzy Value exceeds a threshold,”
`
`the Examiner referred to Barrus, stating:
`
`

`
`Barrus suggests a system for unencumbered measurement and
`reporting of body structure which using a trained neural
`network (fuzzy logic) for estimating positional attitude by
`comparing the outputs of the array sensors (see figures 5 and 6)
`to pre-detcrrnined outputs of the sensors eonesponding to a
`plurality of pre-determined postures (see figures 7A to 9,
`column 3, lines 29-36, and colurrm 6, lines 50-66).
`
`Office Action. page 4.
`
`In an Amendment filed on June 9, 1997, the Applicant amended claim I as follows:2
`
`1. A method of airbag control in a Vehicle having an array of
`force sensors on the passenger seat coupled to a controller for
`determining
`[permission
`for] whether
`to
`allow airbag
`deployment based on sensed force and force distribution
`comprising the steps of:
`
`measuring the force detected by each sensor;
`
`calculating the total force of the sensor array;
`
`allowing deployment if the total force is above a [first] total
`threshold force [and inhibiting deployment if the total force is
`below a second threshold];
`
`defining a plurality of seat areas [each having a group of
`
`sensors] at least one sensor located in each seat area;
`
`determining the existence of a local pressure area when the
`calculated total force is concentrated in [a] one of said seat
`[area] areas;
`
`[for each group] calculating [the group] a local force as the sum
`of [sensor] forces sensed by each sensor located in the scat area
`in which the total force is concentrated‘ and
`
`[for a group in a local pressure area,] allowing deployment if
`the [group] local force is greater than a predefined seat area
`threshold force [for that g1'oup,]
`
`[determining a fuzzy value for the array; and]
`
`[allowing deployment if the fuzzy value exceeds a threshold].
`
`Added text is underlined, and deleted text is enclosed in square brackets.
`
`

`
`In characterizing the amendments made to claim 1 the Applicant stated:
`
`Claim 1 has been amended to recite a method of airbag control
`in which deployment is allowed based on total force above a
`threshold or a local concentrated force above a threshold.
`
`Amendment, page 10.
`
`Further,
`
`in responding to the obviousness rejection,
`
`the Applicant acknowledged
`
`similarities between Schousck but argued that Schousck does not disclose determining a local
`
`pressure area or calculating a local force:
`
`Schousck is similar to Applieant’s disclosed control method in
`that (1) it is directed to a method of determining whether to
`allow deployment of airbags based upon the sensed force on a
`passenger seat, (2) deployment
`is allowed if a total of the
`sensed forces exceeds a threshold, and (3) the total force is used
`to discriminate between adults and children. However, that is
`
`where the similarity ends. The additional aspects of Schousck —
`such as the discrimination between front and rear facing infant
`seats (or out of position occupant) based on a calculated center
`of weight relative to a reference line — are irrelevant to. or teach
`away from, Applicant’s claimed invention. Thus, Schousck
`clearly does not, as stated by examiner, disclose the method of
`determining a local pressure area when the total
`force is
`concentrated in a seat area and calculating a local force as the
`sum of forces sensed by sensors located in that seat area, the
`portions of Schousck referenced by the examiner teach only
`that center of weight calculations should be used to distinguish
`between front and rear facing infant seats.
`
`Amendment, page 11.
`
`In further arguing that the combination of Schousck and Barrus did not render the
`
`pending claims obvious, the Applicant stated:
`
`Applieant’s invention is particularly directed to an airbag
`deployment method in which various techniques are used to
`determine if an occupant is suitably positioned on a passenger
`seat. These techniques do not utilize center of weight
`calculations as taught by Schousck, nor do they utilize neural
`networks
`as
`taught by Barrus. Although Applicant has
`disclosed the use of pattern recognition to identify the presence
`of an infant seat, pattern recognition is not used to identify the
`position of an occupant, as taught by Barrus.
`
`Amendment, page I2.
`
`Further, with respect to claim 1, the Applicant argued:
`
`Applicant’s Claim l defines a method wherein the controller
`determines the existence of a local pressure area when the total
`6
`
`

`
`force is concentrated in one of the predefined seat areas, and in
`such event, sums the forces of the sensors located in that seat
`
`area for comparison with a seat area threshold force to
`determine if deployment should be allowed. There is no
`teaching of this sort in either Schousck or Barrus. According to
`Sehousek, the controller computes the center of weight from all
`of the sensors, and compares it with a reference line, according
`to Barrus,
`the controller would look for
`a
`recognizable
`occupant force pattern from all of the sensors. Since neither
`Schousck nor Barrus contain a teaching that suggests the
`claimed invention, no combination of Schousck and Barrus can
`be said to obviate the claimed invention.
`
`Amendment, pages 13 to 14.
`
`The Examiner issued a Notice of Allowance on September 9, 1997, which included
`
`the following statement by the Examiner of reasons for allowance:
`
`After carefully reviewing the application in light of the
`a.
`prior art of record, the amended claims and additional search of
`all the possible areas relevant to the present applications, a set
`of related prior art references has been found, but those prior art
`references are not deemed strong to make the application
`unpatentable. Thus,
`it is found that the application is now in
`condition for allowance.
`
`claimed
`several
`art disclose
`Although the prior
`b.
`limitations, none of the references teaches a method of airbag
`control in a vehicle having an array of force sensors on the
`passenger seat coupled to a controller for determining whether
`to allow airbag deployment based on the sensed force and the
`force distribution which includes the steps of defining a
`plurality of seat area in which each area includes at least one
`sensor, determining the existence of a local pressure area when
`the calculated total force of the sensor array is concentrated in
`one of the seat areas, calculating a local force as the sum of
`forces sensed by each sensor located in the seat area in which
`the total force is concentrated, and allowing deployment if the
`local force is greater than a predefined seat area threshold force
`(claim 1).
`
`In the Schousck reference (5,474,327), the total weight
`d.
`and weight distribution are calculated and are used to
`distinguish the presence of an adult, an infant seat facing
`forward, or an infant sear facing rearward, and the inhibition
`deployment of the airbag is based on the presence of an adult,
`presence and position of an infant seat. However, Schousck
`does not disclose the steps of determining the local force as the
`sum of forces sensed by each sensor located in the seat area,
`
`7
`
`

`
`and allowing deployment if the local force is greater than a
`predefined
`seat
`area. Moreover,
`the Barrus
`reference
`(5,570,301) neither teaches the use of pattern recognition to
`identify the presence of an infant seat, nor the comparison of
`the sum of the fuzzy local force and the fuzzy total force
`contribution values with a predefined fuzzy threshold.
`
`Notice of Allowance, pages 2 to 4.
`
`The Applicant paid the issue fee on November 14, 1997 without further comment, and
`
`the ’375 patent issued on March 24, 1998 with 19 total claims, including independent claim
`
`1, and claim 7, which depends from claim 1.3
`
`V.
`
`CITATIONS OF PRIOR ART PATENTS AND PRINTED PUBLICATIONS
`
`THAT RAISE SUBSTANTIAL NEW QUESTIONS OF PATENTABILITY
`
`Substantial new questions of patentability affecting claims 1 and 7 of the ’375 patent
`
`are raised by the following prior art patents and printed publications. Annexed hereto as
`
`Exhibit 3 is a listing of, inter alia, the prior art patents and printed publications that raise
`
`substantial questions of patentability. The prior art patents and printed publications constitute
`
`prior art against the ’375 patent, under the sections of 35 USC. § 102 indicated below:
`
`A.
`
`German Utility Patent Publication No. G 91 11 479.9 (“F+G
`Negamos”), published on January 2, 1992 and therefore
`constitutes prior art to the ’375 patent under § l02(b).
`
`B.
`
`Schousek issued on December 12, 1995 from U.S. Patent
`
`Application Serial No. 08/325,718, filed on January 10, 1995
`and therefore constitutes prior art to the '375 patent under §
`lO2(e).
`
`C.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,170,364 (“Gross et al.”), issued on December
`8, 1992 and therefore constitutes prior art to the ’375 patent
`under § l02(b).
`
`D.
`
`US. Patent No. 5,232,243 (“Blackburn et al.”),
`
`issued on
`
`August 3, 1993 and therefore constitutes prior art to the ’375
`patent under § l02(b).
`
`A copy of every prior art patent and printed publication relied upon or referred to
`
`herein is submitted herewith as required by 37 C.F.R. § l.5l0(b)(3). as follows:
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`A copy of F+G Ncgamos is annexed hereto as Exhibit 4.
`
`A copy of Sehousek is annexed hereto as Exhibit 5.
`
`Application claims 1 and 7 issued as claims 1 and 7 of the ’375 patent, respectively.
`
`15
`
`

`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`A copy of Gross et al. is annexed hereto as Exhibit 6.
`
`A copy of Blackburn ct al. is annexed hereto as Exhibit 7.
`
`VI.
`
`STATEMENTS IDENTIFYING EACH SUBSTANTIAL NEVV
`
`QUESTION OF PATENTABILITY PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § l.5l0§b[jl [
`
`1.
`
`IQ
`
`Claims 1 and 7 of the ’375 patent are obvious in view of the combination of
`F+G Negamos and Schousek under 35 U.S.C. § l03(a)
`
`Claims 1 and 7 of the ’375 patent are obvious in view of the combination of
`F+G Negamos and Blackbum et al. under 35 U.S.C. § l03(a)
`
`VII. DETAILED EXPLANATIONS PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § l.5l01b[j2[
`
`The following statements are made, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.5 l0(b)(2), pointing out
`
`each substantial new question of patentability based on the prior art patents and printed
`
`publications cited above in accordance with the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard
`
`as set forth in M.P.E.P. § 2258(l‘)(G) (9th Ed., Rev. Mar. 20l4).4 As set forth in detail below,
`
`the foregoing prior art patents and printed publications would have been considered important
`
`by a reasonable Examiner in deciding whether to allow claims 1 and 7 of the ’375 patent.
`
`Therefore, these prior art patents and printed publications raise substantial new questions of
`
`patentability.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § l.5l0(b)(2), a detailed explanation of the pertinence and
`
`manner of applying the cited prior art patents and printed publications to every claim for
`
`which reexamination is requested is set forth below with reference to the appended chaits.
`
`The following detailed explanation is informed by the ‘375 patent’s prosecution
`
`history, as set forth above. To briefly summarize, during the prosecution of the ’375, the
`
`Examiner determined that
`
`the prior art failed to teach, as required by claims I and 7:
`
`determining the local force as the sum of forces sensed by each sensor located in the scat
`
`area, and allowing deployment if the local force is greater than a predefined seat area
`
`threshold force.
`
`Becaus

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket