DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claims 1-2 have been examined.
P = paragraph, e.g. p5 = paragraph 5.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuda et al. USPAP 2017/0029026, and further in view of Coelingh et al. USPAP 2003/0225494.
As per claims 1 and 2, Okuda discloses a control device/manager mounted on a vehicle (figure 1, p’s 22, 46-64, 82-83) comprising one or more processors configured to:
P22 of Okuda discloses:
[0022] The driving support device is provided with a driving support ECU 10, a brake ECU 20, a steering ECU 30, and an alarm ECU 40. Each of the ECUs 10, 20, 30, 40 is provided with a microcomputer as a main portion. The ECUs 10, 20, 30, 40 are connected to each other to be capable of transmission and reception to and from each other via a controller area network (CAN, not illustrated). The ECU is an abbreviation of electronic control unit. In this specification, the microcomputer includes a CPU and a storage device such as a ROM and a RAM, and the CPU realizes various functions by executing instructions (programs) stored in the ROM. In this specification, a vehicle in which this driving support device is mounted will be referred to as a “host vehicle”.
Figure 1 of Okuda discloses:
PNG
media_image1.png
504
896
media_image1.png
Greyscale
receive a plurality of first requests from a driver assistance system (figure 1, p’s 46-65, discloses receiving the steering command [i.e., first requests plans] via the arbitration control unit 13 from the collision avoidance support control unit 11 [i.e., driver assistance system/ ADAS], and further receiving the steering command [i.e., first requests plans] via the arbitration control unit 13 from the lane departure avoidance support control unit 12 [i.e., a plurality of ADAS applications]);
arbitrate (determine) the first requests, based on an operating state of at least one of a plurality of actuator systems; (Okuda, Fig. 1 & p’s 46-64, discloses the function
of the arbitration control unit 13 that is disposed between transmission paths through
which the collision avoidance support control unit 11 and the lane departure avoidance
support control unit 12 transmit the steering commands [i.e., first requests plans]
to the steering ECU 30 and carries out the following arbitration processing);
calculate a second request that has a physical quantity different from that of one of the first requests, based on an arbitration result; (Okuda, in at least Fig. 1 & p’s 82-83, discloses the arbitration control unit 13 calculates the steered wheel control amount [i.e., second request/ motion request] by multiplying each of the steering control amount of the steered wheel calculated by the collision avoidance support control unit 11 and the steering control amount of the steered wheel calculated by the lane departure avoidance support control unit 12 by a predetermined coefficient [implies being different physical quantities from each other] and outputs the calculated steered wheel control amount to the steering ECU 30);
distribute the second request to at least one of the plurality of actuator systems (Okuda, in at least Fig. 1 & p’s 82-83, discloses outputs the calculated steered wheel control amount [i.e., distribute/distributing the second request/ motion request] to the steering ECU 30 |i.e., at least one of a plurality of actuator systems]); and
output an actual steering angle of the vehicle to the driver assistance system (Okuda, p’s 26, 23, 45, 56, 59, 62, 77; figure 3).
Figure 3 of Okuda discloses:
PNG
media_image2.png
502
472
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Okuda discloses all the limitations of the invention, however, arguendo, if Okuda is or might be interpreted such that it might not explicitly disclose based on an operating state of at least one of a plurality of actuator systems, then Coelingh discloses based on an operating state of at least one of a plurality of actuator systems (p’s 40 and 44). If this interpretation is taken, then it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Okuda to include based on an operating state of at least one of a plurality of actuator systems such as that taught by Coelingh in order to
being determined (arbitrate) according to the capabilities of a first actuator control system (i.e., requesting the first actuator control system to perform within its capabilities) and a second partial suspension behavior modification demand signal that depends on the capabilities of the first actuator control subsystem (a suspension behavior modification demand of the suspension behavior modification demand signal remaining after the first partial suspension behavior modification demand signal is removed) (Coelingh, p40).
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tanaka et al. (USPAP 2004/0148093) discloses a vehicle behavior detector obtaining detection information from autonomous sensors to detect a change in vehicle behavior. The detection information is calibrated based on position, bearing, and vehicle speed information obtained from a GPS receiver. For example, the vehicle behavior detector calibrates detection information obtained from the vehicle speed sensor and the angular speed sensor with a Kalman filter process. It is difficult to use only the autonomous sensors to calibrate characteristics changes due to individual sensor differences, environmental changes, and aged deterioration. With using GPS information for calibration, the vehicle behavior detector can accurately detect the vehicle behavior. The accuracy is improved for detection information itself to be output from the vehicle behavior detector to external apparatuses. Using this calibrated detection information, the external apparatuses can perform processes appropriately.
Lee et al. (U.S. patent application publication 2022/0032904) discloses
controlling a vehicle through a multi System on Chip (SoC) system. Specifically, proposed is a method for controlling a vehicle, the method comprising the steps of: by means of a first SoC, requesting information to a second SoC or an Adaptive Driver Assistant System (ADAS); by means of the first SoC, receiving the information from the second SoC or the ADAS as a response to the request; by means of the first SoC, determining whether a vehicle is safe or not by using the received information; and by means of the first SoC, transmitting a command generated on the basis of the determination to the second SoC or the ADAS.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BEHRANG BADII whose telephone number is 571-272-6879. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at 571-272-7298. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Mail Stop Amendment
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to (571)273-8300
Hand delivered responses should be brought to
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Technology Center 3600 Customer Service Office whose telephone number is (571) 272-3600.
/Behrang Badii/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3665
