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 .
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 12, 15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo et al. (U.S. 2019/0068510), hereinafter Endo, in view of Christie IV et al. (U.S. 2005/0025163), hereinafter Christie.
With respect to Claim 1, Endo teaches an in-vehicle communication device comprising:
a wired communication interface configured to perform wired communication via a wired communication network constructed between a plurality of pieces of equipment mounted on a vehicle (figure 1, #104, figure 2 #50.);
a wireless communication interface configured to perform wireless communication via a wireless communication network constructed between the plurality of pieces of equipment (figure 1, #104, figure 2 #50.); and
circuitry configured to
transmit first data via the wired communication interface and transmit second data via the wireless communication interface according to a predetermined condition (controller #102, ¶ 0041, “The wired communication data generation unit 102d generates the communication data having high priority divided by the data division unit 102c as wired communication data communicable in a wired manner.” and ¶ 0048, “The wireless communication data generation unit 202f generates the communication data having low priority divided by the data division unit 202c as wireless communication data communicable in a wireless manner. The wireless transmission controller 202g transmits the wireless communication data generated by the wireless communication data generation unit 202f to the first communication device 100 via the second wireless communication interface unit 206.”).
Endo fails to explicitly teach transmit, in response to the predetermined condition, identical transmission data as both the first data via the wired communication interface and the second data via the wireless communication interface.
Christie teaches transmit, in response to the predetermined condition, identical transmission data as both the first data via the wired communication interface and the second data via the wireless communication interface (¶ 0020, “the mobile terminal 14 can control the use of the multiple tunneling sessions in any desired fashion, wherein duplicate packets may be sent over the multiple tunneling sessions to improve communication resiliency and increase quality of service, as well as have different packets sent over the different tunneling sessions to increase effective transfer rates between the public network proxy 12 and the mobile terminal 14 in either direction.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the application to combine the invention of Endo with the system of Christie to allow the system to use both connections either in a redundant fashion or aggregate the connection for higher speeds
With respect to Claim 3, Endo teaches the in-vehicle communication device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit transmits, in a case where a traffic amount of communication of one of the wired communication network or the wireless communication network exceeds or falls below a predetermined threshold, at least part of data while switching the communication (¶ 0051, “when it is determined by the data amount determination unit 202i that the data amount of the communication data having low priority is the data remaining amount predicted by the data remaining amount prediction unit 202h or larger, the data division unit 202c may redivide the communication data having low priority so as to contain part of the communication data having low priority in addition to the communication data having high priority until a data amount corresponding to the data remaining amount is reached”)
With respect to Claim 4, Endo teaches the in-vehicle communication device according to claim 1, wherein the first data and the second data are pieces of transmission data different from each other (¶ 0039, “The transmission data priority identification unit 102b, on the basis of the type of the communication data determined by the data type determination unit 102a, identifies the priority to be an ID number of “0” for the communication data about the airbag, for example, and thus identifies the priority corresponding to the type of the communication data.”)
With respect to Claim 5, Endo teaches the in-vehicle communication device according to claim 4, wherein the control unit selects at least one communication unit of the wired communication unit or the wireless communication unit according to a type of the transmission data, andtransmits the transmission data via the selected communication unit (¶ 0039, “The transmission data priority identification unit 102b, on the basis of the type of the communication data determined by the data type determination unit 102a, identifies the priority to be an ID number of “0” for the communication data about the airbag, for example, and thus identifies the priority corresponding to the type of the communication data.” and ¶ 0041, “The wired communication data generation unit 102d generates the communication data having high priority divided by the data division unit 102c as wired communication data communicable in a wired manner.”)
With respect to Claim 6, Endo teaches the in-vehicle communication device according to claim 5, wherein the control unit selects the communication unit according to whether the transmission data is information related to safety of the vehicle. (¶ 0039, “The transmission data priority identification unit 102b, on the basis of the type of the communication data determined by the data type determination unit 102a, identifies the priority to be an ID number of “0” for the communication data about the airbag, for example, and thus identifies the priority corresponding to the type of the communication data.” and ¶ 0041, “The wired communication data generation unit 102d generates the communication data having high priority divided by the data division unit 102c as wired communication data communicable in a wired manner.”)
With respect to Claim 7, Endo teaches the in-vehicle communication device according to claim 1, wherein the wired communication network of a ring type is constructed in the vehicle (figure 2, note the design of the optical communication line, the topology shown in the figure is a ring.)
With respect to Claim 12, the claim is the method that corresponds to the device of claim 1, and is rejected accordingly.
With respect to Claim 15, Endo in view of Christie teaches the in-vehicle communication device according to claim 1, Endo fails to explicitly teach wherein the circuitry is further configured to: receive first reception data via the wired communication interface; receive second reception data via the wireless communication interface; and determine whether the first reception data and the second reception data are correctly received based on whether the first reception data and the second reception data are the same.
wherein the circuitry is further configured to: receive first reception data via the wired communication interface; receive second reception data via the wireless communication interface; and determine whether the first reception data and the second reception data are correctly received based on whether the first reception data and the second reception data are the same (¶ 0020, “the mobile terminal 14 can control the use of the multiple tunneling sessions in any desired fashion, wherein duplicate packets may be sent over the multiple tunneling sessions to improve communication resiliency and increase quality of service, as well as have different packets sent over the different tunneling sessions to increase effective transfer rates between the public network proxy 12 and the mobile terminal 14 in either direction.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the application to combine the invention of Endo with the system of Christie to allow the system to use both connections either in a redundant fashion or aggregate the connection for higher speeds.
With respect to Claim 19, Endo in view of Christie teaches the in-vehicle communication device according to claim 1, Endo fails to explicitly teach wherein the predetermined condition comprises detection of at least one of unauthorized access to one of the wired communication network or the wireless communication network, or a traffic amount of one of the wired communication network or the wireless communication network exceeding a threshold, and the identical transmission data comprises data related to at least one of braking, steering, or acceleration of the vehicle.
Christie teaches wherein the predetermined condition comprises detection of at least one of unauthorized access to one of the wired communication network or the wireless communication network, or a traffic amount of one of the wired communication network or the wireless communication network exceeding a threshold, and the identical transmission data comprises data related to at least one of braking, steering, or acceleration of the vehicle (¶ 0020, “as well as have different packets sent over the different tunneling sessions to increase effective transfer rates between the public network proxy 12 and the mobile terminal 14 in either direction.”)
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo et al. (U.S. 2019/0068510), hereinafter Endo, in view of Christie IV et al. (U.S. 2005/0025163), hereinafter Christie, in view of Taketo et al. (J.P. 2019/125344), hereinafter Taketo.
With respect to Claim 2, Endo teaches the in-vehicle communication device according to claim 1, however fails to explicitly teach wherein the control unit switches, in a case where there is unauthorized access to one network of the wired communication network or the wireless communication network, communication via the one network to communication via another network
Taketo teaches wherein the control unit switches, in a case where there is unauthorized access to one network of the wired communication network or the wireless communication network, communication via the one network to communication via another network (Page 3, ¶ 16 – Page 4, ¶ 1, “ Also, for example, at least a part of the plurality of in-vehicle devices communicate via two communication paths, and the controller determines that the depth of the intrusion reaches one of the two communication paths. Communication is continued by at least a part of the plurality of in-vehicle devices on the other of the two communication paths, and when the penetration depth reaches both of the two communication paths, the automatic driving is stopped, the vehicle The above protection method may be changed by stopping travel of the vehicle or by performing failsafe control.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the application to combine the invention of Endo with the system of Taketo in order to increase the security of the system of Endo.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo et al. (U.S. 2019/0068510), hereinafter Endo, in view of Christie IV et al. (U.S. 2005/0025163), hereinafter Christie, in view of Litichever et al. (U.S. 2019/0385057), hereinafter Litichever.
With respect to Claim 8, Endo teaches the in-vehicle communication device according to claim 1, wherein topology of the wireless communication network is same as topology of the wired communication network.
Litichever teaches topology of the wireless communication network is same as topology of the wired communication network. (¶ 0511, “The topology of any wired network herein may be based on, or may use, point-to-point, bus, star, ring or circular, mesh, tree, hybrid, or daisy chain topology. Any two nodes may be connected in a point-to-point topology, and any communication herein between two nodes may be unidirectional, half-duplex, or full-duplex,” and ¶ 0544, “Such networks or portions thereof may utilize any one or more different topologies (e.g., ring, bus, star, loop, etc.), transmission media (e.g., wired/RF cable, RF wireless, millimeter wave, optical, etc.) and/or communications or networking protocols (e.g., SONET, DOCSIS, IEEE Std. 802.3, ATM, X.25, Frame Relay, 3GPP, 3GPP2, WAP, SIP, UDP, FTP, RTP/RTCP, H.323, etc.).”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the application to combine the invention of Endo with the system of Litichever as Litichever teaches security in various network topologies, it would be obvious that the topology could be the same or different, as different types of networks have different advantages such as internal redundancy.
With respect to Claim 9, Endo teaches the in-vehicle communication device according to claim 1, wherein topology of the wireless communication network is different from topology of the wired communication network.
Litichever teaches the in-vehicle communication device according to claim 1, wherein topology of the wireless communication network is different from topology of the wired communication network. (¶ 0511, “The topology of any wired network herein may be based on, or may use, point-to-point, bus, star, ring or circular, mesh, tree, hybrid, or daisy chain topology. Any two nodes may be connected in a point-to-point topology, and any communication herein between two nodes may be unidirectional, half-duplex, or full-duplex,” and ¶ 0544, “Such networks or portions thereof may utilize any one or more different topologies (e.g., ring, bus, star, loop, etc.), transmission media (e.g., wired/RF cable, RF wireless, millimeter wave, optical, etc.) and/or communications or networking protocols (e.g., SONET, DOCSIS, IEEE Std. 802.3, ATM, X.25, Frame Relay, 3GPP, 3GPP2, WAP, SIP, UDP, FTP, RTP/RTCP, H.323, etc.).”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the application to combine the invention of Endo with the system of Litichever as Litichever teaches security in various network topologies, it would be obvious that the topology could be the same or different, as different types of networks have different advantages such as internal redundancy.
Claim(s) 10, 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo et al. (U.S. 2019/0068510), hereinafter Endo, in view of Christie IV et al. (U.S. 2005/0025163), hereinafter Christie, in view of Wang et al. (W.O. 2020/228396), hereinafter Wang.
With respect to Claim 10, Endo teaches the in-vehicle communication device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit performs at least one of the wired communication or the wireless communication on a basis of control information configured on a basis of information shared by the wired communication network and the wireless communication network.
Wang teaches the in-vehicle communication device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit performs at least one of the wired communication or the wireless communication on a basis of control information configured on a basis of information shared by the wired communication network and the wireless communication network.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the application to combine the invention of Endo and Wang as using controllers in zones of the vehicle allow for different topologies as it reduces cost of the individual components as they only need to communicate with the controller (Page 13, ¶ 3, “The service data or control data of the router or gateway may also be the communication data in any end-to-end communication forwarded when used as a backup communication link.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the application to combine the invention of Endo and Wang as using controllers in zones of the vehicle allow for different topologies as it reduces cost of the individual components as they only need to communicate with the controller.
With respect to Claim 11, Endo teaches the in-vehicle communication device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit performs the wired communication on a basis of first control information configured in the wired communication network, andperforms the wireless communicationon a basis of second control information configured in the wireless communication network.
Wang teaches wherein the control unit performs the wired communication on a basis of first control information configured in the wired communication network, andperforms the wireless communicationon a basis of second control information configured in the wireless communication network. (Page 13, ¶ 3, “The service data or control data of the router or gateway may also be the communication data in any end-to-end communication forwarded when used as a backup communication link.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the application to combine the invention of Endo and Wang as using controllers in zones of the vehicle allow for different topologies as it reduces cost of the individual components as they only need to communicate with the controller.
With respect to Claim 13, Ento teaches a communication system comprising:
wherein at least one of the zone control nodes, the control node, or the devices includes a wired communication unit that performs wired communication via a wired communication network constructed between a plurality of pieces of equipment among the zone control nodes, the control node, and the devices mounted on the vehicle (figure 1, #104, figure 2 #50.);,
Wang teaches a wireless communication unit that performs wireless communication via a wireless communication network constructed between the plurality of pieces of equipment (figure 1, #104, figure 2 #50.);, and
a control unit that transmits first data via the wired communication unit and transmits second data via the wireless communication unit according to a predetermined (controller #102, ¶ 0041, “The wired communication data generation unit 102d generates the communication data having high priority divided by the data division unit 102c as wired communication data communicable in a wired manner.” and ¶ 0048, “The wireless communication data generation unit 202f generates the communication data having low priority divided by the data division unit 202c as wireless communication data communicable in a wireless manner. The wireless transmission controller 202g transmits the wireless communication data generated by the wireless communication data generation unit 202f to the first communication device 100 via the second wireless communication interface unit 206.”).
Endo fails to explicitly teach a zone control node arranged in each zone in a vehicle divided into a plurality of zones; a control node that controls communication between the zone control nodes; and a device that is arranged in each of the zones and communicates with the zone control node corresponding to the zone,
Wang teaches a zone control node arranged in each zone in a vehicle divided into a plurality of zones; a control node that controls communication between the zone control nodes; and a device that is arranged in each of the zones and communicates with the zone control node corresponding to the zone (page 11, ¶ 3, “The in-vehicle communication network system correspondingly includes at least 5 area controllers and at least 5 sub Controller, each area controller is set in a different control area of the car, the surrounding area controllers (such as left front, right front, left rear, right rear) are respectively connected to the central area controller, each area controller They respectively correspond to at least one sub-controller (not shown in the figure), and are set in the control area where the corresponding zone controller is located.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the application to combine the invention of Endo and Wang as using controllers in zones of the vehicle allow for different topologies as it reduces cost of the individual components as they only need to communicate with the controller.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14, 16-18 and 20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ANGELA NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9AM - 5PM.
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, Brian Gillis can be reached at 571-272-7952. 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.
/ANGELA NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2446