DETAILED ACTION
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurokawa (US2022/0297617 A1) in view of Nakaya (US2021/0269047 A1).
Regarding to Claim 1, Kurokawa teaches a vehicle control system comprising:
a first controller provided for each device mounted in a vehicle (Fig. 2, Parts 41, 42, 21, 22);
a second controller configured to control one or more of the first controllers (Fig. 2, Part 60, Paragraphs 44-46); and
a third controller configured to control one or more of the second controllers (Fig. 2, Part 50, Paragraphs 44-46),
wherein each second controller is connected to the corresponding first controller via a communication line and performs a first process based on output information output from the device connected to the first controller (Paragraphs 49-53, especially Paragraph 53. If considering detecting the abnormality as the first process, Paragraph 53 would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation. Paragraphs 60, 65 and 72 also teach similar teachings),
wherein the third controller is connected to the corresponding second controller via a communication line and performs a second process based on a predetermined function of the vehicle (Paragraphs 49-53), and
wherein the predetermined function of the vehicle is performed by performing the first process and the second process (Paragraphs 49-53).
Kurokawa fails to explicitly disclose, but Nakaya teaches a vehicle control system comprising:
wherein each first controller includes a first information acquirer configured to acquire first information output from the corresponding device (Kurokawa, Paragraph 49-53, it would be known there is an information acquirer to acquire in formation),
wherein each second controller includes a signal information extractor configured to extract signal information from the first information detected by the first information acquirer as the first process, and
wherein the third controller includes a first function controller configured to perform the predetermined function of the vehicle on the basis of the signal information extracted by the signal information extractor as the second process [Kurokawa is silent whether a second controller comprises a signal information extractor or not. Nakaya teaches a signal transmitting process comprises a signal information extractor to extract signal (Nakaya, Paragraph 78, the examiner considered the filter processing would contain extractor to extract the signal) to reduce processing load of a controller (Nakaya, Paragraph 12). Therefore, when applying the teachings of Nakaya to Kurokawa, one with ordinary skill in the art would understand and add a signal information extractor to a controller to extract the signal to reduce processing load of the controller (Nakaya, Paragraph 12).]
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kurokawa to incorporate the teachings of Nakaya to add a signal information extractor to a controller to extract the signal in order to reduce processing load of the controller (Nakaya, Paragraph 12).
When applying the teachings of Nakaya, Kurokawa in view of Nakaya teaches the modified vehicle control system comprising:
wherein each second controller further includes a second function controller configured to perform the predetermined function of the vehicle on the basis of the signal information extracted by the signal information extractor (Kurokawa, Paragraphs 51-54 and applying the teachings of Nakaya, Paragraph 78. The examiner considered in Kurokawa, the teachings of the operation after detecting whether there is an abnormality or not would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation), and
wherein the third controller further includes a switcher configured to perform a switching process of switching between whether the predetermined function of the vehicle is to be performed by the first function controller and whether the predetermined function of the vehicle is to be performed by the second function controller (Kurokawa, Paragraphs 51-54 and applying the teachings of Nakaya, Paragraph 78. The examiner considered in Kurokawa, the teachings of the operation after detecting whether there is an abnormality or not would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation),
wherein the third controller detects a traffic volume in a communication line connecting the third controller and the one or more second controllers and performs the switching process according to the detected traffic volume (Kurokawa, Paragraphs 51-54 and applying the teachings of Nakaya, Paragraph 78. The examiner considered in Kurokawa, the teachings of the operation after detecting whether there is an abnormality or not would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding to Claim 3, Kurokawa in view of Nakaya teaches the modified vehicle control system, wherein the signal information extractor performs a filtering process of dividing the first information into the signal information and noise information and outputs the signal information to the third controller (Nakaya, Paragraph 78, and applying the teachings to Kurokawa, Paragraphs 49-53).
Regarding to Claim 6, Kurokawa in view of Nakaya teaches the modified vehicle control system, wherein the third controller causes the switcher to perform the switching process and causes the second function controller to perform the predetermined function of the vehicle as the second process when the traffic volume of the communication line is greater than a predetermined volume (Kurokawa, Paragraphs 51-54 and applying the teachings of Nakaya, Paragraph 78. The examiner considered in Kurokawa, the teachings of the operation after detecting whether there is an abnormality or not would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding to Claim 7, Kurokawa in view of Nakaya teaches the modified vehicle control system, wherein the third controller determines operation details for performing the predetermined function of the vehicle as the second process (Kurokawa, Paragraphs 49-53),
wherein one of the third controller and the second controller generates an operation command based on the operation details on the basis of the determined operation details (Kurokawa, Paragraphs 49-53),
wherein the second controller generates operation execution information based on the device connected to the corresponding first controller as the first process (Kurokawa, Paragraphs 49-53), and
wherein the first controller causes the device to perform the predetermined function of the vehicle on the basis of the operation execution information (Kurokawa, Paragraphs 49-53).
Regarding to Claim 8, Kurokawa in view of Nakaya teaches the vehicle control system, wherein, when a predetermined event occurs in the vehicle, the corresponding second controller generates operation execution information for causing the device connected to the corresponding first controller to perform the predetermined function of the vehicle (Kurokawa, Paragraphs 49-53), and
wherein the first controller performs the predetermined function of the vehicle on the basis of the operation execution information (Kurokawa, Paragraphs 49-53).
Regarding to Claim 9, Kurokawa teaches a vehicle control method that is performed by a computer of a vehicle control system including a first controller provided for each device mounted in a vehicle (Fig. 2, Parts 41, 42, 21, 22), a second controller configured to control one or more of the first controllers (Fig. 2, Part 60, Paragraphs 44-46), and a third controller configured to control one or more of the second controllers (Fig. 2, Part 50, Paragraphs 44-46), the vehicle control method comprising:
causing each second controller to perform a first process based on output information output from the device connected to the corresponding first controller (Paragraphs 49-53, especially Paragraph 53. If considering detecting the abnormality as the first process, Paragraph 53 would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation. Paragraphs 60, 65 and 72 also teach similar teachings);
causing the third controller to perform a second process based on a predetermined function of the vehicle (Paragraphs 49-53); and
causing the device to perform the predetermined function of the vehicle by performing the first process and the second process (Paragraphs 49-53).
Kurokawa fails to explicitly disclose, but Nakaya teaches a vehicle control method comprising:
causing each first controller includes a first information acquirer configured to acquire first information output from the corresponding device (Kurokawa, Paragraph 49-53, it would be known there is an information acquirer to acquire in formation),
causing each second controller includes a signal information extractor configured to extract signal information from the first information detected by the first information acquirer as the first process, and
causing the third controller includes a first function controller configured to perform the predetermined function of the vehicle on the basis of the signal information extracted by the signal information extractor as the second process [Kurokawa is silent whether a second controller comprises a signal information extractor or not. Nakaya teaches a signal transmitting process comprises a signal information extractor to extract signal (Nakaya, Paragraph 78, the examiner considered the filter processing would contain extractor to extract the signal) to reduce processing load of a controller (Nakaya, Paragraph 12). Therefore, when applying the teachings of Nakaya to Kurokawa, one with ordinary skill in the art would understand and add a signal information extractor to a controller to extract the signal to reduce processing load of the controller (Nakaya, Paragraph 12).]
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kurokawa to incorporate the teachings of Nakaya to add a signal information extractor to a controller to extract the signal in order to reduce processing load of the controller (Nakaya, Paragraph 12).
When applying the teachings of Nakaya, Kurokawa in view of Nakaya teaches the modified vehicle control method comprising:
causing each second controller further includes a second function controller configured to perform the predetermined function of the vehicle on the basis of the signal information extracted by the signal information extractor (Kurokawa, Paragraphs 51-54 and applying the teachings of Nakaya, Paragraph 78. The examiner considered in Kurokawa, the teachings of the operation after detecting whether there is an abnormality or not would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation), and
causing the third controller further includes a switcher configured to perform a switching process of switching between whether the predetermined function of the vehicle is to be performed by the first function controller and whether the predetermined function of the vehicle is to be performed by the second function controller (Kurokawa, Paragraphs 51-54 and applying the teachings of Nakaya, Paragraph 78. The examiner considered in Kurokawa, the teachings of the operation after detecting whether there is an abnormality or not would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation),
causing the third controller detects a traffic volume in a communication line connecting the third controller and the one or more second controllers and performs the switching process according to the detected traffic volume (Kurokawa, Paragraphs 51-54 and applying the teachings of Nakaya, Paragraph 78. The examiner considered in Kurokawa, the teachings of the operation after detecting whether there is an abnormality or not would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding to Claim 10, Kurokawa teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program, the program causing a computer of a vehicle control system including a first controller provided for each device mounted in a vehicle (Fig. 2, Parts 41, 42, 21, 22), a second controller configured to control one or more of the first controllers (Fig. 2, Part 60, Paragraphs 44-46), and a third controller configured to control one or more of the second controllers to perform (Fig. 2, Part 50, Paragraphs 44-46):
causing each second controller to perform a first process based on output information output from the device connected to the corresponding first controller (Paragraphs 49-53, especially Paragraph 53. If considering detecting the abnormality as the first process, Paragraph 53 would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation. Paragraphs 60, 65 and 72 also teach similar teachings);
causing the third controller to perform a second process based on a predetermined function of the vehicle (Paragraphs 49-53); and
causing the device to perform the predetermined function of the vehicle by performing the first process and the second process (Paragraphs 49-53).
Kurokawa fails to explicitly disclose, but Nakaya teaches a vehicle control system comprising:
causing each first controller includes a first information acquirer configured to acquire first information output from the corresponding device (Kurokawa, Paragraph 49-53, it would be known there is an information acquirer to acquire in formation),
causing each second controller includes a signal information extractor configured to extract signal information from the first information detected by the first information acquirer as the first process, and
causing the third controller includes a first function controller configured to perform the predetermined function of the vehicle on the basis of the signal information extracted by the signal information extractor as the second process [Kurokawa is silent whether a second controller comprises a signal information extractor or not. Nakaya teaches a signal transmitting process comprises a signal information extractor to extract signal (Nakaya, Paragraph 78, the examiner considered the filter processing would contain extractor to extract the signal) to reduce processing load of a controller (Nakaya, Paragraph 12). Therefore, when applying the teachings of Nakaya to Kurokawa, one with ordinary skill in the art would understand and add a signal information extractor to a controller to extract the signal to reduce processing load of the controller (Nakaya, Paragraph 12).]
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kurokawa to incorporate the teachings of Nakaya to add a signal information extractor to a controller to extract the signal in order to reduce processing load of the controller (Nakaya, Paragraph 12).
When applying the teachings of Nakaya, Kurokawa in view of Nakaya teaches the modified vehicle control system comprising:
causing each second controller further includes a second function controller configured to perform the predetermined function of the vehicle on the basis of the signal information extracted by the signal information extractor (Kurokawa, Paragraphs 51-54 and applying the teachings of Nakaya, Paragraph 78. The examiner considered in Kurokawa, the teachings of the operation after detecting whether there is an abnormality or not would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation), and
causing the third controller further includes a switcher configured to perform a switching process of switching between whether the predetermined function of the vehicle is to be performed by the first function controller and whether the predetermined function of the vehicle is to be performed by the second function controller (Kurokawa, Paragraphs 51-54 and applying the teachings of Nakaya, Paragraph 78. The examiner considered in Kurokawa, the teachings of the operation after detecting whether there is an abnormality or not would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation),
causing the third controller detects a traffic volume in a communication line connecting the third controller and the one or more second controllers and performs the switching process according to the detected traffic volume (Kurokawa, Paragraphs 51-54 and applying the teachings of Nakaya, Paragraph 78. The examiner considered in Kurokawa, the teachings of the operation after detecting whether there is an abnormality or not would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding to the Remark, the Applicant argued the cited reference fails to teach the amended claimed language, the examiner respectfully disagreed.
In the Remark, the Applicant argued Kurokawa (US2022/0297617 A1) would fail to teach the amended claimed language. After reviewing the amended claimed language, the examiner considered the amended Claim 1 was the combination of the original Claims 1, 2, 4, 5 filed on 12/22/2023. However, the examiner considered the Remark fails to provide any persuasive argument or detail to explain why Kurokawa fails to reflect the amended claimed language. In addition, the examiner considered Nakaya (US2021/0269047 A1) would reflect the original limitations of Claim 2, which the Applicant also fails to provide any persuasive argument or detail. In addition, as mentioned in the Non-Final rejection issued on 08/12/2025, the original Claims 4 and 5 would be rejected under Kurokawa when applying the teachings of Nakaya, which the Applicant fails to provide any persuasive argument or detail as well. The Applicant did mentioned Nakaya would fail to teach an operation to switch the ECU that executes the processing. After reviewing the amended claimed language, the examiner considered the argument is based on the limitations “…wherein the third controller further includes a switcher configured to perform a switching process of switching between whether the predetermined function of the vehicle is to be performed by the first function controller and whether the predetermined function of the vehicle is to be performed by the second function controller…” which was based on the original Claim 4 filed on 12/22/2023. As mentioned above, in the Non-Final action, the rejection is based on Kurokawa in view of Nakaya, and since the Applicant fails to provide any detail, the examiner considered the cited references would still reflect the amended limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
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 YI-KAI WANG whose telephone number is (313)446-6613. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at 5712721196. 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.
/YI-KAI WANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights