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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 20 July 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6-11, 13-17, 19, and 20 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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 2, 3, and 4 should recite “Seamless” instead of “Seemless.” Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 14-17, 19, and 20 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.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the powered system” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 15-17, 19, and 20 depend on claim 14; therefore, they are indefinite for the same reason.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 7-9, 11, 13-15, 17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2024/0036943) and further in view of Jutzi (US 2023/0376344).
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches: A powered system (¶ 26, “a vehicle system 105 of a vehicle 100”) comprising:
a control system having processors positioned onboard the powered system and communicatively coupled with each other by a data plane of a communication network (¶ 26, “a vehicle system 105 of a vehicle 100 includes a master controller 110, a plurality of control modules 115, and a vehicle network 120 communicatively coupling the master controller 110 and the control modules 11”), the processors configured to run software applications in containers to control operation of the powered system (¶ 33, “The applications are executed on the control modules 115. The applications can control features of the vehicle 100”), the processors configured to switch, among themselves (¶ 40, “The queue 206 stores identifications of applications needing to be reassigned”) and during operation of the powered system (¶ 68, “In the decision block 399, the master controller 110 determines whether the vehicle 100 is still on. If so, the process 300 returns to the block 315 to check the statuses of the control modules 115”), which of the processors are running different ones of the software applications operating in different ones of the containers (¶ 63, “in a block 375, the master controller 110 allocates the application to the control module 115 selected in the block 370, as described above”), without changing the code of the software applications (¶ 34, “The applications may be containerized. Containerization means the packaging of software code, in this case one of the applications, with just the operating system libraries and other necessary software for the software code to execute, so that the containerized application can be deployed to different computing environments”).
Chen does not teach; however, Jutzi discloses: without recompiling code of the software applications (¶ 57, “a container 636 (or pod of containers) may be flexibly migrated from one of the edge nodes 620 to other edge nodes (e.g., another one of edge nodes 620, one of the edge resource node(s) 640, etc.) such that the container with an application and workload does not need to be reconstituted, re-compiled, re-interpreted in order for migration to work”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to have applied the known technique of without recompiling code of the software applications, as taught by Jutzi, in the same way to the switching which processor runs the software application, as taught by Chen. Both inventions are in the field of migrating containers, and combining them would have predictably resulted in a system configured to “transparently move the workloads already developed by the ISV for the cloud/edge, to the client edge/end user device,” as indicated by Chen (¶ 24).
Regarding claim 2, Chen teaches: The powered system of claim 1, wherein the control system is configured to operate the processors and the software applications in the containers to control or change movement of a vehicle (¶ 33, “The applications can serve as drivers for components of the vehicle 100, i.e., can provide a software interface for the components. The components can be sensors such as cameras, radars, ultrasonic sensors, inertial measurement units, temperature sensors, GPS sensors, wheel-speed sensors, etc.; actuatable components such as brake actuators, the EPAS actuator, windshield wipers, headlights, etc.; user interface components such as screens and displays, speakers, microphones, etc.; or other types of components”).
Regarding claim 4, Chen teaches: The powered system of claim 1, wherein the processors are configured to be connected with each other and the data plane is configured to operate within Ethernet connections of the communication network (¶ 29, “The master controller 110 may transmit and receive data through a vehicle network 120 such as a controller area network (CAN) bus, Ethernet, WiFi, Local Interconnect Network (LIN), onboard diagnostics connector (OBD-II), and/or by any other wired or wireless communications network”).
Regarding claim 6, Chen teaches: The powered system of claim 1, wherein the processors are configured to be disposed within different devices of the powered system that perform different operations of the powered system (¶ 31, “The control modules 115 can be programmed for performing different functions for the vehicle 100. For example, the control modules 115 can include an engine control module, a body control module, a restraint control module, an accessory control module, a power-steering control module, an antilock brake control module, etc”).
Regarding claim 7, Chen teaches: The powered system of claim 6, wherein the different devices include an input- output device, a sensor (¶ 33, “The components can be sensors such as cameras, radars, ultrasonic sensors, inertial measurement units, temperature sensors, GPS sensors, wheel-speed sensors, etc”), or an energy management system.
Claims 8, 9, 11, 13-15, 17, 19, and 20 recite commensurate subject matter as claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 3, 10, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Thurimella, as applied above, and further in view of Kang (Kang, Z., An, K., Gokhale, A., & Pazandak, P. (2020). Evaluating Performance of OMG DDS in Kubernetes Container Deployment (Industry Track). ACM Middleware’20).
Regarding claim 3, Chen and Thurimella do not teach; however, Kang discloses: run the software applications in the containers in a data distribution service configuration (Conclusion, “In this paper, we validated the feasibility of deploying DDS applications with k8s and explained the k8s components and operations through a workflow”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to have applied the known technique of run the software applications in the containers in a data distribution service configuration, as taught by Kang, in the same way to the processors, as taught by Chen and Thurimella. Both inventions are in the field of application execution, and combining them would have predictably resulted in “an open standardized middleware for real-time and distributed IIoT applications,” as indicated by Kang (Introduction).
Claims 10 and 16 recite commensurate subject matter as claims 3. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/450,850 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference application teaches or at least suggests each and every limitation of the instant application. See claim correspondence below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant Application
Reference Application
1. A powered system comprising: a control system having processors communicatively coupled with each other by a data plane of a communication network, the processors configured to
1. A powered system comprising: a control system having processors communicatively coupled with each other by a data plane of a communication network, the processors configured to
run software applications in containers to control operation of the powered system,
the processors configured to run software applications in containers to control operation of the powered system
the processors configured to switch, during operation of the power system, which of the processors are running different ones of the software applications operating in different ones of the containers
the processors configured to switch which of the processors are running different ones of the software applications operating in different ones of the containers
without recompiling code of the software applications or changing the code of the software applications.
change a mode of at least one of the containers to a shadow mode that prevents output from at least a first application of the software applications that is running in the at least one of the containers operating in the shadow mode from changing operation of the powered system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB D DASCOMB whose telephone number is (571)272-9993. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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, Pierre Vital can be reached at (571) 272-4215. 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.
/JACOB D DASCOMB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198
