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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 09/04/2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently rejected.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 09/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Regarding the 101 rejections, in light of the amendments, the 101 rejections are withdrawn.
Regarding the 112 rejections, in light of the amendments these rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with regards to the art rejections have been considered and appear to be directed solely to the instant amendments to the claims. Accordingly, the claims are addressed in the body of the rejections below.
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, 4-9, 11-13, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ademane et. al. (US 2021/0179070), herein Ademane in view of Lee et. al. (US 2020/0114932), herein Lee.
Regarding claim 1:
Ademane teaches:
A system (The supervisory control may further include the SCM 138 arbitrating between a plurality of motor operation requests received over the one or more controller area networks (including the operator torque request) to select a winning motor operation request [0019]) for a vehicle (an electric vehicle [0010]), the system comprising:
a vehicle processor (The GSCM 132, TCM 134, MCM 136, and SCM 138 and other control modules of the ECS may be provided in the form of microprocessor-based or microcontroller-based circuitry which are configured to execute operating logic to perform the acts, methods, processes, and techniques disclosed herein [0013]) configured to:
store vehicle data (program instructions stored in a non-transitory memory medium [0013]; supervisor block 302 utilizes the received inputs [0033]) including vehicle event data (power limits, look-ahead information, and motor information such as motor current, motor speed, motor power and motor temperature, and battery information such as battery current, battery power, battery state of charge, and battery state of health [0033]) and a plurality of propulsion requests (operator commands or driver request [0033]);
determine a priority of the plurality of propulsion requests (The SCM 138 may be configured to perform an arbitration by evaluating priority parameters associated with each of the plurality of torque requests according to priority logic [0020]) based on the vehicle event data (see [0020] describing the different conditions that correspond to different priority levels.), wherein determining the priority of the plurality of propulsion requests (The SCM 138 may be configured to perform an arbitration by evaluating priority parameters associated with each of the plurality of torque requests according to priority logic [0020]) includes:
control the vehicle based on the winning propulsion request (Arbitration block 312 provides the selected winning request to NDOT inner loop controller 314 which determines motor torque and speed or acceleration values based on the inputs that it receives. These motor torque and speed or acceleration values are provided to limiter block 316 which imposes limits on the motor torque and speed or acceleration values. The limited motor torque and speed or acceleration values are provided to power split and system limits block 318 which uses power split logic, system limits logic, and operating modes logic to determine torque and speed commands 320 for motor 126 which are provided to MCM 136 via low voltage wiring harness 191. [0035]).
Ademane does not explicitly teach however Lee teaches:
establishing a static priority order (a default priority order according to default settings are defined per function in the priority table [0044]) for the plurality of [propulsion] requests by placing each propulsion request of the plurality of propulsion requests in an arbitration priority queue based on a pre-defined priority value (The priority determination device 130 may determine whether default output information priority order per function (hereinafter referred to as “default priority order”) is applied or adjusted according to a current situation determined by the input processing and situation recognition device 120 [0027]); and
dynamically selecting a winning propulsion request from the arbitration priority queue by applying a set of conditional rules to the plurality of [propulsion] requests in the arbitration priority queue (it is possible to variably set priority order according to situations and events instead of changing priority order according to setting of normal default priority order or a manual, which is convenient [0058]; priority table when the event is generated and determine whether to output information according to the priority order (S340) [0040]), wherein the set of conditional rules determines the winning propulsion request based on the vehicle event data (output information about an event with the highest priority order in the changed priority table can be output through the output device 160 [0040]; ); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ademane to include the teachings as taught by Lee with a reasonable expectation of success. Both references are in the same field of endeavor of arbitrating vehicle data. Lee teaches the benefit of “changing information output priority order per function according to circumstances [Lee, 0006]”.
Regarding claim 2:
Ademane in view of Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Ademane further teaches:
wherein the vehicle processor is configured to assign each request a priority number (For example, the TCM 126 may be configured to provide a level 1 priority parameter (1-T) if the TCM 126 determines that its requested torque is necessary to avoid critical damage or failure of the transmission 124, to provide a level 2 priority parameter (2-T) if the TCM 126 determines that its requested torque is necessary to avoid undesirable operation of the transmission 124 which is likely to result in accelerated wear or degradation over time… [0020]).
Regarding claim 4:
Ademane in view of Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Ademane further teaches:
wherein the plurality of propulsion requests include one or more of request status (an operator torque request such as a request generated in response to an accelerator pedal position or a cruise control setting [0018]), total torque constraints (torque limits [0019]), torque constraint source (one or more shift inhibit conditions [0021]), and intervention type (requested torque is necessary to avoid critical damage or failure of the transmission 124 [0020]; requested torque is necessary to avoid undesirable operation of the transmission 124 which is likely to result in accelerated wear or degradation over time but which is not necessary to avoid the level 1 operating condition of the transmission 126 [0020]).
Regarding claim 5:
Ademane in view of Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Ademane further teaches:
wherein the vehicle processor is also configured to de-queue a request based on the determined priority (The SCM 138 may be configured to perform a first selection which selects the highest level of priority parameters present and eliminates the lower level priority parameters from consideration [0021]).
Regarding claim 6:
Ademane in view of Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Ademane further teaches:
wherein the vehicle comprises one or more vehicle subsystems (fig. 1, vehicle system 100), and wherein the vehicle processor is configured to activate the winning propulsion request by commanding the one or more vehicle subsystems to implement the winning propulsion request (Arbitration block 312 provides the selected winning request to NDOT inner loop controller 314 which determines motor torque and speed or acceleration values based on the inputs that it receives. These motor torque and speed or acceleration values are provided to limiter block 316 which imposes limits on the motor torque and speed or acceleration values. The limited motor torque and speed or acceleration values are provided to power split and system limits block 318 which uses power split logic, system limits logic, and operating modes logic to determine torque and speed commands 320 for motor 126 which are provided to MCM 136 via low voltage wiring harness 191. [0035]).
Regarding claim 7:
Ademane in view of Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 6, upon which this claim is dependent.
Ademane further teaches:
wherein the vehicle is an electric vehicle (an electric vehicle [0010]).
Regarding claim 8:
Ademane teaches:
A system (The supervisory control may further include the SCM 138 arbitrating between a plurality of motor operation requests received over the one or more controller area networks (including the operator torque request) to select a winning motor operation request [0019]) for a vehicle (an electric vehicle [0010]), the system comprising:
a vehicle processor (The GSCM 132, TCM 134, MCM 136, and SCM 138 and other control modules of the ECS may be provided in the form of microprocessor-based or microcontroller-based circuitry which are configured to execute operating logic to perform the acts, methods, processes, and techniques disclosed herein [0013]) configured to:
store vehicle data (program instructions stored in a non-transitory memory medium [0013]; supervisor block 302 utilizes the received inputs [0033]) including vehicle event data (power limits, look-ahead information, and motor information such as motor current, motor speed, motor power and motor temperature, and battery information such as battery current, battery power, battery state of charge, and battery state of health [0033]), vehicle gear mode (the currently selected gear [0033]), and propulsion request data (operator commands or driver request [0033]);
determine a priority of the plurality of propulsion requests (The SCM 138 may be configured to perform an arbitration by evaluating priority parameters associated with each of the plurality of torque requests according to priority logic [0020]) based on the vehicle event data and the vehicle gear mode (see [0020] describing the different conditions that correspond to different priority levels.), wherein determining the priority of the plurality of propulsion requests (The SCM 138 may be configured to perform an arbitration by evaluating priority parameters associated with each of the plurality of torque requests according to priority logic [0020]) includes:
control the vehicle based on the winning propulsion request (Arbitration block 312 provides the selected winning request to NDOT inner loop controller 314 which determines motor torque and speed or acceleration values based on the inputs that it receives. These motor torque and speed or acceleration values are provided to limiter block 316 which imposes limits on the motor torque and speed or acceleration values. The limited motor torque and speed or acceleration values are provided to power split and system limits block 318 which uses power split logic, system limits logic, and operating modes logic to determine torque and speed commands 320 for motor 126 which are provided to MCM 136 via low voltage wiring harness 191. [0035]).
Ademane does not explicitly teach however Lee teaches:
establishing a static priority order (a default priority order according to default settings are defined per function in the priority table [0044]) for the plurality of [propulsion] requests by placing each propulsion request of the plurality of propulsion requests in an arbitration priority queue based on a pre-defined priority value (The priority determination device 130 may determine whether default output information priority order per function (hereinafter referred to as “default priority order”) is applied or adjusted according to a current situation determined by the input processing and situation recognition device 120 [0027]); and
dynamically selecting a winning propulsion request from the arbitration priority queue by applying a set of conditional rules to the plurality of [propulsion] requests in the arbitration priority queue (it is possible to variably set priority order according to situations and events instead of changing priority order according to setting of normal default priority order or a manual, which is convenient [0058]; priority table when the event is generated and determine whether to output information according to the priority order (S340) [0040]), wherein the set of conditional rules determines the winning propulsion request based on the vehicle event data (output information about an event with the highest priority order in the changed priority table can be output through the output device 160 [0040]; ); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ademane to include the teachings as taught by Lee with a reasonable expectation of success. Both references are in the same field of endeavor of arbitrating vehicle data. Lee teaches the benefit of “changing information output priority order per function according to circumstances [Lee, 0006]”.
Regarding claim 9:
Ademane in view of Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 8, upon which this claim is dependent.
Ademane further teaches:
wherein the vehicle processor is configured to assign each propulsion request a priority number (For example, the TCM 126 may be configured to provide a level 1 priority parameter (1-T) if the TCM 126 determines that its requested torque is necessary to avoid critical damage or failure of the transmission 124, to provide a level 2 priority parameter (2-T) if the TCM 126 determines that its requested torque is necessary to avoid undesirable operation of the transmission 124 which is likely to result in accelerated wear or degradation over time… [0020]).
Regarding claim 11:
Ademane in view of Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 8, upon which this claim is dependent.
Ademane further teaches:
wherein the plurality of propulsion requests include one or more of request status (an operator torque request such as a request generated in response to an accelerator pedal position or a cruise control setting [0018]), total torque constraints (torque limits [0019]), torque constraint source (one or more shift inhibit conditions [0021]), and intervention type (requested torque is necessary to avoid critical damage or failure of the transmission 124 [0020]; requested torque is necessary to avoid undesirable operation of the transmission 124 which is likely to result in accelerated wear or degradation over time but which is not necessary to avoid the level 1 operating condition of the transmission 126 [0020]).
Regarding claim 12:
Ademane in view of Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 8, upon which this claim is dependent.
Ademane further teaches:
wherein the plurality of propulsion requests include speed data (a requested motor speed [0018]).
Regarding claim 13:
Ademane in view of Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 8, upon which this claim is dependent.
Ademane further teaches:
wherein the vehicle comprises one or more vehicle subsystems (fig. 1, vehicle system 100), and wherein the vehicle processor is configured to activate the winning propulsion request by commanding the one or more vehicle subsystems to implement the winning propulsion request (Arbitration block 312 provides the selected winning request to NDOT inner loop controller 314 which determines motor torque and speed or acceleration values based on the inputs that it receives. These motor torque and speed or acceleration values are provided to limiter block 316 which imposes limits on the motor torque and speed or acceleration values. The limited motor torque and speed or acceleration values are provided to power split and system limits block 318 which uses power split logic, system limits logic, and operating modes logic to determine torque and speed commands 320 for motor 126 which are provided to MCM 136 via low voltage wiring harness 191. [0035]).
Regarding claim 19:
Ademane in view of Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Ademane further teaches:
wherein the rules applied are based on the vehicle mode data (a mode change event may be inhibited if one or more of the following conditions is true: battery state of charge (SOC) is too low (e.g., below a threshold), battery contactors are open, the key switch is off, one or more system faults are active, the service brakes are not active and driver issues command to move out of park, the operator requests direction changes (e.g., forward gear to reverse or vice-versa) when vehicle is not stationary, or look-ahead information indicates that a gear shift should be inhibited [0025]).
Claim(s) 3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ademane et. al. (US 2021/0179070), herein Ademane in view of Lee et. al. (US 2020/0114932), herein Lee in further view of Wang (US 2019/0279508), herein Wang.
Regarding claim 3:
Ademane in view of Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Ademane in view of Lee does not explicitly teach, however Wang teaches:
wherein the priority is determined using a programmable logic array (The arbitration component 104, positioning component 105, time source 106, transceiver 108, sensor 110, memory 112, and map data 114 can each include at least one processing unit, server, virtual server, circuit, engine, agent, appliance, or other logic device such as programmable logic arrays configured to communicate with the vehicle (e.g., first vehicle 101) that includes the data processing system as well as with other vehicles (e.g., second vehicle 102) via the network 118 [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ademane in view of Lee to include the teachings as taught by Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. Both arts are in the same field of endeavor of performing arbitration processes for a vehicle. Wang also teaches the benefit of “an intelligent mechanism to coordinate, direct or optimize vehicle behavior at intersections, by using on-board sensors and map data for instance [Wang, 0002]” which would have motivated one having ordinary skill in the art to have combined Ademane with Wang to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10:
Ademane in view of Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 8, upon which this claim is dependent.
Ademane in view of Lee does not explicitly teach, however Wang teaches:
wherein the priority is determined using a programmable logic array (The arbitration component 104, positioning component 105, time source 106, transceiver 108, sensor 110, memory 112, and map data 114 can each include at least one processing unit, server, virtual server, circuit, engine, agent, appliance, or other logic device such as programmable logic arrays configured to communicate with the vehicle (e.g., first vehicle 101) that includes the data processing system as well as with other vehicles (e.g., second vehicle 102) via the network 118 [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ademane in view of Lee to include the teachings as taught by Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. Both arts are in the same field of endeavor of performing arbitration processes for a vehicle. Wang also teaches the benefit of “an intelligent mechanism to coordinate, direct or optimize vehicle behavior at intersections, by using on-board sensors and map data for instance [Wang, 0002]” which would have motivated one having ordinary skill in the art to have combined Ademane with Wang to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 14-15, 17-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ademane et. al. (US 2021/0179070), herein Ademane in view of Lee et. al. (US 2020/0114932), herein Lee and Pan (JP 2018207149), herein Pan.
Regarding claim 14:
Ademane teaches:
A system (The supervisory control may further include the SCM 138 arbitrating between a plurality of motor operation requests received over the one or more controller area networks (including the operator torque request) to select a winning motor operation request [0019]) for a vehicle (an electric vehicle [0010]), the system comprising:
a vehicle processor (The GSCM 132, TCM 134, MCM 136, and SCM 138 and other control modules of the ECS may be provided in the form of microprocessor-based or microcontroller-based circuitry which are configured to execute operating logic to perform the acts, methods, processes, and techniques disclosed herein [0013]) configured to:
store vehicle data (program instructions stored in a non-transitory memory medium [0013]; supervisor block 302 utilizes the received inputs [0033]) including vehicle event data (power limits, look-ahead information, and motor information such as motor current, motor speed, motor power and motor temperature, and battery information such as battery current, battery power, battery state of charge, and battery state of health [0033]) and a plurality of propulsion requests (operator commands or driver request [0033]);
determine a priority of the plurality of propulsion requests (The SCM 138 may be configured to perform an arbitration by evaluating priority parameters associated with each of the plurality of torque requests according to priority logic [0020]) based on the vehicle event data (see [0020] describing the different conditions that correspond to different priority levels.), wherein determining the priority of the plurality of propulsion requests (The SCM 138 may be configured to perform an arbitration by evaluating priority parameters associated with each of the plurality of torque requests according to priority logic [0020]) includes:
control the vehicle based on the winning propulsion request (Arbitration block 312 provides the selected winning request to NDOT inner loop controller 314 which determines motor torque and speed or acceleration values based on the inputs that it receives. These motor torque and speed or acceleration values are provided to limiter block 316 which imposes limits on the motor torque and speed or acceleration values. The limited motor torque and speed or acceleration values are provided to power split and system limits block 318 which uses power split logic, system limits logic, and operating modes logic to determine torque and speed commands 320 for motor 126 which are provided to MCM 136 via low voltage wiring harness 191. [0035]).
Ademane does not explicitly teach however Lee teaches:
establishing a static priority order (a default priority order according to default settings are defined per function in the priority table [0044]) for the plurality of [propulsion] requests by placing each propulsion request of the plurality of propulsion requests in an arbitration priority queue based on a pre-defined priority value (The priority determination device 130 may determine whether default output information priority order per function (hereinafter referred to as “default priority order”) is applied or adjusted according to a current situation determined by the input processing and situation recognition device 120 [0027]) retrieved from an arbitration priority repository; and
dynamically selecting a winning propulsion request from the arbitration priority queue by applying a set of conditional rules from a [separate] arbitration rules repository to the plurality of [propulsion] requests in the arbitration priority queue (it is possible to variably set priority order according to situations and events instead of changing priority order according to setting of normal default priority order or a manual, which is convenient [0058]; priority table when the event is generated and determine whether to output information according to the priority order (S340) [0040]), wherein the set of conditional rules determines the winning propulsion request based on the vehicle event data (output information about an event with the highest priority order in the changed priority table can be output through the output device 160 [0040]; ); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ademane to include the teachings as taught by Lee with a reasonable expectation of success. Both references are in the same field of endeavor of arbitrating vehicle data. Lee teaches the benefit of “changing information output priority order per function according to circumstances [Lee, 0006]”.
Ademane in view of Lee does not explicitly teach, however Pan teaches:
a pre-defined priority value retrieved from an arbitration priority repository (A first priority storage unit (73) in which a first priority that is the priority of the transmission data in the normal case is stored [page 9])
a set of conditional rules from a separate arbitration rules repository (A second priority storage unit in which a second priority higher than the first priority is stored as the priority of the transmission data in a special case in which communication delay affects the safety or usability of the vehicle 74) [page 9])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ademane and Lee to include the teachings as taught by Pan with a reasonable expectation of success. Both references are in the same field of endeavor of arbitrating vehicle data. Pan teaches the benefit of “In in-vehicle communication, transmission data transmitted from a predetermined communication device may change from a normal case to a special case that affects the safety and usability of the vehicle. An example of transmission data in the normal case is a vehicle speed instruction of 5 km / h, and an example of transmission data in the special case is a vehicle speed instruction of 0 km / h, that is, a stop instruction. If communication of transmission data in such a special case is delayed, the safety and usability of the vehicle may not be ensured. [Pan, page 1]”.
Regarding claim 15:
Ademane in view of Lee and Pan teaches all the limitations of claim 14, upon which this claim is dependent.
Ademane further teaches:
wherein the vehicle processor is configured to assign each request a priority number (For example, the TCM 126 may be configured to provide a level 1 priority parameter (1-T) if the TCM 126 determines that its requested torque is necessary to avoid critical damage or failure of the transmission 124, to provide a level 2 priority parameter (2-T) if the TCM 126 determines that its requested torque is necessary to avoid undesirable operation of the transmission 124 which is likely to result in accelerated wear or degradation over time… [0020]).
Regarding claim 17:
Ademane in view of Lee and Pan teaches all the limitations of claim 14, upon which this claim is dependent.
Ademane further teaches:
wherein the vehicle processor is also configured to de-queue a request based on the determined priority (The SCM 138 may be configured to perform a first selection which selects the highest level of priority parameters present and eliminates the lower level priority parameters from consideration [0021]).
Regarding claim 18:
Ademane in view of Lee and Pan teaches all the limitations of claim 14, upon which this claim is dependent.
Ademane further teaches:
wherein the vehicle data also includes vehicle mode data (a mode change event may be inhibited if one or more of the following conditions is true: battery state of charge (SOC) is too low (e.g., below a threshold), battery contactors are open, the key switch is off, one or more system faults are active, the service brakes are not active and driver issues command to move out of park, the operator requests direction changes (e.g., forward gear to reverse or vice-versa) when vehicle is not stationary, or look-ahead information indicates that a gear shift should be inhibited [0025]) which includes a direction of intended motion (the operator requests direction changes (e.g., forward gear to reverse or vice-versa) when vehicle is not stationary, or look-ahead information indicates that a gear shift should be inhibited [0025]).
Regarding claim 20:
Ademane in view of Lee and Pan teaches all the limitations of claim 14, upon which this claim is dependent.
Ademane further teaches:
wherein the vehicle comprises one or more vehicle subsystems (fig. 1, vehicle system 100), and wherein the vehicle processor is configured to activate the winning propulsion request by commanding the one or more vehicle subsystems to implement the winning propulsion request (Arbitration block 312 provides the selected winning request to NDOT inner loop controller 314 which determines motor torque and speed or acceleration values based on the inputs that it receives. These motor torque and speed or acceleration values are provided to limiter block 316 which imposes limits on the motor torque and speed or acceleration values. The limited motor torque and speed or acceleration values are provided to power split and system limits block 318 which uses power split logic, system limits logic, and operating modes logic to determine torque and speed commands 320 for motor 126 which are provided to MCM 136 via low voltage wiring harness 191. [0035]).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ademane et. al. (US 2021/0179070), herein Ademane in view of Lee et. al. (US 2020/0114932), herein Lee and Pan (JP 2018207149), herein Pan in further view of Wang (US 2019/0279508), herein Wang.
Regarding claim 16:
Ademane in view of Lee and Pan teaches all the limitations of claim 14, upon which this claim is dependent.
Ademane in view of Lee and Pan does not explicitly teach, however Wang teaches:
wherein the priority is determined using a programmable logic array (The arbitration component 104, positioning component 105, time source 106, transceiver 108, sensor 110, memory 112, and map data 114 can each include at least one processing unit, server, virtual server, circuit, engine, agent, appliance, or other logic device such as programmable logic arrays configured to communicate with the vehicle (e.g., first vehicle 101) that includes the data processing system as well as with other vehicles (e.g., second vehicle 102) via the network 118 [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ademane in view of Lee and Pan to include the teachings as taught by Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. Both arts are in the same field of endeavor of performing arbitration processes for a vehicle. Wang also teaches the benefit of “an intelligent mechanism to coordinate, direct or optimize vehicle behavior at intersections, by using on-board sensors and map data for instance [Wang, 0002]” which would have motivated one having ordinary skill in the art to have combined Ademane with Wang to arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yun (US 2019/0019413) discloses a driving system for a vehicle, including: an object detector configured to generate object information which is information about an object located outside the vehicle; and a processor configured to determine a driving lane for the vehicle based on a preset priority order and the object information, and when it is determined that a preset event has occurred, change the priority order based on the object information.
Endo (US 2012/0323427) discloses An ECU executes a program including the steps of: executing first restriction control if the temperature of coolant is equal to or greater than a first temperature and smaller than a second temperature; executing second restriction control if the temperature of the coolant is equal to or greater than the second temperature; and executing normal control if the temperature of the coolant is smaller than the first temperature.
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 Scott R Jagolinzer whose telephone number is (571)272-4180. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8AM - 4PM Eastern.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571)272-4190. 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.
Scott R. Jagolinzer
Examiner
Art Unit 3665
/S.R.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights