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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 8-9, 12-13, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20220227318 to Kurokawa et al. (“Kurokawa”).
Regarding claim 1, Kurokawa discloses a vehicle, comprising:
at least one computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions (e.g. [0023] (“The zone ECU 31 includes a processor 31a (see FIG. 2) and a memory 31b (see FIG. 2). The memory 31b stores modules that are software executable by the processor 31a.”); [0023] similarly for main arithmetic unit 30 memory 30b);
a master embedded system configured to execute the computer executable instructions ([0023] (main arithmetic unit 30 “collectively controls the vehicle as a whole”; processor 30a and memory 30b described);
a plurality of slave embedded systems each configured to execute the computer executable instructions and each communicatively coupled to the master embedded system, the master embedded system being configured to synchronize a timing of the plurality of slave embedded systems (zone ECUs 31 are distributed controllers that execute code (processor 31a, memory 31b) and operate in response to the main arithmetic unit 30 ([0022], [0023], [0024]); Synchronization of sensors (setting and synchronization signals for cameras) is explicitly described in [0024]; also see [0022], [0023], [0024]);
and a plurality of sets of sensors, each of the sets of sensors being assigned to and communicatively coupled to one of the plurality of slave embedded systems, each of the sensors being configured to generate data regarding an environment external to a vehicle, and
each of the sensors being configured to provide as an output the data to the one of the plurality of slave embedded systems to which the sensor is communicatively coupled ([0022] (sensors and communications C1…Cn between electronic devices and zone ECU), [0024] (cameras: imaging signals output to zone ECU), [0027], [0032] (radars D21, in-vehicle cameras D22, out-of-vehicle cameras D23; sensors capturing outside environment); and
wherein each of the plurality of slave embedded systems is configured to process the data received from its assigned set of sensors and to transmit an output of data processing to the master embedded system ([0023] (“The zone ECU 31 receives results of detection by sensors to use the results for processing in the own unit or transmit the results to the main arithmetic unit 30.”)
that is communicatively coupled with a drive-by-wire system that operates devices of the vehicle to regulate motion of the vehicle ([0023] (“the zone ECU 31 controls the operations of the actuators. The sensors and actuators described above are examples of the electronic devices D.”); [0047] references steering system and brake system among device examples (showing electronic control). While Kurokawa does not explicitly use the term “drive-by-wire,” it discloses electronic control of steering / brakes / powertrain actuators; also see [0023], [0047]),
wherein operations performed by the plurality of slave embedded systems are timed based on data generated by the sets of sensors (e.g. see Fig. 3, for example, condition of driver switch off, there is a group of unused components of slave embedded systems and the given condition being determined via data from the sensors as disclosed in [0032] and [0030] noting those “unused simultaneously” are “collectively controlled”). Examiner note that operations performed is at least satisfied in the event of a change of state from once condition to the next such (e.g. G1 to G3 as shown in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Kurokawa discloses the vehicle of claim 1 wherein the synchronization comprises controlling the timing of the plurality of slave embedded systems for generating the data (e.g. [0024] explicitly states “setting and synchronization signals of the cameras are output from the zone ECU 31 to the cameras, and imaging signals are output from the cameras to the zone ECU 31.” This supports synchronization of sensor timing under control of the zone ECU (slave-level synchronization) and, by description of interactions with main arithmetic unit, master-level coordination ([0023], [0024]).
Regarding claim 5, Kurokawa discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the plurality of slave embedded systems are communicatively coupled to the master embedded system via an interface that enables chip-to-chip or board-to-board communication (e.g. see [0023], [0024] and Figs. 1, 2).
Regarding claim 8, Kurokawa discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the devices comprise at least one of a turn signal, headlights, door locks, windshield wipers, a powertrain control system, a steering control system, and a brake system (e.g. [0027] (headlamps D31, clearance lamps D32).
Regarding claim 9, Kurokawa discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of slave embedded systems is configured to process the data received from its assigned set of sensors; and the processing includes pre-processing of the data and post-processing of the data (e.g. [0023] (“The zone ECU 31 receives results of detection by sensors to use the results for processing in the own unit or transmit the results to the main arithmetic unit 30.”)
Regarding claims 12 and 13, these claims are directed to a method and medium respectively with the limitations previously mapped pursuant to the rejection above of claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, this claim is directed to a method with the limitations previously mapped pursuant to the rejection above of claim 4.
Regarding claim 17, this claim is directed to a method with the limitations previously mapped pursuant to the rejection above of claim 5.
Regarding claim 18, this claim is directed to a method with the limitations previously mapped pursuant to the rejection above of claim 8.
Regarding claim 19, this claim is directed to a method with the limitations previously mapped pursuant to the rejection above of claim 9.
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) 2 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurokawa in view of US 20210197814 to Ha et al. (“Ha”).
Regarding claim 2, Kurokawa discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein each of the sets of sensors comprises at least one camera configured to detect optical light and generate image data associated with the environment external to the vehicle (e.g. see [0031], [0032]),
, and at least one radar sensor configured to detect radio waves from at least one object in the environment external to the vehicle and generate radar data associated with the environment external to the vehicle (e.g. see [0031], [0032]). Kurokawa does not explicitly disclose at least one LiDAR sensor configured to detect light reflected from at least one object in the environment external to the vehicle and generate LiDAR data associated with the environment external to the vehicle. Nevertheless, in a related field of invention of power charging, Ha discloses such (see Fig. 1, [0038]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the features of Ha with the motivation of providing diverse sets of data and provide redundancy.
Regarding claim 14, this claim is directed to a method with the limitations previously mapped pursuant to the rejection above of claim 2.
Claim(s) 3 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurokawa in view of US 20190049958 to Lin et al. (“Lin”).
Regarding claim 3, Kurokawa discloses the vehicle of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose that each of the sets of sensors is configured to generate data regarding the environment in a sector of the environment 360 degrees around the vehicle; and the sets of sensors are configured to collectively sense the environment 360 degrees around the vehicle. Nevertheless, in a related field of invention of power charging, Lin discloses such (see Fig. 2A, e.g. see [0039], [0053]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the features of Lin with the motivation of minimizing data collection gaps.
Regarding claim 15, this claim is directed to a method with the limitations previously mapped pursuant to the rejection above of claim 3.
Claim(s) 6-7, 10-11, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurokawa in view of US 12391249 to Adwan et al. (“Adwan”).
Regarding claim 6, Kurokawa discloses the vehicle of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose comprising an autonomous system comprising the master embedded system, the plurality of slave embedded systems, and the plurality of sets of sensors. Nevertheless, in a related field of invention of power charging, Adwan discloses such (e.g. see col. 4, ln 41-61). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the features of Adwan with the motivation of easing operator requirements.
Regarding claim 7, Kurokawa in view of Adwan discloses the vehicle of claim 6, wherein -the drive-by-wire system of the vehicle is configured to generate, based at least in part on the output received from the master embedded system, a control signal to control the devices of the vehicle (e.g. [0023] states zone ECUs control actuators; [0047] lists steering and brake systems as controlled devices. The reference indicates controllers command actuators electronically. “Drive-by-wire” term is not explicit, but the function (electronic control of motion-related devices) is described ([0023], [0047]).
Regarding claim 10, Kurokawa discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein at least one additional slave embedded system is configured to be added to a system such that the at least one additional slave embedded system is configured to execute the computer executable instructions and be communicatively coupled to the master embedded system, and such that the master embedded system being configured to synchronize the timing of the plurality of slave embedded systems and the at least one additional slave embedded system (e.g. as evident from Fig. 1 and [0022] disclosing a plurality of zones). Kurokawa does not explicitly disclose that the system such is added to is an autonomous system. Nevertheless, in a related field of invention of power charging, Adwan discloses such (e.g. see col. 4, ln 41-61). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the features of Adwan with the motivation of easing operator requirements.
Regarding claim 11, Kurokawa in view of Adwan discloses the vehicle of claim 10, wherein the plurality of sets of sensors are configured to be reassigned after the at least one additional slave embedded system is added, wherein each of the plurality of slave embedded systems and the at least one additional slave embedded system has a set of sensors assigned thereto (e.g. see [0043]).
Regarding claim 20, this claim is directed to a method with the limitations previously mapped pursuant to the rejection above of claim 10.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) dated 3/16/26 have been considered but are not persuasive. Examiner notes that there was no specific argument regarding any alleged deficiencies of the references individually or collectively. Instead, Examiner applies the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language in view of what is disclosed by the cited references. As discussed above, the limitation of performing operations per timing based on data from the sensors is taught. The operations performed at least in view of a transition from one scene to the next resulting in a change of state of the listed “unused electronics”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT A BROWNE whose telephone number is (571)270-0151. The examiner can normally be reached on Variable Workweek/IFP.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s colleague, SPE Hitesh Patel can be reached on (571) 270-5442. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights