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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/02/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification (MPEP 608.01, ¶6.31).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Signal distribution unit in claims 3 and 4
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Therefore, the signal distribution unit will be interpreted, based on the specification, to be a central gateway comprising a communication protocol and switching system for communication, as seen in Fig 2.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “relatively low level” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively low level” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It would be unclear as to what the exact limits would constitute a relatively low level, as what it is being compared to is unclear, and those of ordinary skill in the art may have a different idea of what a “low level” is. Additionally, as claim 11 depends on claim 5 without rectifying the indefinite language, claim 11 is also rendered indefinite.
Similarly, “relatively high level” in claims 6 and 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively high level” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It would be unclear as to what the exact limits would constitute a relatively high level, as what it is being compared to is unclear, and those of ordinary skill in the art may have a different idea of what a “high level” is. The examiner is interpreting this to indicate different levels of priority or safety levels, such as with ASIL levels.
Claims 8-11 recite “the device”. However, prior recitations refer to “a plurality of devices”, which makes it unclear as to the antecedent basis, such as whether this refers to a certain device of the plurality of devices, the whole set of plurality of devices, or something else entirely.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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) 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yasunori (US20220006667A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yasunori discloses;
A vehicle system (disclosed as a relay device system, S) comprising:
a plurality of devices mounted on a vehicle, each of the devices implementing a function having a safety standard of a predetermined level set therein (disclosed as different sets of components, including self-driving related, human machine interface, and travel control etc. which are associated with different ASIL levels, paragraph 0063, Fig 4); and
a controller configured to execute, on the devices, processing related to the safety standard (disclosed as a control unit, element 203, which communicates with relays and electronic control units [hereafter ECUs], paragraph 0055),
wherein the controller includes a plurality of single-level controllers, each of the single-level controllers being allocated for a corresponding one of the levels of the safety standards (disclosed as ECUs corresponding to ASIL levels and controlling different sets of components that fall under different ASIL categories, paragraph 0063), and
wherein each of the single-level controllers is connected to a corresponding one of the devices configured to respectively implement the functions in which the safety standards of the allocated levels are set without being connected to the device configured to implement the function in which the safety standard of a different level is set (disclosed as separate ECUs corresponding to the components sets, self-driving related, human machine interface, and travel control, paragraph 0063, and are not directly connected to other ECU/relay systems, paragraph 0065) and executes, on the corresponding device connected thereto, processing related to the safety standard according to the allocated level without processing related to the safety standard of a plurality of levels (disclosed as separate ECUs corresponding to the components sets, self-driving related, human machine interface, and travel control, paragraph 0063, and are not directly connected to other ECU/relay systems, paragraph 0065, wherein each ASIL level corresponds to functional safety needs/priorities, paragraph 0062).
Regarding claim 2, Yasunori discloses;
The vehicle system according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection), wherein the devices and the controller are divided into a plurality of control systems according to a domain (disclosed as dividing components/ECUs based on an ASIL standard, paragraph 0063), and
each of the control systems includes at least one of the single-level controllers (disclosed as each of the ECU groups containing at least one ECU, such as groups 31, 32 and 33).
Regarding claim 3, Yasunori discloses;
The vehicle system according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection), further comprising:
a communication controller configured to communicate with an external device provided outside the vehicle (disclosed as a wireless communication unit, element 101, to connect to communication devices outside the vehicle, paragraph 0049); and
a signal distribution unit (disclosed as the control unit, element 105) configured to distribute a signal received from the communication controller to the plurality of single-level controllers (disclosed as the control unit performing control to communicate data between the wireless communication unit and the wired communication units, paragraph 0050), and to output signals output from the plurality of single-level controllers to the communication controller (disclosed as the control unit performing control to communicate data between the wireless communication unit and the wired communication units, paragraph 0050).
Regarding claim 5, Yasunori discloses;
The vehicle system according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection), wherein processing related to the safety standard having the relatively high level includes at least a part of processing related to the safety standard having the relatively low level (disclosed as ASIL standards according to ISO26262, paragraph 0062).
Regarding claim 8, Yasunori discloses;
The vehicle system according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection), wherein the controller includes a multi-level controller connected to the device (disclosed as the control units 105 and 203, which relay communication [controls] between relay devices and ECUs, paragraph 0058) configured to implement the function in which the safety standard of the different level is set, and executes, on the device connected thereto, processing related to the safety standard according to the different level (disclosed as the separate ECUs corresponding to the components sets, self-driving related, human machine interface, and travel control, paragraph 0063, and are not directly connected to other ECU/relay systems, paragraph 0065, wherein each ASIL level corresponds to functional safety needs/priorities, paragraph 0062, and are further modified such that path information may be modified upon detecting an abnormality to establish redundancy, paragraph 0071 [such that control units/ECUs may supersede control over a system in emergencies]).
Regarding claims 4, 6-7 and 9-11, it has been determined that no further limitations exist apart from those previously addressed in claims 3, 5 and 8. Therefore, claims 4, 6-7 and 9-11 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 3, 5 and 8, wherein claim 4 corresponds to claim 3, claims 6-7 correspond to claim 5, and claims 9-11 correspond to claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
For further system architecture related to ASIL; US-10800264-B2, US-20210394770-A1, US-20230406245-A, US-20220038307-A1, US-20150057908-A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL ANFINRUD whose telephone number is (571)270-3401. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571)270-3969. 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.
/GABRIEL ANFINRUD/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662