DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. This office action is in response to application number 18/420,194 filed on 01/23/2024,
and the amendments and arguments filed on 05/04/2026.
Claim 1 have been amended.
No claims have been added.
No claims have been cancelled.
Claims 1-5 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No.JP2023-011006, filed on 01/27/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/23/2024 have been received
and considered.
Response to Amendment
5. Applicant' s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every rejection
previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 02/03/2026.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 4-9 filed 05/04/2026, with respect to the rejections(s)
of claim(s) 1-5 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new grounds for rejection as necessitated by amendment is made over 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable by Costin (US 20190250611 A1) in view of Du (WO 2020135470 A1) further in view of Zhou (CN 104301243 A) and further in view of Tarandek (US 20220194339 A1).
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.
6. Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over (US 20190250611 A1) to Costin et al. (hereinafter Costin) and in view of Du (WO 2020135470 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Costin discloses A control device for a vehicle, the control device comprising: a first controller; (Costin Paragraph 0006: “In another aspect, a vehicle control system of a vehicle is disclosed. In one embodiment, the vehicle control system includes: (1) a first controller, located as part of the vehicle, comprising a first processor, and communicatively connected to a first set of sensors which generate a first sensor data, and (2) a second controller, located as part of a vehicle,”) […] wherein the first controller is configured to transmit information used for first processing that is a part of processing necessary for travel control of the vehicle to the second controller, the processing necessary for travel control of the vehicle including recognition processing around the vehicle, determination processing of at least one of steering angle and braking force based on a result of the recognition processing, and notification processing to a user based on a result of the recognition processing, (Costin Paragraph 0020: “In order for these various types of vehicles to operate successfully, the vehicles need to receive data on the condition of the vehicle and the condition of the surrounding environment. Non-limiting examples of such conditions include the temperature outside the vehicle, the roadway conditions (icy, wet, dry), another vehicle or object approaching, and the tire pressure. These conditions can be detected by sensors arrayed around the vehicle. For example, each tire can have a pressure sensor, a thermometer can measure the temperature, sensors can monitor the acceleration and br pedal positions, and a series of cameras can be arrayed around the vehicle to detect objects, signs, lights, and vehicles. Other types of sensors can include, but are not limited to, ultrasonic sensors, stereo cameras, fisheye or wide-view cameras, surround cameras, high-resolution cameras, artificial intelligence cameras, infrared sensors including detectors and cameras, radio detection and ranging (RADAR) systems, light detection and ranging (LiDAR) systems, microphones, brake sensors,”) (Costin Paragraph 0021: “For example, if a camera detects a red traffic light, the information needs to be quickly transmitted to the computing system that controls the vehicle so that the computing system can issue the proper commands and instructions to slow and stop the vehicle. The sensor data can be transmitted in real-time or near real time, minimizing delays between the capture of the sensor data and the transmission of that data to a computing system.”) (Costin Paragraph 0026: “For example, the exchange of data, e.g., commands, responses, and information, can be exchanged with one or more input and/or output devices including displays, sensors, keyboards, and user interface devices.”) (Note: Notification processing from data from sensors can be sent to a display device according to Paragraph 0026.) (Costin Paragraph 0055: “In one or more embodiments, a sensor can be connected to the repeater and not to the converter of the corresponding ECU. For example, as shown in system 300, sensor 310 has a communicative link 315 with repeater 329 of primary ECU 320, and is not connected with converter 324 of the primary ECU 320. Rather, the repeater 329 forwards sensor data received from sensor 310 to converter 354 of backup ECU 350 via bridging communication link 376.”) (Costin Paragraph 0071: “Controllers 610 and 615 provide autonomous driving outputs in response to an array of sensor inputs including, for example: one or more ultrasonic sensors 625 and 640, one or more RADAR sensors 626 and 638, one or more LIDAR sensors 627 and 637, one or more surround cameras 620, one or more stereo cameras 623 (in preferred embodiments, at least one such stereo camera faces forward to provide depth-perception for object detection and object recognition in the vehicle path), one or more infrared cameras 622, one or more wide view or fisheye cameras 624, GPS unit 631 that provides location coordinates, a steering sensor 621 that detects the steering angle,”)
PNG
media_image1.png
450
561
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the second controller is configured to perform the first processing based on the information received from the first controller, and transmit a result of the first processing to the first controller, (Costin Paragraph 0055: “Converter 354 is configured to aggregate the sensor data from sensor 310 with sensor data collected from sensor set 344 via link set 346 before transmitting the aggregated sensor data to SoC 352 of the backup ECU 350 via data interface 362.”) (Costin Paragraph 0057: “Similarly, the repeater 359 can receive the sensor data from the sensor set 344 from the SoC 352 via the data interface 361. Repeater 359 can aggregate and convert the sensor data received from sensor set 344 and sensor 340 before forwarding the aggregated sensor data to the converter 324 of the primary ECU 320.”) (Costin Paragraph 0071: “Controllers 610 and 615 provide autonomous driving outputs in response to an array of sensor inputs including, for example: one or more ultrasonic sensors 625 and 640, one or more RADAR sensors 626 and 638, one or more LIDAR sensors 627 and 637, one or more surround cameras 620, one or more stereo cameras 623 (in preferred embodiments, at least one such stereo camera faces forward to provide depth-perception for object detection and object recognition in the vehicle path), one or more infrared cameras 622, one or more wide view or fisheye cameras 624, GPS unit 631 that provides location coordinates, a steering sensor 621 that detects the steering angle,”)
PNG
media_image1.png
450
561
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and the first controller is configured to perform travel control of the vehicle based on the result received from the second controller. (Costin Paragraph 0070: “Each controller 610 and 615 can operate in real-time to process sensor signals and output autonomous operation commands to vehicle 605 and/or assist the human vehicle driver in driving.”) (Costin Paragraph 0075: “One ECU can be designated as the primary ECU and be primarily responsible for controlling the vehicle 705.”)
Costin does not disclose […] and a second controller controlled by the first controller,
However, Du does teach […] and a second controller controlled by the first controller, (Du Page 8, Paragraph 12: “In some embodiments, the first controller 551 may be used as a master controller, while the second controller 552 may be used as a slave controller.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Costin to include […] and a second controller controlled by the first controller, taught by Du. This would have been for the benefit to provide methods and systems to simplify the wiring in the vehicle and reduce interferences between signals. [Du Page 2, Paragraph 2]
Regarding claim 3, Costin in view of Du teaches claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Costin does not disclose The control device for a vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the second controller includes a first device connected to the first controller, and a second device connected to the first device.
However, Du does teach The control device for a vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the second controller includes a first device connected to the first controller, and a second device connected to the first device. (Du Page 9, Paragraph 5: “As shown in FIG. 6, a carrier device 6101 may be disposed in the first controller 610, and/or a carrier device 6201 may be disposed in the second controller 620. In some embodiments, the first controller 610, the second controller 620, and components of the vehicle (e.g., other in-vehicle devices) may be equipped with a respective carrier device.”)
PNG
media_image2.png
401
467
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Costin to include The control device for a vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the second controller includes a first device connected to the first controller, and a second device connected to the first device taught by Du. This would have been for the benefit to provide methods and systems to simplify the wiring in the vehicle and reduce interferences between signals. [Du Page 2, Paragraph 2]
7. Claims 2 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Costin (US 20190250611 A1) in view of Du (WO 2020135470 A1) and further in view of Zhou (CN 104301243 A).
Regarding claim 2, Costin in view of Du teaches claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Costin in view of Du does not teach The control device for a vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the first controller is configured to transmit the information to the second controller when a processing load of the first controller exceeds a threshold.
However, Zhou does teach The control device for a vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the first controller is configured to transmit the information to the second controller when a processing load of the first controller exceeds a threshold. (Zhou Paragraph 0057: "As can be seen, when the load ratio of the first controller exceeds the predetermined threshold value, if the load ratio of the second controller is less than the load ratio of the first controller, the first controller may transmit own current partial load transfer to the second controller, to reduce the processing load of the first controller, the first controller can automatically adjust its load when the load is too large, and the reliability is improved.")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Costin in view of Du to include The control device for a vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the first controller is configured to transmit the information to the second controller when a processing load of the first controller exceeds a threshold taught by Zhou. This would have been for the benefit to provide a load control method and device, the controller itself has function of judging whether to load transfer to improve the reliability. [Zhou Paragraph 0005]
8. Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Costin (US 20190250611 A1) in view of Du (WO 2020135470 A1) and further in view of (US 20220194339 A1) to Tarandek et al. (hereinafter Tarandek).
Regarding claim 4, Costin in view of Du teaches claim 3, accordingly, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated above.
Costin in view of Du does not teach The control device for a vehicle according to claim 3, wherein the first controller and the second controller is configured to operate with electric power from a first battery mounted on the vehicle.
However, Tarandek teaches The control device for a vehicle according to claim 3, wherein the first controller and the second controller is configured to operate with electric power from a first battery mounted on the vehicle. (Tarandek Paragraph 0166: “the first controller 400 and the second controller 500 may receive power from the same battery through different power lines.”)
PNG
media_image3.png
533
447
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Costin in view of Du to include The control device for a vehicle according to claim 3, wherein the first controller and the second controller is configured to operate with electric power from a first battery mounted on the vehicle taught by Tarandek. This would have been for the benefit to provide an electric brake system including an auxiliary device capable of auxiliary generating the hydraulic pressure required for braking when a main device fails or is out of control. [Tarandek Paragraph 0005]
Regarding claim 5, Costin in view of Du teaches claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Costin in view of Du does not teach The control device for a vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle is equipped with a first battery and a second battery, the first controller includes a device operating with electric power from the first battery, and a device operating with electric power from the second battery, and the second controller includes a device operating with electric power from the first battery, and a device operating with electric power from the second battery.
However, Tarandek teaches The control device for a vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle is equipped with a first battery and a second battery, the first controller includes a device operating with electric power from the first battery, (Tarandek Paragraph 0166: “However, the first controller 400 and the second controller 500 are not limited to receiving power from different batteries B1, B2, and the first controller 400 and the second controller 500 may receive power from the same battery through different power lines.”) and a device operating with electric power from the second battery, (Tarandek Paragraph 0166: “However, the first controller 400 and the second controller 500 are not limited to receiving power from different batteries B1, B2, and the first controller 400 and the second controller 500 may receive power from the same battery through different power lines.”)
and the second controller includes a device operating with electric power from the first battery, (Tarandek Paragraph 0046: “The main device 100 may receive power from the first battery B1 through the first power line, and the auxiliary device 200 may receive power from the first battery B1 through the second power line.”) (Tarandek Paragraph 0166: “However, the first controller 400 and the second controller 500 are not limited to receiving power from different batteries B1, B2, and the first controller 400 and the second controller 500 may receive power from the same battery through different power lines.”) and a device operating with electric power from the second battery.
PNG
media_image3.png
533
447
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Costin in view of Du to include The control device for a vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle is equipped with a first battery and a second battery, the first controller includes a device operating with electric power from the first battery, and a device operating with electric power from the second battery, and the second controller includes a device operating with electric power from the first battery, and a device operating with electric power from the second battery taught by Tarandek. This would have been for the benefit to provide an electric brake system including an auxiliary device capable of auxiliary generating the hydraulic pressure required for braking when a main device fails or is out of control. [Tarandek Paragraph 0005]
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 KEVIN J HARVEY whose telephone number is 571-272-5327. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM-5:00PM M-Th, 8:00AM-4:00PM F.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at 571-270-3921. 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.
/K.J.H./Junior Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/SHARDUL D PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights