Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed November 7, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain
pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 7, 2025 have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argued that Kaminski and/or Tomson do not disclose or suggest the feature of the independent claims: the sensor subsystem separate from a first enclosure of the first in-vehicle computer and the sensor subsystem separate from a second enclosure of the second in-vehicle computer.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As explained in the office action, reasoning are provided, which are repeated below, to explain that the cited portions from Kaminski in view of Tomson teaches the above feature.
Examiner notes that it is well known in the prior art that an enclosure is provided to house each one of electronic components such as computers in a vehicle for purposes of protecting from electronic interference or mechanical shock, ease of identification, assembly and service, etc. That is, sensors connected by cables to input ports of the computer means that the sensors are positioned outside the computers and thus the sensors are separate from the enclosures of the computers.
Further, Fig. 1 of Kaminski illustrates that the sensor subsystem is installed at the front end of the vehicle, while the vehicle computer are installed near the rear end of the vehicle. The enclosures of the computers would not extend the entire length of the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle control before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the separate connection of sensor feature of Tomson with the described invention of Kaminski in order to provide freedom for installing position of the sensor without regard to the position of the computers.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaminski et al. (US 20190050685 A1), which was cited by Applicant, in view of Tomson (US 20040068350 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kaminski discloses:
A system for a vehicle, the system comprising: a sensor subsystem capable of being arranged in the vehicle {Fig. 1 and paragraph [0024] disclose an image capture device, construed as the sensor subsystem, in a vehicle};
a first port of the sensor subsystem structured to couple to a first in- vehicle computer, and a second port of the sensor subsystem structured to couple to a second in- vehicle computer, {Fig. 1 and paragraph [0024] disclose an image capture device connected to two CV (computer vision) accelerators, construed as the first and second in-vehicle computers. Two connections imply a first port and a second port of the image capture device. [0024] discloses that the CV accelerators may be discrete hardware elements connected by a vehicle bus, which implies that the image capture device is separate from enclosures of the CV accelerators}.
Kaminski does not disclose:
with the sensor subsystem separate from a first enclosure of the first in-vehicle computer, with the sensor subsystem separate from a second enclosure of the second in-vehicle computer.
Tomson teaches a sensor separate from a computer enclosure in paragraph [0040]: additional sensor(s) 54… may be connected by cables to input ports of the visualization computer 12. Connection by cables imply that the sensor is separate from an enclosure of the computer.
Examiner notes that it is well known in the prior art that an enclosure is provided to house each of electronic components such as computers in a vehicle for purposes of protecting from electronic interference or mechanical shock, ease of identification, assembly and service, etc. That is, sensors connected by cables to input ports of the computer means that the sensors are positioned outside the computers and thus the sensors are separate from the enclosures of the computers.
Further, Fig. 1 of Kaminski illustrates that the sensor subsystem is installed at the front end of the vehicle, while the vehicle computer are installed near the rear end of the vehicle. The enclosures of the computers would not extend the entire length of the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle control before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the separate connection of sensor feature of Tomson with the described invention of Kaminski in order to provide freedom for installing position of the sensor without regard to the position of the computers.
Regarding claim 2, which depends from claim 1, Kaminski discloses: wherein the first port and the second port are coupled to a dual-pair connector of the sensor subsystem with the dual-pair connector to couple to the first in-vehicle computer and to the second in-vehicle computer {[0031] discloses an image splitter construed as the dual-pair connector}.
Regarding claim 3, which depends from claim 1, Kaminski discloses: wherein the sensor subsystem is a camera subsystem including: a lens; a sensor coupled to the lens to capture an image: and a controller coupled to receive image data from the sensor and provide a version of the image data to the first port and to the second port {Fig. 4, [0035]}.
Regarding claim 9, Kaminski in view of Tomson teaches:
A system for a vehicle. the system comprising: a sensor subsystem having a first port and a second port: a first in-vehicle computer provided in a first enclosure and coupled to the first port with the first in- vehicle computer disposed on a first circuit board; and a second in-vehicle computer provided in a second enclosure and coupled to the second port with the second in-vehicle computer disposed on a second circuit board, the first circuit board being separate from the second circuit board {Kaminski: Fig. 1, [0024] discloses that the CV accelerators may be discrete hardware elements connected by a vehicle bus. / Tomson: [0040]: sensor(s) 54 may be connected by cables to input ports of the visualization computer 12. Examiner notes that each of the two ports of the sensor system can be connected to the input port of different computers}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle control before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the separate connection of sensor feature of Tomson with the described invention of Kaminski in order to provide freedom for installing position of the sensor without regard to the position of the computers.
Regarding claim 12, which depends from claim 9, Kaminski discloses: wherein the system includes: a dual-pair connector of the sensor subsystem containing the first port and the second port; and a splitter cable coupled to the dual-pair connector, to a first connector of the first in-vehicle computer; and to a second connector of the second in-vehicle computer {[0031], [0033] discloses splitter cables}.
Regarding claim 14, which depends from claim 9, Kaminski discloses: wherein the sensor subsystem is one of a camera subsystem, a radar subsystem, a lidar subsystem, a sonar subsystem, a global positioning subsystem, an inertial measurement unit subsystem, and a subsystem of a combination of a camera sensor, a radar sensor, a lidar sensor, a sonar sensor, a global positioning sensor, and an inertial measurement sensor on a same package {[0018]}.
Regarding claim 15, which depends from claim 9, Kaminski teaches: wherein the first in-vehicle computer is coupled to first ports of one or more additional sensor subsystems and the second in- vehicle computer is coupled to second ports of the one or more additional sensor subsystems {[0025]: multiple visible light cameras arranged to capture a wider field of view}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle control before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify for the two in-vehicle computers of modified Kaminski to be connected to multiple sensors in order to share redundant processing by two computers among multiple sensors.
Regarding claim 16, which depends from claim 9, Kaminski discloses: wherein each of
the first in-vehicle computer and the second in-vehicle computer includes: a memory storing instructions and data; and one or more processors in communication with the memory, wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to control an autonomous vehicle {[0020] discloses advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) systems rely on various computer vision (CV) technologies. Examiner notes that the operation of the CV accelerators implies memory and processors for executing stored instructions associated with the received version of the sensor data, and ADAS relying on the operation of the CV accelerators means controlling the vehicle from executing the stored instructions associated with the received version of the sensor data}.
Regarding claim 17, which depends from claim 9, Kaminski discloses: wherein the system is an autonomous vehicle {[0018]}.
Regarding claim 18, Kaminski discloses:
A method of operating a vehicle, the method comprising: generating sensor data using a sensor subsystem arranged in a vehicle; providing, from the sensor subsystem, a version of the sensor data to a first port of the sensor subsystem and to a second port of the sensor subsystem {Fig. 1, [0024]. Examiner notes that a version of the sensor data may mean a signal type of the image capturing device, which is inherent in an output of an image capturing device}; executing stored instructions associated with the received version of the sensor data, using a processor of the first in-vehicle computer or the second in- vehicle computer and controlling the vehicle from executing the stored instructions associated with the received version of the sensor data {[0020] discloses advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) systems rely on various computer vision (CV) technologies. Examiner notes that the operation of the CV accelerators implies executing stored instructions associated with the received version of the sensor data, and ADAS relying on the operation of the CV accelerators means controlling the vehicle from executing the stored instructions associated with the received version of the sensor data}.
Tomson teaches: receiving the version of the sensor data at a first in-vehicle computer coupled to the first port and at a second in-vehicle computer coupled to the second port, wherein the first in-vehicle computer is provided in a first enclosure, and wherein the second in-vehicle computer is provided in a second enclosure separate from the first enclosure {[0040]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle control before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the separate connection of sensor feature of Tomson with the described invention of Kaminski in order to provide freedom for installing position of the sensor without regard to the position of the computers.
Regarding claim 20, which depends from claim 18, Kaminski discloses: wherein the first in-vehicle computer and the second in-vehicle computer are replaceable independent of each other {[0024]: the CV accelerators being discrete hardware elements means that they are replaceable independent of each other}.
Claim(s) 4, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaminski in view of Tomson and in further view of Sidle et al. (US 20190163178 A1), which was cited by Applicant.
Regarding claim 4, which depends from claim 3, modified Kaminski does not disclose: wherein the version of the image data includes raw image data, encoded image data, processed perception data, or a combination of raw image data, encoded image data, and
processed perception data.
Sidle teaches raw and processed sensor data in [0042].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle control before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the raw and processed data feature of Sidle with the described invention of modified Kaminski in order to handle various versions of image data.
Regarding claim 5, which depends from claim 3, Sidle teaches: wherein the version of the image data is provided to the first port and to the second port in response to an instruction received from the first in-vehicle computer or the second in-vehicle computer {[0095]: sensor connectivity manager controls communication between sensor and other vehicle system}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle control before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the sensor connectivity feature of Sidle with the described invention of modified Kaminski in order to control flow of data from the sensor.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 8, 13, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaminski in view of Tomson and Sidle and in further view of Jones et al. (US 20200233472 A1).
Regarding claim 6, which depends from claim 1, modified Kaminski does not teach: wherein the first port and the second port are twisted-pair single-pair Ethernet (SPE) ports with the first port structured to connect to the first in-vehicle computer to provide communication of control, configuration, status, and data transfers between the sensor subsystem and the first in-vehicle computer; and with the second port structured to connect to the second in-vehicle computer to provide communication of control, configuration, status, and data transfers between the sensor subsystem and the second in- vehicle computer.
Jones teaches twisted-pair single-pair Ethernet (SPE) in [0037].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle control before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the twisted-pair single-pair Ethernet feature of Jones with the described invention of modified Kaminski in order to provide a means for data transfer.
Regarding claim 7, which depends from claim 6, Jones teaches: wherein each of the first port and the second port is structured to connect to a SPE link with Power-over-Data-Line support {[0032]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle control before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Power-over-Data-Line feature of Jones with the described invention of modified Kaminski in order to provide a means for powering the sensor.
Regarding claim 8, which depends from claim 6, Jones teaches: wherein the system includes: the first in-vehicle computer having a first cable connector to couple to the first port: and the second in-vehicle computer having a second cable connector to couple to the second port {[0032]: cable to provide data connectivity}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle control before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the cable connection feature of Jones with the described invention of modified Kaminski in order to provide a means for data transfer.
Regarding claim 13, which depends from claim 9, Jones teaches: wherein the first port and the second port are twisted-pair single-port Ethernet ports with the first port structured to connect to the first in-vehicle computer to provide communication of control, configuration, status, and data transfers between the sensor subsystem and the first in-vehicle computer; and with the second port structured to connect to the second in- vehicle computer to provide communication of control, configuration, status, and data transfers between the sensor subsystem and the second in-vehicle computer {[0037]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle control before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the twisted-pair single-pair Ethernet feature of Jones with the described invention of modified Kaminski in order to provide a means for data transfer.
Regarding claim 19, which depends from claim 18, Jones teaches: wherein the method includes providing power to the sensor subsystem via a splitter cable coupling a connector of the first in- vehicle computer and a connector of the second in-vehicle computer to a dual- pair connector containing the first port and the second port, the splitter cable and the sensor subsystem operable with Power-over-Data-Line (PoDL) support {[0032]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle control before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Power-over-Data-Line feature of Jones with the described invention of modified Kaminski in order to provide a means for powering the sensor.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaminski in view of Tomson and in further view of Costin et al. (US 20190250611 A1), which was cited by Applicant.
Regarding claim 10, which depends from claim 9, modified Kaminski does not teach: wherein the system includes a communication link between the first in-vehicle computer and the second in-vehicle computer.
Costin teaches a communication link between the first in-vehicle computer and the second in-vehicle computer in Fig. 1 and [0043].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle control before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the cable connection feature of Jones with the described invention of modified Kaminski in order to provide a means for data transfer.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaminski in view of Tomson and in further view of Zaloom et al. (US 20190066504 A1).
Regarding claim 11, which depends from claim 9, modified Kaminski does not teach: wherein power is distributed to the first in-vehicle computer and the second in-vehicle computer via a backplane connectable to a battery system of the vehicle.
Zaloom teaches a backplane connectable to a battery in [0098].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle control before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the backplane of Zaloom with
the described invention of modified Kaminski in order to provide an interface that supplies power.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Steinberg et al. (US 20140046701 A1) discloses that a sensor port is connected with a vehicle computer using a dedicated cable.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANMIN PARK whose telephone number is (408)918-7555. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/RUSSELL FREJD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661