. 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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/03/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 03/24/2026. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 1-14 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Amendments
Applicant's Amendments dated 03/24/2026 have been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/24/2026 have been fully considered and they are moot in view of the new ground of rejection(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to ATA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 20220116456 (hereinafter, "Higuchi"; previously of record), in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20060064691 (hereinafter, "Blaisdell"; previously of record), and in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 20230359500 (hereinafter, "Li"; newly of record).
Regarding claim 1, Higuchi discloses an electronic control device that executes arithmetic processing for controlling an operation of a vehicle, comprising:
a determination unit that is connected to one or a plurality of electronic devices that recognize an external environment on the basis of information of a sensor provided in the vehicle and determines an operation of the vehicle on the basis of external recognition information transmitted from the electronic devices (“the sensor system 120 can include one or more environment sensors 122 configured to acquire, and/or sense driving environment data. “Driving environment data” includes data or information about the external environment in which an autonomous vehicle is located or one or more portions thereof. For example, the one or more environment sensors 122 can be configured to detect, quantify and/or sense obstacles in at least a portion of the external environment of the vehicle 100 and/or information/data about such obstacles” (para 0079) and “the task manager module 220 may then cause the processor(s) 110 to determine, using the utility function(s) 250, a utility score of the computational task using the task identifier and the state vector” (para 0062)); and
However, Higuchi does not explicitly teach
a functional boundary change determination unit that determines changes in functional roles of the electronic control device in response to determining that a processing load of the electronic control device is above a variable threshold that changes based on a driving state of the vehicle.
Blaisdell, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
a functional boundary change determination unit that determines changes in functional roles of the electronic control device in response to determining that a processing load of the electronic control device is above a threshold… (“the determining step can include determining that a role change has occurred in the host computing device if the workload patterns differ by a threshold amount” (para 0022)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Higuchi with the teachings of Blaisdell in order o better detect a change in role for the host computing device; see Blaisdell at least at [0022].
Li, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
…above a variable threshold that changes based on a driving state of the vehicle (“a group of management profiles may be defined in advance. Here, the group of management profiles may define different threshold ranges for triggering the management procedure, and a suitable management profile may be selected therefrom” (para 0048)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Li with the teachings of Blaisdell in order to provide solutions for managing the computing system; see Li at least at [0047].
Regarding claim 3, Higuchi discloses the electronic control device according to claim 1. Additionally, Higuchi discloses wherein the functional boundary change determination unit determines a processing load of the electronic control device on the basis of a traveling status of a vehicle determined on the basis of map information and positioning information (“the task manager module 220 may include instructions that cause the processor(s) 110 to receive a task identifier of a computational task and a state vector that describes at least one state of the vehicle 100. The state vector may include information such as the speed of the vehicle 100, changes in the heading angle of the vehicle 100, location of the vehicle 100, time of day/week, an object property of one or more objects external to the vehicle” (para 0061) and “The autonomous driving system 160 can be configured to receive, and/or determine location information for obstacles within the external environment of the vehicle 100 for use by the processor(s) 110, and/or one or more of the modules described herein to estimate position and orientation of the vehicle 100, vehicle position in global coordinates based on signals from a plurality of satellites, or any other data and/or signals that could be used to determine the current state of the vehicle 100 or determine the position of the vehicle 100 with respect to its environment for use in either creating a map or determining the position of the vehicle 100 in respect to map data” (para 0092)).
Regarding claim 4, Higuchi discloses the electronic control device according to claim 1. Additionally, Higuchi discloses wherein the functional boundary change determination unit determines the processing load of the electronic control device on the basis of at least one of a number of external targets acquired by the sensor, a speed of the vehicle, and an acceleration of the vehicle (“The utility function(s) 250, in addition to receiving the identifier of a particular computational task, may also receive state information related to the state of the vehicle 100. The state information may be in the form of a state vector that can include vehicle-related information, such as the speed of the vehicle 100, changes in the heading of the vehicle 100, day of the week, time of day, location of the vehicle 100, number and type of object surrounding the vehicle” (para 0042)).
Regarding claim 7, Higuchi discloses the electronic control device according to claim 1. Additionally, Higuchi discloses wherein the functional boundary change determination unit suspends a part of processing performed by the electronic device and causes the electronic device to execute the functional role of the electronic control device (“the system and method for value-anticipating task offloading provides a solution for task offloading such that each computational task is evaluated to determine which computational tasks are the most important and would add the most value if they are offloaded. The computational tasks that are identified as having the most value if they are offloaded can then be prioritized such that they are offloaded” (para 0024)).
Regarding claim 8, Higuchi discloses the electronic control device according to claim 1. Additionally, Higuchi discloses wherein the electronic device executes processing of the electronic control device disposed in the electronic device according to a change in the functional roles (“In one or more embodiments, the processor(s) 110 is an application-specific integrated circuit that is configured to implement functions associated with a task manager module 220 and/or a task scheduler module 230. In some examples, the task manager module 220 and the task scheduler module 230 may be located on separate systems” (para 0038) and “The memory may include a task manager module. The task manager module may include instructions, that when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to receive a task identifier of a computational task for an application being utilized by a vehicle processor of a vehicle and a state vector describing at least one state of the vehicle” (para 0007)).
Regarding claim 10, Higuchi discloses the electronic control device according to claim 1. Additionally, Higuchi discloses comprising a first processing load determination unit that determines the processing load of the electronic control device (“the task manager module 220 may then cause the processor(s) 110 to determine, using the utility function(s) 250, a utility score of the computational task using the task identifier and the state vector” (para 0062)).
Regarding claim 11, Higuchi discloses an in-vehicle system comprising:
the electronic control device according to claim 1; and
one or a plurality of the electronic devices (Fig. 3, #100).
Regarding claim 12, Higuchi discloses the in-vehicle system according to claim 11. Additionally, Higuchi discloses wherein the electronic device includes a second processing load determination unit that determines a processing load of the electronic control device (“the task manager module 220 may then cause the processor(s) 110 to determine, using the utility function(s) 250, a utility score of the computational task using the task identifier and the state vector” (para 0062)).
Regarding claim 13, Higuchi discloses the in-vehicle system according to claim 12. Additionally, Higuchi discloses wherein the second processing load determination unit determines a load of the electronic control device based on external recognition information transmitted to the electronic control device (“the sensor system 120 can include one or more environment sensors 122 configured to acquire, and/or sense driving environment data. “Driving environment data” includes data or information about the external environment in which an autonomous vehicle is located or one or more portions thereof. For example, the one or more environment sensors 122 can be configured to detect, quantify and/or sense obstacles in at least a portion of the external environment of the vehicle 100 and/or information/data about such obstacles” (para 0079) and “the task manager module 220 may then cause the processor(s) 110 to determine, using the utility function(s) 250, a utility score of the computational task using the task identifier and the state vector” (para 0062)).
Regarding claim 14, Higuchi discloses the in-vehicle system according to claim 13. Additionally, Higuchi discloses wherein the second processing load determination unit determines the load of the electronic control device based on a number of targets included in external recognition information transmitted to the electronic control device (“The utility function(s) 250, in addition to receiving the identifier of a particular computational task, may also receive state information related to the state of the vehicle 100. The state information may be in the form of a state vector that can include vehicle-related information, such as the speed of the vehicle 100, changes in the heading of the vehicle 100, day of the week, time of day, location of the vehicle 100, number and type of object surrounding the vehicle” (para 0042)).
Claims 2, 5-6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 20220116456 (hereinafter, "Higuchi"; previously of record), in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20060064691 (hereinafter, "Blaisdell"; previously of record), in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 20230359500 (hereinafter, "Li"; newly of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 20210109796 (hereinafter, "Fozard"; previously of record).
Regarding claim 2, Higuchi discloses the electronic control device according to claim 1. However, Higuchi does not explicitly teach wherein, upon determining that the functional roles of the electronic control device and the electronic devices have changed, the functional boundary change determination unit instructs the electronic device to change at least one of the functional roles and a task period.
Fozard, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein, upon determining that the functions of the electronic control device and the electronic devices have changed, the functional boundary change determination unit instructs the electronic device to change at least one of the functions and a task period (“the general processing unit is further configured to: monitor a workload execution level of each of the plurality of compute resource units; determine an imbalance in the workload execution level between the plurality of compute resource units; and re-allocate workload from one or more compute resource units having a high workload execution level to one or more compute resource units having a low workload execution level” (para 0031) and “The scheduler may then allow the new workload to execute for a duration of time. In particular, this may provide enough time for the execution event (e.g., memory fetch operation) of the original workload to complete” (para 0233)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Higuchi with the teachings of Fozard in order to monitor a workload execution level of each of the plurality of compute resource units; see Fozard at least at [0031].
Regarding claim 5, Higuchi discloses the electronic control device according to claim 1. However, Higuchi does not explicitly teach wherein the functional boundary change determination unit determines the processing load of the electronic control device on the basis of a temporal change in the processing load of the electronic control device.
Fozard, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the functional boundary change determination unit determines the processing load of the electronic control device on the basis of a temporal change in the processing load of the electronic control device (“the general processing unit is further configured to: monitor a workload execution level of each of the plurality of compute resource units; determine an imbalance in the workload execution level between the plurality of compute resource units; and re-allocate workload from one or more compute resource units having a high workload execution level to one or more compute resource units having a low workload execution level” (para 0031)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Higuchi with the teachings of Fozard in order to monitor a workload execution level of each of the plurality of compute resource units; see Fozard at least at [0031].
Regarding claim 6, Higuchi discloses the electronic control device according to claim 1. However, Higuchi does not explicitly teach wherein the functional boundary change determination unit sets an execution period of processing performed by the electronic device to an integral multiple of an execution period of processing performed by the electronic control device, and causes the electronic device to execute a functional role of the electronic control device.
Fozard, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the functional boundary change determination unit sets an execution period of processing performed by the electronic device to an integral multiple of an execution period of processing performed by the electronic control device, and causes the electronic device to execute a function of the electronic control device (“the general processing unit is further configured to: monitor a workload execution level of each of the plurality of compute resource units; determine an imbalance in the workload execution level between the plurality of compute resource units; and re-allocate workload from one or more compute resource units having a high workload execution level to one or more compute resource units having a low workload execution level” (para 0031) and “The scheduler may then allow the new workload to execute for a duration of time. In particular, this may provide enough time for the execution event (e.g., memory fetch operation) of the original workload to complete” (para 0233)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Higuchi with the teachings of Fozard in order to monitor a workload execution level of each of the plurality of compute resource units; see Fozard at least at [0031].
Regarding claim 9, Higuchi discloses the electronic control device according to claim 8. However, Higuchi does not explicitly teach wherein the functional boundary change determination unit causes an electronic device with a low current processing load to execute a part of processing of the electronic control device.
Fozard, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the functional boundary change determination unit causes an electronic device with a low current processing load to execute a part of processing of the electronic control device (“the general processing unit is further configured to: monitor a workload execution level of each of the plurality of compute resource units; determine an imbalance in the workload execution level between the plurality of compute resource units; and re-allocate workload from one or more compute resource units having a high workload execution level to one or more compute resource units having a low workload execution level” (para 0031)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Higuchi with the teachings of Fozard in order to monitor a workload execution level of each of the plurality of compute resource units; see Fozard at least at [0031].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM ALHARBI whose telephone number is (313)446-6621. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 11:00AM – 7:30PM EST.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached on (571) 272-9855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADAM M ALHARBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights