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