US 9664586

I'll search for authoritative information on this patent, including any litigation activity.

Let me run a couple more targeted searches for litigation/enforcement activity and USPTO records.

US Patent 9,664,586 — Analyst Summary

Source note: The following is drawn from the authoritative full patent text supplied in your message (fetched from Google Patents, https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9664586](/patent/US9664586)/en). I also ran targeted web searches for USPTO and CAFC 2026 docket activity; no litigation, PTAB, or Federal Circuit matter involving this specific patent (US 9,664,586 / application 14/563,043) was found. See the caveat at the end regarding similarly-numbered "'966 patents."

---

Bibliographic Data

(All identifiers reproduced literally as they appear; e.g., the Korean priority number and the DE/CN publication numbers are not normalized.)

Abstract (as granted)

A system and method are provided for compensating an offset of a pressure sensor. The system includes a pressure sensor that is configured to detect pressure and a power management module that is configured to automatically supply power to a controller connected to the power management module or terminate the supply of power after a preset time to thereby turn the controller on or off. The system further includes the controller connected to the power management module and configured to determine the offset of the pressure sensor based on a pressure value which is detected by the pressure sensor when the power is supplied from the power management module. The system also includes a memory configured to store the determined offset.

Independent Claim — Plain-Language Overview

The patent has 9 claims, of which only Claim 1 is independent (claims 2–5 and 8 depend from claim 1; claims 6–7 and 9 depend from claim 4):

Claim 1 — System for compensating a pressure-sensor offset. A system comprising:

1. A pressure sensor that detects the pressure of a "target system";
2. A power management module that automatically supplies power to a microcomputer and cuts power off according to a preset time, to turn the microcomputer on or off;
3. The microcomputer determines the pressure-sensor offset from the target-system pressure value read from the pressure sensor when power is supplied by the power management module (i.e., on wake-up), and
4. A memory that stores the determined offset;
5. wherein the microcomputer compensates the pressure sensor's output value based on the determined offset.

In substance, the core inventive concept is: after the vehicle/system is shut off, wait a preset (wake-up) delay — long enough for system pressure to equilibrate to atmosphere — then automatically power up the controller, sample the pressure sensor, compute and store the offset, and power back down; later, on vehicle start, load that stored offset to correct the sensor output. The specification frames the benefit for a fuel-gas (e.g., hydrogen) supply system: the offset can be learned without opening an exhaust valve to vent fuel or matching anode pressure to atmosphere, avoiding hydrogen discharge and oxygen intrusion into the anode.

Dependent claims (brief):

• Claim 2: the preset time is either (a) the time for system pressure to equilibrate with atmospheric pressure, or (b) the time needed for the microcomputer to determine the offset.
• Claim 3: the pressure sensor is a relative-pressure or gauge-type sensor.
• Claim 4: adds an atmospheric pressure sensor (controlled by the microcomputer); the pressure sensor is an absolute pressure-type sensor, and the offset is determined from the absolute system pressure and the detected atmospheric pressure.
• Claim 5: the memory is a non-volatile memory.
• Claim 6: the atmospheric pressure sensor is housed in a case with the microcomputer, memory, and power management module.
• Claim 7: that atmospheric pressure sensor is soldered directly on a PCB inside the case.
• Claim 8: the pressure sensor, power management module, and microcomputer are in a vehicle; on vehicle turn-on, the microcomputer loads the stored offset and compensates the pressure sensor output.
• Claim 9: same as claim 8, but in the absolute-pressure configuration adding the atmospheric pressure sensor (claim 4 ancestry).

Points of Note / Uncertainty

• Only system claims issued. Although the Summary and Figures 2–3 describe a method (S210–S270 for offset detection; S310–S340 for loading/compensating), the granted claim set contains no method claim — all nine claims are apparatus/system claims. The "method" is claimed only indirectly through the microcomputer's configured functions.
• "Controller" vs. "microcomputer." The specification variously uses "controller (or microcomputer) 110," and there are minor internal inconsistencies in the text (e.g., a reference to "controller 100"; the priority statement reading "field on Aug. 4, 2014"; "according an the exemplary embodiment"). These appear to be transcription/typographical artifacts in the source document and are reproduced without correction.
• Litigation search. My searches surfaced several federal cases referencing other patents also colloquially called "the '966 patent" — e.g., a Sonos patent about zone scenes (Sonos v. Google, N.D. Cal. 3:20-cv-06754) and a Chamberlain/CGI garage-door-opener patent (N.D. Ill. 1:16-cv-06097) — but these are unrelated to US 9,664,586. I found no record of US 9,664,586 being asserted, challenged at the PTAB, or on a 2026 CAFC docket. I cannot rule out a recently filed or unindexed action; this reflects absence of evidence, not confirmed absence.
• Family follow-ons. Two Hyundai family members cite this area of art as related later filings (KR102249759B1, "Method for compensating offset of pressure sensor," 2017; and KR102348112B1, "Apparatus and method for calibrating pressor sensor of fuel cell system," 2017), which suggests continued corporate interest but does not affect the '586 patent's own status.

If you need the actual USPTO PatentCenter record or a docket search in a specific court (e.g., EDTX or D. Del.), tell me the venue and I can refine the query — but I want to be explicit that I have no authoritative confirmation of any US 9,664,586 enforcement proceeding.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 9664586 across patent litigation databases.

Let me search the specific litigation databases mentioned.

Litigation Search Results — U.S. Patent No. 9,664,586

Bottom line: I found no evidence of any litigation (district court, CAFC, ITC, or PTAB/post-grant) involving U.S. Patent No. 9,664,586 ("System and method for compensating offset of pressure sensor").

What was searched and what was returned

No PACER docket, CAFC docket, ITC Section 337 investigation, or PTAB (IPR/PGR/CBM) proceeding was surfaced that names the '586 patent. I could not obtain a positive confirmation from the Unified Patents litigation caselist for this specific number; the search returned only portal landing pages and unrelated Unified Patents filings. Absence of a hit is not affirmative proof of absence, but I found nothing, and I will not fabricate a case.

Direct answer per your requested fields

Because no case was located, there are no entries for:

• Plaintiff(s) — none found
• Defendant(s) — none found
• Jurisdiction — none found
• Case number — none found
• Filing date — none found
• Outcome/status — none found

No known litigation involving US 9,664,586.

Context that may explain the absence (grounded in the patent record, not speculation about litigation)

• Owner: Hyundai Motor Company (original assignee; assignment recorded 2014‑12‑08, reel/frame 034423/0921). The record shows only routine post‑issuance maintenance‑fee events (4th‑year fee paid 2020‑09‑08; 8th‑year fee paid 2024‑10‑21) — no assignment to an NPE/assertion entity, which is consistent with (though not proof of) no assertion activity.
• Family: US 14/563,043; KR 10‑2014‑0099798 (KR101601460B1); DE 102014225832.4 (DE102014225832B4); CN 201410804758.0 (CN105319009B). A search of foreign counterparts also surfaced no litigation.
• Related but distinct patents do appear in Hyundai-family suits (e.g., Signal IP v. Hyundai on U.S. 5,714,927 / 6,434,486 / 6,012,007; AutoBrilliance litigation in E.D. Tex., 2:23‑cv‑00458, on a '650 patent). None of these involve the '586 patent, and I am flagging them only so they are not mistaken for hits.

Recommended next steps if you need a definitive negative

1. Unified Patents Litigation Portal — direct query: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist filtered by patent 9664586.
2. PACER / Docket Alarm / RPX Insight — run a party-and-patent docket search for "9,664,586" and for assignee "Hyundai Motor Company" to catch any case where the patent is pleaded.
3. USPTO PTAB — search https://ptacts.uspto.gov for the patent number to confirm no IPR/PGR.
4. CAFC — https://cafc.uscourts.gov docket search for "9664586."

Caveat: These databases are not guaranteed complete, and my searches returned no case-specific record. If you have a lead (e.g., a complaint or a specific party), provide it and I will verify.

I'll start by verifying the structured data against live sources — searching for any PTAB proceedings, IPRs, or related litigation involving US 9,664,586.

The first pass surfaced only unrelated patents that happen to share the "'966" shorthand. Let me run more targeted queries on the specific patent and its assignee.

Let me do one final confirmation pass targeting PTAB dockets and any defensive-aggregator activity.

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings are on file for US 9,664,586. The structured USPTO Open Data Portal block in this prompt reports no IPR, PGR, or CBM petitions, and my independent web searches (PTAB E2E / PTABTS petition text, Docket Alarm PTAB case index, CourtListener, and general press coverage) surfaced no petition, institution decision, Final Written Decision, or Federal Circuit appeal involving this patent. So there is no "claims invalidated / sustained / settled / denied" breakdown to report — the correct count is 0 proceedings, 0 active, 0 invalidated, 0 settled, 0 institution denials.

Bottom-line defensive posture for a defendant: the patent is completely un-PTAB-tested, not "hardened." All nine claims stand exactly as issued, with no PTAB or Federal Circuit claim-construction gloss and no estoppel on any prior art. That cuts both ways — a defendant cannot free-ride on an earlier petitioner's win, but it also means no petitioner has yet found the art that kills it, and the Board has never construed the key terms ("preset time," "equilibrates with the atmospheric pressure," "automatically supply power").

A framing caveat that matters enormously here: this is not a troll patent. The assignee is Hyundai Motor Company (Seoul), the original assignee and current assignee of record. It's an OEM implementation patent covering hydrogen/fuel-gas supply system pressure-sensor zeroing, not a licensing vehicle. I found no litigation asserting it against anyone.

---

Per-proceeding analysis

None. There are no AIA proceedings to profile. I will not invent proceeding numbers, panels, or dispositions.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status: all of claims 1–9 are UNTESTED and intact. No claim of the '586 patent has ever been canceled, narrowed by amendment, or construed by the Board or the Federal Circuit. The claim set is nine claims with three independent-ish groupings — claim 1 (the base system claim: pressure sensor + power management module that auto-cycles a microcomputer on/off on a preset time + memory storing the determined offset + microcomputer compensating the sensor output), claim 4 (adding an atmospheric pressure sensor and an absolute-type pressure sensor, offset = f(absolute pressure, atmospheric pressure)), claim 8 (in-vehicle loading/compensating on vehicle-on), and claim 9 (claim 4 + claim 8 combined). Dependents 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 add the preset-time definition, relative/gauge sensor type, non-volatile memory, and the co-located/soldered-PCB atmospheric sensor. Every one of those limitations is live and unadjudicated.

Estoppel landscape: clean slate. Because no petitioner exists, § 315(e)(2) estoppel is a non-issue — no party is barred from raising anything, and no defendant is exposed to a privy-estoppel argument from a predecessor. Any eligible petitioner can file a fresh IPR on any § 102/§ 103 ground. The only constraints are structural: the patent is post-AIA (priority 2014-08-04, filed 2014-12-08), so PGR is time-barred (the 9-month post-grant window closed around 2018-03-02, nine months after the 2017-05-30 grant), and CBM is unavailable (no financial-services/business-method subject matter — this is a G01L pressure-measurement patent). That leaves IPR as the sole AIA vehicle, available at any time (subject to § 315(b)'s one-year bar from service of an infringement complaint on the particular petitioner). Note also the patent's adjusted expiration date of 2035-07-14 — a long runway, which is the kind of tail that eventually attracts petitions if the patent is ever commercialized as an assertion target.

Pattern signals: none. No serial petitioner, no defensive aggregator (Unified Patents is absent from every result), and no PTAB appeal activity by the patent owner — unsurprising, since Hyundai has never needed to defend these claims at the Board. The only forward-citation activity of note is Hyundai citing its own work: KR102249759B1 ("Method for compensating offset of pressure sensor," 2017-04-11) and KR102348112B1 ("Apparatus and method for calibrating pressure sensor of fuel cell system," 2017-04-28), plus KR20220084771A ("Method and system for correcting offset of hydrogen pressure sensor," 2020-12-14). That's a family of related but distinct Korean filings — a defendant facing the '586 should check whether that continuation/improvement chain has issued into any US counterpart, because the claim scope may differ in ways that matter.

---

Recommended next steps

1. If you are a defendant: state plainly in any invalidity contentions that no PTAB proceeding exists on US 9,664,586 — the structured ODP data and web sources agree, and the absence is the finding. Do not represent to a court or an adversary that the claims have been tested by the Board.
2. IPR is your only AIA route, and it is wide open. There is no estoppel, no prior FWD to distinguish, and no claim amendment history to navigate. The relevant statutory basis is § 102/§ 103 on patents/printed publications under § 311(b) — § 112 is not available in IPR (only in PGR, which is time-barred), so a written-description or enablement theory must be litigated in district court or via reexam.
3. Mine the prosecution record before drafting. The patent's cited-art list is a ready starting set: US 2008/0209990 A1 (Isuzu, fuel pressure sensor diagnosing), US 6,539,921 B1 (Denso, fuel injection w/ fuel pressure sensor), US 6,705,296 B2 (Bosch, calibrating a pressure sensor in a fuel metering system), US 2003/0213294 A1 (Mitsubishi), US 5,560,199 A (Hitachi), US 2009/0007647 A1 (rail pressure sensor plausibility check), and especially US 2015/0075251 A1 (Ford Global Technologies, "Detecting pressure sensor offset in a PHEV fuel tank") — that one is squarely on-point for key-off pressure-decay offset learning and is post-dated relative to the KR priority date (2014-08-04), so check its effective filing date carefully as it may be § 102(a)(2)/§ 102(e) art at best. Also worth a look: US 8,285,463 B2 (GM, calibrating a pressure sensor for an automatic transmission) and US 6,907,790 B2 (Rosemount, gage pressure output from an absolute pressure measurement device).
4. PGR is foreclosed; watch for reexamination and district-court validity instead. Since the 9-month PGR window lapsed in 2018, the practical non-IPR levers are ex parte reexamination (any third party), and § 282 invalidity in litigation. The wake-up/auto-zero concept is arguably well-trodden in the fuel-tank and fuel-cell literature, so a § 103 combination built on key-off equilibrium + non-volatile storage + wake-up timer is the natural attack — but it has evidently never been run, so you would be first.
5. Verify against primary sources before relying on this. The authoritative proceeding list is the USPTO Open Data Portal PTAB API and PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/), with the patent's own page at https://patents.google.com/patent/US9664586/en. For any appeal of any future FWD, monitor https://cafc.uscourts.gov and CourtListener. I found nothing on any of these as of 2026-09-29, but ODP ingest lags — if you have specific intelligence of a recently-filed petition that ODP hasn't indexed, that would be the one thing that changes this picture.

One honest limitation: my searches were broad and returned a large volume of false-positive hits on other patents that share the informal "'966" shorthand (a wave-generation patent, a network-resource-manager patent, etc.). I discarded all of those. I found no evidence of any proceeding on this '586, but "I found nothing" is not the same as "a negative API query confirmed nothing" — the structured block is what gives you the latter, and it says no proceedings.

I'll verify the assignment record and check for any post-issuance transfers or assertion activity before writing.

Ownership & Assignment Reconstruction — US 9,664,586 B2

Patent: US 9,664,586 B2 — "System and method for compensating offset of pressure sensor"
App. No.: 14/563,043 · Filed: 2014-12-08 · Granted: 2017-05-30 · Priority: KR 10-2014-0099798 (2014-08-04)
Source of record: Google Patents US9664586B2 · USPTO Assignment Center · Assignment Search (legacy UI)

---

Inventors

Employer is determinable with reasonable confidence, not from the assignment cover sheet itself but from contemporaneous co-authored technical literature and later patent filings: a 2014 Korean Hydrogen and New Energy Society paper (DOI 10.7316/KHNES.2014.25.5.509) lists Bae, Ho June and Ban, Hyeon Seok with the affiliation "Hyundai Motors Company" (one co-author, Jang, Seok Yeong, is "Hyundai Mobis"), and all three inventors' subsequent US filings remain Hyundai-assigned — e.g. US 11,552,316 (granted 2023-01-10, Bae + Ban) and US 10,112,486 (2018-10-30, Ban + Bae + Shim), both Hyundai Motor / Kia Motors.

Unusual-pattern check — negative. There is no inventor-departure signal. All three named inventors continue to appear as inventors on Hyundai Motor Company applications filed through at least 2019 (US 16/405,279) and into the 2020s, with no gap and no reassignment of their rights to a third party. This is the ordinary profile of an in-house OEM R&D team, not a team that walked out the door ahead of a portfolio sale.

---

Original assignee

Hyundai Motor Company — a corporation of the Republic of Korea, 12, Heolleung-ro, Seocho-gu, Seoul 06797 (the address used consistently across Hyundai's US assignment cover sheets, e.g. reels 040307/0357, 044183/0167, 051922/0480).

• Primary line of business: Design and manufacture of automobiles; the patent's disclosed target system is a vehicle fuel-gas (hydrogen) supply system for a fuel-cell vehicle, and the specification explicitly frames the invention around hydrogen exhaust-gas regulation compliance.
• Product embodying the claims: Yes — Hyundai is the longest-running series producer of fuel-cell EVs, shipping the Tucson/ix35 Fuel Cell (from 2013) and NEXO (from 2018), which use anode-side hydrogen pressure sensing and control of exactly the type described. The inventor team (Ban / Bae / Lee) is a Hyundai fuel-cell hydrogen-supply control group, not a licensing shop.
• Current status: Operating. Hyundai Motor Company is a listed, ongoing concern (KRX: 005380) and has not been acquired, dissolved, or placed in bankruptcy. No Chapter 7/11 record touches this patent.

---

Assignment timeline

There is exactly one recorded assignment against US 9,664,586, and it is the original inventor-to-company assignment. There are no post-issuance assignments, no security interests, no mergers, no changes of name, and no releases in the USPTO record surfaced for this patent.

• 2014-11-14 (executed) / recorded 2014-12-08 — Reel 034423/0921
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: BAN, Hyeon Seok; BAE, Ho June; LEE, Hyun Joon (joint inventors)
  • Assignee: HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY (Korea, Republic of)
  • Correspondent: Not determinable from the indexed record. Google Patents' legal-events entry exposes the reel/frame, conveyance, assignors, assignee, and the 2014-11-14 effective date, but not the correspondent field of the cover sheet, and I was unable to retrieve the underlying cover-sheet PDF from the legacy assignment repository for this reel. I am flagging this as a gap rather than supplying a name I cannot verify. Operationally this matters little: the recording was contemporaneous with filing (recorded the same day the application was filed, 2014-12-08), which is the standard in-house/filing-firm submission pattern for an original assignment, not an NPE-style late-recorded transfer.
  • Context: Original inventor-to-employer assignment at filing — the patent has never left Hyundai Motor Company.

Corroborating negative finding on the international family. The same invention was filed in three other jurisdictions and none of them shows a transfer away from Hyundai either: KR 101601460B1 (2016-03-09), CN 105319009B (2019-12-06), and DE 102014225832B4 (2024-07-04). A four-jurisdiction family retained intact by the original corporate assignee for 11+ years post-filing is inconsistent with a portfolio monetization exit.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9664586
    2014 : Inventors execute assignment to Hyundai Motor
         : Application filed 2014-12-08
         : Assignment recorded Reel 034423/0921
    2016 : Pre-grant publication US20160033351A1
    2017 : US9664586B2 granted to Hyundai Motor
    2024 : Family member DE102014225832B4 granted
    2035 : Projected expiry 2035-07-14

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The chain terminates at HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY itself per Reel 034423/0921 (recorded 2014-12-08). There is no transfer to any entity with an "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures" suffix, no single-purpose LLC, and no registered-agent service address anywhere in the record. The only address of record is Hyundai's corporate headquarters in Seocho-gu, Seoul.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Neither the original assignee nor (in the absence of any further link) any subsequent holder matches Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, or any Spangenberg-linked entity. Hyundai Motor Company appears on no RPX or Unified Patents high-frequency-plaintiff list. Note the direction of the forward citations: two of the family's US-family citing documents are Hyundai's own later Korean filings — KR 102249759 B1 (현대자동차주식회사, 2021-05-07) and KR 102348112 B1 (현대자동차주식회사, 2022-01-07) — i.e. internal follow-on prosecution, not third-party assertion interest.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present (and not assessable). With a single-link chain there is no recurrence to detect. I could not retrieve the correspondent name for Reel 034423/0921 from the indexed sources (see above), so I am recording this as unclear on the record available, not as a negative finding about any particular attorney. For contrast, Hyundai's later US recordings in the same portfolio use Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (SF) — Jere Valles on reel 040307/0357 (2016-11-14) and Sheila R. Gloss on reel 044183/0167 (2017-11-20) — and Brinks Gilson & Lione on reel 051922/0480 (2020-02-25); that recurrence is ordinary outside-counsel prosecution practice for a large operating company, not an NPE-coordination pattern.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. Zero consecutive assignments. The patent has had one owner since 2014.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. No infringement action naming US 9,664,586 was located in searches of public litigation reporting or in the Google Patents family record; the patent's forward-citation activity is prosecution-driven, not litigation-driven. With no suit and no pre-suit assignment, there is nothing to time against.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. Hyundai Motor Company has not filed for bankruptcy protection, and no assignment from a trustee or debtor-in-possession appears in the record.

7. Privateering — not present. No transfer to any entity that could be asserting on Hyundai's behalf. The patent stayed in-house, which is the opposite configuration.

8. Defensive aggregator — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN (and equally, it was not "neutralized" by one — the patent simply remains with its manufacturer-owner).

---

Verdict

Insufficient data — specifically, only the original assignment exists.

The entire chain is a single instrument: joint inventors BAN/BAE/LEE to HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY, executed 2014-11-14, recorded 2014-12-08 at Reel 034423/0921, with no further conveyance in the US record and no counterpart transfer in the KR, CN, or DE family members. Every monetization signal in the checklist tests negative by absence of any later link, and the practical reality is that Hyundai is an operating automotive OEM shipping fuel-cell vehicles that embody the claims while the three inventors kept filing related Hyundai applications for years afterward. This is a clean operating-company chain, not an NPE chain — the "insufficient data" label applies because a single-link chain cannot support affirmative NPE analysis, not because the data is ambiguous.

Caveat on the one gap: the correspondent of record for Reel 034423/0921 could not be pulled from the indexed sources. If you need that field for a completeness record, it must be read off the actual cover sheet in the USPTO Assignment Center for reel 034423 frame 0921 — search by patent number at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (legacy interface: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html).

I'll verify the cited references before analyzing them.

Prior Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 9,664,586 B2

Builds on the bibliographic, claim-overview, and litigation sections already generated above; those are not repeated here except where needed for the §102 mapping.

---

1. Scope and Method

Patent searched: U.S. Patent No. 9,664,586 B2 only (application US 14/563,043; "System and method for compensating offset of pressure sensor"; Hyundai Motor Company). I did not include, and did not conflate, any similarly numbered patent. Note as background that the record confirms there are unrelated colloquial "'966 patents" (e.g., the Sonos zone-scenes patent and a Chamberlain garage-door-opener patent identified in the earlier litigation section); none of those appear in this analysis.

Sources used:

• The authoritative full text of US 9,664,586 fetched from Google Patents (supplied in the prompt), specifically its "Patent Citations (16)" list, its "Citations (14)" list, and its "Family Cites Families (5)" list.
• Targeted web searches to pull abstracts/claim text of the most substantive references (Ford US 2015/0075251 A1; GM US 8,285,463 B2; Bosch US 6,705,296 B2; Honda JP 2009-002875 A / JP 4981538 B2). (Search budget was exhausted before I could pull full text for the remaining, title-level references — flagged individually below.)

Important caveat on what "citation" means here. These are the references of record for US 9,664,586 — i.e., references the examiner (and, where marked, third parties) considered or listed during prosecution. Being cited does not mean a reference was relied on for a rejection, and the claims as granted issued over this art. My §102 mapping below is my own analysis of each reference against the granted claims, not a statement of what the examiner decided. Where Google Patents flags a reference as examiner-cited, I reproduce that with an "( * )"; where the mark is ambiguous in the fetched page, I say so.

Legal framework applied: Because the '586 application was filed 2014-12-08 with a 2014-08-04 KR priority (both after 2013-03-16), the AIA version of 35 U.S.C. §102 governs — notably §102(a)(1) (publicly available before the effective filing date) and §102(a)(2) (earlier-filed, later-published U.S. applications/patents naming another inventor). This distinction matters for one reference (Ford) and is explained below.

---

2. Bottom Line Up Front

No single reference of record discloses every element of Claim 1, and therefore no reference anticipates any of Claims 1–9, because Claims 2–9 all depend from Claim 1 (or from Claim 4, which itself depends from Claim 1). The element that is consistently missing from the art of record is Claim 1's "power management module … configured to automatically supply power to a microcomputer and terminate supply of power to the microcomputer according to a preset time to turn the microcomputer on or off" — i.e., an autonomous, timer-driven wake-up of the controller while the vehicle is off. Every reference that learns an offset either does so at key-on/start-up (GM, Ford), at engine standstill based on coolant temperature (Bosch), or at a manually/valve-triggered atmospheric condition (Fujikin, Honda).

The references below are therefore ranked by relevance, and the "potentially anticipates" column reflects the honest answer: mostly none in full, with several references being strong §103 (obviousness) bases or anticipating only sub-combinations of the claims.

---

3. Summary Table (references of record, ranked)

---

4. Detailed Reference-by-Reference §102 Analysis

TIER 1 — Closest / most substantive references

1. US 2015/0075251 A1 — Ford Global Technologies, LLC

Title: "Detecting pressure sensor offset in a PHEV fuel tank." Filed: 2013-09-16. Published: 2015-03-19. Status: abandoned application. (Examiner-cited, ( * ).)

Description: Discloses determining a fuel-tank pressure sensor (FTPT) offset in a plug-in hybrid EVAP system. During initial vehicle power up — before refueling, while the fuel system is open to atmosphere — a reference sensor provides atmospheric pressure, the FTPT provides a check signal, a controller computes the offset as the difference, stores it in a system memory location, and thereafter modifies FTPT pressure readings by applying the stored offset. A further routine (FIG. 3) predicts a fuel-tank pressure fall-off rate and re-corrects the stored offset. The specification expressly notes the goal of avoiding forcible system venting and release of hydrocarbons.

§102 analysis vs. the '586 claims:

• Anticipates Claim 1? No. Ford discloses the offset-determination core — determining an offset from a pressure reading using atmospheric pressure reference, storing it in memory, and compensating the sensor output (elements (a), (c), (d), (e) of Claim 1). It does not disclose element (b): the power management module that automatically supplies and terminates power to the microcomputer according to a preset time. Ford's offset learning happens at initial vehicle power-up, not via an autonomous timed wake-up after key-off.
• Potentially anticipatory as to: nothing in full. Its §102 value is as §102(a)(2) art (see timing note below) and, more importantly, it is the single best §103 base for Claims 1, 4, 5 and 8 because it discloses the atmospheric-reference offset learning, the memory storage, the later compensation, and even the same regulatory motivation.
• Timing nuance (do not overlook): Ford's publication (2015-03-19) postdates the '586 filing (2014-12-08), so Ford is not §102(a)(1) art. But because Ford was filed 2013-09-16 — before the '586 effective filing date — it is properly citable as §102(a)(2) art (a U.S. application publication effectively filed before the claimed invention's effective filing date, naming another inventor).

2. US 8,285,463 B2 — GM Global Technology Operations LLC

Title: "Method and system for calibrating a pressure sensor for an automatic transmission." Filed: 2009-08-11. Granted: 2012-10-09. (Appears in the '586 record under "Family Cites Families.")

Description: A transmission control module determines a transmission pressure-sensor offset prior to starting the vehicle engine and controls a transmission function using the corrected signal. The flowchart includes a step 312 "Wake Up Sensors" and describes a delay time that "may correspond to the wake-up time for the sensor electronics" before starting the engine; an offset signal is generated that zeros the sensor reading, and the transmission is subsequently operated with the corrected sensor signal.

§102 analysis vs. the '586 claims:

• Anticipates Claim 1? No. It discloses a wake-up and a stored/applied offset (element (b) in part and elements (c)/(e)), but the wake-up is triggered by the driver (key insertion, key rotation, start button, remote start), not automatically by a power management module according to a preset time while the vehicle is off. That is precisely the element the '586 patent adds. Nor is the offset derived from an atmospheric-pressure comparison after system equilibration — it is a zero-point reading taken before operation.
• Potentially anticipatory as to: nothing in full. Strongest §103 base for the "wake-up + determine offset + compensate output" combination of Claims 1 and 2 (its "delay time … wake-up time" language is the closest art on the preset-time element).

3. US 6,705,296 B2 — Robert Bosch GmbH (Horstmann & Hammer)

Title: "Method and device for calibrating a pressure sensor in a fuel metering system." Priority: DE 100 30 935, 2000-06-24; PCT filed 2001-06-16 (WO 02/01057); granted 2004-03-16. (Priority counterpart also listed as KR 2002-0033768 A.)

Description: Calibrates a fuel-metering-system pressure sensor by measuring atmospheric pressure with the pressure sensor itself prior to start of the internal combustion engine; the device determines the cooling-water temperature drop as a measure of engine standstill time and performs the first calibration only when the standstill time exceeds a predefinable minimum.

§102 analysis vs. the '586 claims:

• Anticipates Claim 1? No. This is the closest art to the "wait a preset interval after shut-down, then read the sensor against atmosphere" idea (element (b)'s rationale and Claim 2's preset-time concept), and it supplies the standstill-time precondition. But it (i) has no power-management module that autonomously powers the controller on/off, (ii) uses the same system sensor rather than a separate atmospheric-pressure sensor, and (iii) is directed to correcting the sensor characteristic during the subsequent start rather than storing an offset in memory for later output compensation.
• Potentially anticipatory as to: nothing in full. Material §103 art for Claim 2 ("preset time … during which the pressure of the system equilibrates with the atmospheric pressure") and for the atmospheric-reference concept.

4. JP 2009-002875 A — Honda Motor Co., Ltd. (granted as JP 4981538 B2)

Title: "Pressure sensor calibration device and fuel cell system." Filed: 2007-06-25. Published: 2009-01-08 (granted 2012-07-25). (Examiner list.)

Description (verified from the JP text): A calibration device for a fuel-cell-system gas-flow-path pressure sensor, comprising an atmospheric-pressure sensor whose measurable range is narrower than the pressure sensor's. When the pressure sensor measures the fluid at atmospheric pressure, the device computes a reference correction amount as the difference between the pressure-sensor output (P0f) and the atmospheric pressure (P0) detected by the atmospheric-pressure sensor, applies that correction, and tapers the correction to zero at the midpoint of the measurable range. It further states that when applied to the anode-side sensor it is preferable, at system shutdown, to open a purge valve to vent the anode gas supply/discharge mechanism to atmospheric pressure.

§102 analysis vs. the '586 claims:

• Anticipates Claim 1 or Claim 4? No. This reference is highly on-point for Claim 4 (fuel-cell pressure sensor; separate atmospheric-pressure sensor; offset/difference between sensor output and atmospheric pressure; correcting the sensor output). But it lacks the power-management-module wake-up (element (b)) and the memory-stores-offset-then-compensates-on-next-start architecture of Claim 1, from which Claim 4 depends.
• Anticipatory/potency note: It is the most direct §103 art on the atmospheric-pressure-sensor calibration concept, and its express disclosure of opening a purge valve to reach atmosphere at shutdown is the very practice the '586 patent describes as the prior-art alternative it seeks to avoid — making it a strong teaching reference for a §103 combination against Claim 1 and a §102-type disclosure for the sub-combination in Claim 4.

5 & 6. US 2007/0151321 A1 and KR 2006-0012314 A — Fujikin Incorporated

Title (US): "Automatic zero point correction device for a pressure sensor, a pressure control device and a pressure type flow rate control device." Prio/filed: 2003-06-20; published 2007-07-05. Title (KR): "Automatic zero correction device for pressure sensor, pressure controller and pressure flow controller," published 2006-02-07. (Examiner list.)

Description (title/family-level only — full text not retrieved): An automatic zero-point (offset) correction device for a pressure sensor in a pressure/flow-control context.

§102 analysis: Discloses the generic concept of automatic offset/zero correction of a pressure sensor, but not within a vehicle/controller wake-up architecture and (per the title) not using an atmospheric-reference comparison after system equilibration. No full anticipation of Claims 1–9; background/§103 value only for the general offset-correction concept. Caveat: I did not retrieve full text, so I cannot exclude an atmospheric-reference teaching; treat this as title-level.

7. US 6,907,790 B2 — Rosemount Inc.

Title: "Gage pressure output from an absolute pressure measurement device." Prio/filed: 2003-03-21; granted 2005-06-21. (Family-cited.)

Description (title-level): Deriving a gauge-pressure output from an absolute-pressure measurement — i.e., subtracting barometric/atmospheric pressure from an absolute reading.

§102 analysis: Relevant conceptually to Claim 3 (relative/gauge vs. absolute) and to the arithmetic underlying Claim 4 (offset derived from absolute system pressure minus atmospheric pressure). It discloses no system integrating a wake-up controller, so no anticipation of any claim; potential §103 support only.

8. KR 100863545 B1 — Mando Corp.

Title: "Master cylinder pressure sensor offset correction method." Prio/filed: 2007-03-22; published/granted 2008-10-15. (Examiner list.)

Description (title-level): Offset correction of a master-cylinder pressure sensor (brake system).

§102 analysis: Generic offset-correction art in a different vehicle subsystem. No anticipation; background/§103 only. Title-level only.

---

TIER 2 — Background / diagnostic references (no full-claim anticipation)

These references are directed to fuel-system or pressure-sensor monitoring/diagnosis, not to wake-up offset learning, and I verified only titles/metadata for most. For each: no reference here discloses the Claim 1 power-management-module wake-up element, and none anticipates any of Claims 1–9.

---

TIER 3 — Family-cited references with peripheral bearing

---

5. Consolidated §102 Findings

1. Anticipation of Claim 1 (and thus of all dependent Claims 2–9): none. The art of record does not disclose the combination of:

• a pressure sensor for a target system,
• a power management module that automatically supplies/terminates power to a microcomputer according to a preset time to turn it on/off,
• the microcomputer determining the offset from the pressure value read when power is supplied by that module,
• a memory storing the offset, and
• the microcomputer compensating the sensor output with the stored offset.
  The missing element across all references is the autonomous, timer-driven wake-up of the controller after the vehicle/system is off.

1. Closest art on individual elements:

• Atmospheric-reference offset learning, storage, and later compensation: Ford US 2015/0075251 A1 (and, in the fuel-cell context with a dedicated atmospheric-pressure sensor, Honda JP 2009-002875 A).
• "Preset wait time" after shut-down before reading the sensor against atmosphere: Bosch US 6,705,296 B2 (coolant-temperature-derived standstill time / predefinable minimum).
• "Wake-up" of sensor electronics plus offset determination prior to operation: GM US 8,285,463 B2.
• Gauge-from-absolute arithmetic: Rosemount US 6,907,790 B2.
• Opening a purge valve to reach atmosphere at shutdown (the very practice the '586 avoids): Honda JP 2009-002875 A.

1. §103 posture (stated for completeness, since §102 alone yields no clean hit): The strongest hypothetical obviousness combination would be Ford (or Honda) for atmospheric-reference offset learning + storing/compensating, in view of GM for the "wake-up + delay time" concept, and Bosch for the "wait until standstill exceeds a predefinable minimum" concept. Whether that combination would have been motivated and whether it would supply the specific "power management module … automatically … according to a preset time" limitation of Claim 1 is a separate question — and is likely the reason the claims as granted stand over this art of record.

2. Timing point worth preserving: Ford's publication (2015-03-19) is later than the '586 filing, so if Ford is cited, it must be as §102(a)(2) art on the strength of its 2013-09-16 filing date, not as §102(a)(1) art.

---

6. Explicit Limitations of This Analysis

• Full text retrieved: Ford US 2015/0075251 A1; GM US 8,285,463 B2; Bosch US 6,705,296 B2; Honda JP 2009-002875 A / JP 4981538 B2. These four are analyzed on their actual disclosures.
• Title/metadata only: The remaining references (items 5–20, except as noted) — I could not retrieve their full specifications within the search budget, so descriptions are title-level and my §102 conclusions for them are limited to what their titles and bibliographic data support. I have not fabricated any disclosure content for these. In particular, the Korean, Japanese, and Chinese references are described only from their English titles/listings; their actual disclosures may be broader.
• Provenance marks: The examiner/third-party asterisk convention from Google Patents is reproduced where legible; where it is not, I avoided attributing the citation to a particular party.
• Identifiers reproduced literally: e.g., KR 10-2014-0099798, DE 10 2014 225 832, CN 105319009, DE 195 47 647 A1, KR 2002-0033768 A, KR 2006-0012314 A, KR 2008-0107179 A are given as listed; none has been normalized or corrected.
• No litigation/PTAB overlay: Consistent with the earlier sections, no enforcement or post-grant proceeding involving US 9,664,586 was found that would supply additional prior-art-of-record or estoppel context.

I'll ground this analysis in the actual prior-art references listed in the patent record. Let me pull details on the key cited references.

Let me pull the fuel-cell and after-run references, which are central to the wake-up/equilibration concept.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 9,664,586 B2

"System and method for compensating offset of pressure sensor" (Hyundai Motor Company)

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 — using the prior art of record on the patent

Scope note. This analysis builds on the earlier-generated summary and litigation sections (which established: sole independent claim 1; 9 claims; priority KR 10‑2014‑0099798 filed 2014‑08‑04; US filing 2014‑12‑08; no litigation found). No contradictions with those sections were found. Because the US filing date is 2014‑12‑08, the AIA version of §§ 102/103 governs. Every reference discussed below was either cited by the examiner or cited in the family's IDSs and has an effective date before the 2014‑08‑04 priority date.

Grounding caveat. I verified the substance of GM US 8,285,463, Bosch US 6,705,296, Ford US 2015/0075251, Fujikin US 2007/0151321 (granted as US 7,669,455), and Honda JP 2009‑002875 (granted as JP 4981538 B2) by retrieval. For CN101581962B ("Method for reducing CPU power consumption and CPU"), KR20080107179A (water level measuring device), US5560199A (Hitachi), US20080209990A1 (Isuzu), US20090007647A1 (Kraemer), and US6907790B2 (Rosemount), I did not retrieve the full text; I rely only on the titles/abstracts as they appear in the patent's own citation list and flag them as unverified. I do not assert what they disclose beyond their listed titles.

---

1. Legal framework applied

Under Graham v. John Deere, obviousness turns on (1) the scope/content of the prior art, (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims, (3) the level of ordinary skill, and (4) secondary considerations. Under KSR Int'l v. Teleflex, a claim is obvious not only where there is an explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine, but also where the combination is "the product of ordinary creativity," flows from a "known technique," or results from "design incentives and other market forces." MPEP 2143 recognizes several rationales, of which the following are relevant here:

• (A) Known technique to improve similar devices in the same way;
• (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain a predictable result;
• (C) Use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way;
• (D) "Obvious to try" — a finite number of identified, predictable solutions.

The patent's own specification supplies much of the motivation analysis, because it repeatedly characterizes the problem the invention solves (sensor offset degradation over the vehicle's life) and the constraint the invention works around (fuel gas may not be "arbitrarily discharged" to vent the system to atmosphere).

---

2. Level of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA)

A POSITA would be a person with a bachelor's degree in mechanical, electrical, or mechatronic engineering (or equivalent), plus about 2–4 years of experience in vehicle electronic control units and/or fuel-cell/low-pressure gas-system sensing and control. Such a person would be familiar with: (i) pressure-sensor offset/zero-point drift and its compensation; (ii) the use of an atmospheric-pressure reference to derive an offset; (iii) vehicle ECU sleep/wake ("keep-alive") power management and timer-driven wake circuits; and (iv) the safety/regulatory constraints of a hydrogen or sealed fuel-gas system. This level is consistent with the credentials of the named inventors and with the art cited in the patent (GM, Bosch, Ford, Honda, Fujikin).

---

3. Claim 1 — element-by-element mapping

Claim 1 (quoted literally from the record) has five elements. The table below maps each to the cited art.

Observation. Every element of claim 1 is disclosed somewhere in the cited art. The only element that is not squarely met by any single reference is the combination in 1b/1c: an autonomous, timer-triggered wake-up of the controller after the system is switched off, followed by offset determination. GM teaches wake-up + offset determination, but its wake-up is operator-initiated (key/start button). Bosch teaches waiting for a standstill interval before calibrating, but its calibration is executed at the next ignition-on. Whether those two can be combined into claim 1 is the crux of the § 103 analysis, addressed in § 4.

---

4. The three leading obviousness combinations

Combination I (strongest): GM US 8,285,463 + Bosch US 6,705,296 + Ford US 2015/0075251

What each contributes.

• GM supplies the core architecture: a pressure sensor; an ECU that wakes up the sensor electronics, determines a pressure-sensor offset before engine start, and corrects the sensor signal with that offset for closed-loop control. GM even describes a delay/"wake-up" time for the sensor electronics and an "auto-calibration routine" that runs before the vehicle is allowed to start.
• Bosch supplies the timing rationale that GM lacks: the sensor is calibrated against atmospheric pressure only after a "standstill time" of the engine exceeds a predefinable minimum, where standstill time is inferred from a cooling-water temperature drop. That is, Bosch expressly teaches waiting a preset interval after engine shutdown so that the sensed condition is valid before calibrating — functionally the same "preset time before wake-up/calibration" concept recited in claim 1 and claim 2. Bosch also states the underlying problem the '586 patent addresses: pressure sensors "include a static offset error, that is, the zero point is not reliably indicated," and because the offset "exhibits a large scattering from pressure sensor to pressure sensor … each pressure sensor must be calibrated individually."
• Ford supplies the atmospheric-reference offset computation and the memory step: receive a reference atmospheric-pressure signal; receive the sensor signal "at a time when the fuel system is open to atmosphere"; calculate the offset as the difference; store it in system memory; and apply it during operation. Ford also states the very rationale the '586 patent relies upon — that a sealed tank "cannot be easily vented" and that venting "would not be desirable, as that action could emit hydrocarbons to the atmosphere."

Motivation to combine (KSR/MPEP rationales A + C).

1. Same field, same problem. All three references address compensating a pressure sensor's offset in a vehicle fluid system to improve control accuracy — the exact field and problem of the '586 patent. KSR and MPEP 2144.01 treat this common field/problem as a strong motivation.
2. Bosch expressly motivates the timing. Bosch's teaching that the sensor should be calibrated against atmosphere after a minimum standstill because the reading is otherwise invalid directly suggests gating the offset determination on elapsed time after shutdown — the "preset time" of claim 1.
3. Ford expressly motivates doing it when the system is at atmospheric equilibrium and cannot be vented — the '586 patent's stated advantage.
4. GM expressly motivates automatic, pre-operational offset determination so the offset is available the moment the vehicle is used, and describes a wake-up/delay mechanism and an auto-calibration routine.
5. Predictable result. Combining a known timer-gated calibration (Bosch) with a known wake-up-and-calibrate architecture (GM) and a known atmospheric-reference offset computation/storage (Ford) yields nothing more than the expected result: a stored, accurate offset available at the next start.

Reason the combination is not automatic (the "gap" the patent may occupy). None of the three taken alone discloses autonomously powering up the controller after shutdown to take the reading; GM powers up at the operator's start command, and Bosch calibrates at the next ignition cycle. The combination therefore requires the further insight to add an unattended, self-triggered wake after key-off. This is where the analysis is most contestable (see § 7).

---

Combination II: Honda JP 4981538 B2 + Ford US 2015/0075251 + GM US 8,285,463

Why this is the "closest-art-in-the-same-application" combination.

• Honda is the single most on-point reference. It is a fuel cell system pressure-sensor calibration device that uses a separate atmospheric-pressure sensor having a narrower measurement range than the working pressure sensor, and computes a "reference correction amount (P0r)" as the difference between the pressure sensor output and the atmospheric sensor value when the working sensor is at atmospheric pressure — then applies that correction. Honda even notes that for the anode side, at system stop one would open a purge valve to bring the anode gas path to atmospheric pressure, and that the correction amount can be updated "随時" (as needed) to handle "経年変化" (aging/degradation). That is the same atmospheric-reference, aging-compensating offset idea as the '586 patent.
• Ford supplies the mathematical offset computation, the storage in system memory, and the express motivation to do this where the system cannot be vented.
• GM supplies the wake-up/delay architecture and the "determine offset, then compensate the sensor signal" control loop.
• Motivation: Honda explicitly frames its problem as a fuel-cell pressure sensor with a wide range and low resolution whose accuracy must be maintained against aging; Ford explains why the offset must be derived against an atmospheric reference and stored; GM shows how the controller can wake the sensor electronics and use the offset. Combining these is the substitution of known elements (atmospheric reference sensor, offset storage, controller wake-up) to achieve the predictable result of an accurate, aging-compensated fuel-cell pressure reading.

Note on teaching-away. The '586 patent argues its approach avoids hydrogen discharge and oxygen intrusion into the anode (which Honda's anode-side suggestion entails). That argument supports patentability of the non-venting approach but does not create a teaching away from Combination II, because each reference still points toward determining an offset against atmospheric pressure; the '586 patent merely changes when/how the system reaches atmospheric equilibrium (by waiting rather than venting). This is a "known technique, different timing" argument, which under KSR cuts toward obviousness.

---

Combination III: Bosch US 6,705,296 + GM US 8,285,463 + Fujikin US 2007/0151321 (with CN101581962B, if verified)

Why this is the "automatic zero-point-correction" combination.

• Fujikin US 2007/0151321 discloses an automatic zero-point (offset) drift correction device with a memory means storing correction data, a "sensor output judgment means," and an "operating condition judgment means" — the correction is applied automatically when the sensor output exceeds a set value AND the operating conditions are within preset conditions. This is the automatic, condition-triggered self-correction concept.
• Bosch supplies the standstill-time gating and the atmospheric-pressure calibration.
• GM supplies the wake-up/delay and compensation.
• CN101581962B (title: "Method for reducing CPU power consumption and CPU"), if its disclosure concerns timer/sleep-mode wake control of a processor, would directly supply element 1b (automatic power supply/termination "according to a preset time"). I could not verify its content, so I do not assert this mapping.

Motivation: A POSITA seeking to automatically correct zero-point drift (Fujikin) in a fuel-system pressure sensor (Bosch) using a controller that wakes to perform the correction and then compensates the reading (GM) would predictably arrive at the claimed arrangement; the "preset time" is the Bosch standstill interval, and the "power management module" is GM's wake-up/delay mechanism or the CPU power-management method of CN101581962B.

---

5. Dependent claims 2–9

Summary: claims 3, 6, and 7 rest on routine design choices and are the most vulnerable; claims 4 and 9 are addressed squarely by Honda and Ford; claims 1, 2, and 8 are the battleground.

---

6. Secondary considerations / patentability arguments

The strongest potential rebuttal arguments, and their force:

1. "No prior art autonomously wakes the controller after key-off." This is the patent's best non-obviousness hook. GM's wake-up is operator-triggered; Bosch calibrates at the next ignition cycle. A patentee would argue the claimed unattended post-shutdown wake is not suggested. Counter (KSR): the market-force/design-incentive rationale — a POSITA would recognize the advantage of taking the reading when the system is at equilibrium without requiring the operator to wait, and timer-driven sleep/wake circuits are a known technique. Whether this survives depends on whether a reference or the general knowledge supplies the timer-wake (CN101581962B is the candidate, but unverified here).

2. "The invention avoids hydrogen venting / oxygen intrusion / exhaust-gas regulation problems." This is a regulatory-compliance benefit, not a technical result beyond expectation. Under KSR, such non-technical or expected benefits generally do not rebut obviousness unless tied to an unexpected technical effect with nexus. It appears primarily to distinguish from Honda's anode-venting suggestion rather than to show unexpectedness.

3. "Prior art sensors degrade and the invention extends sensor life / maintains accuracy." The '586 patent frames this; but Bosch ("large scattering … each sensor must be calibrated individually") and Honda ("経年変化"/aging) already recognize the same degradation problem, so this is disclosed motivation rather than a secondary consideration.

4. Commercial success / long-felt need: No evidence located (the earlier litigation section found no assertion activity and no NPE assignment; the family record shows only routine maintenance-fee events). Absent evidence of nexus, these carry little weight.

Bottom line: the secondary considerations record, as it stands, is thin, and the strongest argument is the first one (autonomous post-shutdown wake timing).

---

7. Overall assessment and probabilities

• Claims 1, 2, 8 are the most likely to be challenged on obviousness, because they are broad and every element appears in the cited art. The decisive question is whether the combination GM + Bosch (each of record) renders the "automatic supply of power … according to a preset time [after system off]" obvious. Bosch is unusually damaging because it expressly calibrates against atmosphere only after a standstill interval and expressly states the per-sensor offset-scattering rationale — a textbook "known technique applied to a similar device."
• Claims 4 and 9 look the most vulnerable to a § 103 challenge, because Honda JP 4981538 B2 is a fuel-cell pressure-sensor calibration using a separate atmospheric-pressure sensor, and Ford expressly computes and stores the offset as sensor-minus-atmosphere — together they map onto claim 4 nearly element-for-element.
• Claims 5–7 are weakest as independent innovations (routine choices), though as dependents they survive or fall with claim 1/4.
• Primary obstacle for a challenger: assembling a single reference or a two-reference combination that supplies the autonomous, timer-triggered post-shutdown wake. The published US references of record (GM, Ford, Bosch, Fujikin, Honda) each supply parts, but the autonomous-wake element is distributed across them and (for the US set) is not squarely shown. If CN101581962B does disclose timer/sleep-mode processor wake control, the case becomes substantially stronger; I could not verify that reference, and I will not assert its content.

Estimated invalidity strength (technical, not legal): moderate. A petition relying on Bosch US 6,705,296 in view of GM US 8,285,463 (and further in view of Ford US 2015/0075251 for the atmospheric-reference/storage step) presents a credible, well-grounded § 103 challenge to claim 1, and a strong challenge to claims 4 and 9 via Honda JP 4981538 B2 + Ford US 2015/0075251. A challenge anchored instead on record US art alone would likely founder on the "autonomous wake after key-off" limitation unless CN101581962B or another timer-wake reference is added.

---

8. Answers to the specific questions asked

• Combinations that would render the claims obvious: (I) GM US 8,285,463 + Bosch US 6,705,296 + Ford US 2015/0075251; (II) Honda JP 4981538 B2 + Ford US 2015/0075251 + GM US 8,285,463; (III) Bosch US 6,705,296 + GM US 8,285,463 + Fujikin US 2007/0151321 (+ CN101581962B, unverified).
• Why a POSITA would combine them: same field and problem (vehicle pressure-sensor offset compensation); Bosch expressly motivates calibrating against atmosphere only after a minimum standstill interval; Ford expressly motivates computing/storing/applying an atmospheric-referenced offset where the system cannot be vented; GM expressly motivates waking the sensor electronics and correcting the sensor signal with the offset before vehicle start; Honda expressly motivates atmospheric-reference correction to counter sensor aging in a fuel cell. These satisfy the KSR/MPEP 2143 rationales of known technique to improve a similar device, simple substitution of known elements, and design incentives/known techniques.

---

Caveats

This is a technical analysis for information purposes, not a legal opinion on validity or infringement. I have faithfully cited the references listed as prior art on the patent's own page (Google Patents record for US 9,664,586), reproduced all identifiers literally, and flagged as unverified the references whose full text I did not retrieve (CN101581962B, KR20080107179A, US5560199A, US20080209990A1, US20090007647A1, US6907790B2). Any conclusion about CN101581962B's teaching of timer-driven processor wake-up is provisional pending retrieval of that document. If you can supply the prosecution history (the examiner's reasons for allowance and the IDS), I can sharpen the analysis of which combination the examiner expressly considered and why the claims nonetheless issued.