DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
This action is in response to preliminary amendments filed on 10/19/2023.
Claims 8-9 were cancelled. Claims 12-14 were added. Claims 1-7 & 10-14 have been examined and are rejected.
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/JP2022/017847 and claims foreign priority to JP2021-073729 filed 4/26/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/19/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6, & 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (US 2020/0014620 A1).
With regard to Claim 1, Kim teaches:
A management device comprising:
an acquisition unit that acquires change information from which a change in an operational state of one or more functional units included in an onboard network is discernible, and from which a change in a state of use of a transmission path in the onboard network by the functional units is discernible; (gateway may monitor a state of one or more SDN switches as well as states of data of the devices, and in response to an identified change of state of either, control the plurality of SDN switches to change the route for transmitting the data of the devices [Kim: 0101-102; 0116; 0122; Figs. 10-11]);
and a setting change unit that performs setting change to change settings for the onboard network based on the change information acquired by the acquisition unit; (gateway includes an SDN controller for controlling the plurality of SDN switches [Kim: 0106-107]).
With regard to Claim 3, Kim teaches:
The management device according to claim 1,
wherein the setting change unit performs the setting change to change settings for relay processing that is performed by a relay processing unit to relay information between a plurality of functional units included in the onboard network; (gateway includes an SDN controller for controlling the plurality of SDN switches which are connected to one another to form a plurality of routes for transmitting data of the devices to a destination [Kim: 0106-107; 0096], wherein the gateway may identify states of data of the devices and change the route for transmitting the data of the devices by controlling the plurality of SDN switches [Kim: 0101; 0116; 0122]).
With regard to Claims 6 & 10-12, they appear substantially similar to the limitations recited by claims 1 & 3 and consequently do not appear to teach or further define over the citations provided for said claims. Accordingly, claims 6 & 10-12 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 1 & 3.
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 of this title, 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.
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 2, 4, 7, & 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2020/0014620 A1) in view of Kapur et al. (US 2016/0285640 A1).
With regard to Claim 2, Kim teaches:
The management device according to claim 1, but does not teach:
wherein the acquisition unit further acquires the change information from which a change in a state of power supply from a power supply to the functional units is discernible.
In a similar field of endeavor involving re-routing network traffic in a software defined network, Kapur discloses:
wherein the acquisition unit further acquires the change information from which a change in a state of power supply from a power supply to the functional units is discernible; (receive a bandwidth utilization from each device in an SDN environment to determine which devices are being over- or under-utilized, and in response to the bandwidth utilizations, the power module may send commands to shut down or power up certain devices [Kapur: 0086-88]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim in view of Kapur in order to acquire change information from which a change in a state of power supply to the functional units is discernible in the system of Kim.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Kim with Kapur as doing so would allow non-critical devices to be shut down to conserve power and would enable traffic intended for a device being shut down to be re-routed to a different portion of the SDN that is not shut down [Kapur: 0059; 0088].
With regard to Claim 4, Kim teaches:
The management device according to claim 1,
wherein the setting change unit performs the setting change to change bandwidth routing to a transmission path included in the onboard network used by the functional units to perform communication; (the gateway may change a route for transmitting data of a plurality of devices based on a bandwidth allowance of each of one or more SDN switches [Kim: 0101; 0116; 0122; Figs. 10-11]).
However, Kim does not teach (where underlining indicates the portion of each limitation not taught):
wherein the setting change unit performs the setting change to change bandwidth allocation to a transmission path included in the onboard network used by the functional units to perform communication.
In a similar field of endeavor involving re-routing network traffic in a software defined network, Kapur discloses:
wherein the setting change unit performs the setting change to change bandwidth allocation to a transmission path included in the onboard network used by the functional units to perform communication; (utilizing a “high water mark” that indicates a threshold bandwidth such that if the bandwidth utilization exceeds the threshold, the critical device sends a notification to the SDN controller to allocate more resources (e.g., bring up non-critical devices that are shut down) [Kapur: 0080]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim in view of Kapur in order to change bandwidth allocation in the system of Kim.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Kim with Kapur as doing so would allow the system to bring up one or more switches, routers, and/or servers in different portions of the SDN to handle additional load on the SDN [Kapur: 0071].
With regard to Claims 7 & 13-14, they appear substantially similar to the limitations recited by claims 2 & 4 and consequently do not appear to teach or further define over the citations provided for said claims. Accordingly, claims 7 & 13-14 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 2 & 4.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2020/0014620 A1) in view of Kapur et al. (US 2016/0285640 A1) as applied to Claim 4 above, and further in view of Lim et al. (US 10,554,324 B1).
With regard to Claim 5, Kim-Kapur teaches the management device according to claim 4, but does not teach:
wherein the setting change unit allocates at least a portion of a bandwidth allocated to one functional unit of the plurality of functional units for the one functional unit to perform communication using the transmission path, to another functional unit of the plurality of functional units.
In a similar field of endeavor involving dynamic allocation of network resources, Lim discloses:
wherein the setting change unit allocates at least a portion of a bandwidth allocated to one functional unit of the plurality of functional units for the one functional unit to perform communication using the transmission path, to another functional unit of the plurality of functional units; (maintaining a threshold that indicates when bandwidth capacity has fallen below a certain threshold that the network controller system can release or otherwise reallocate the bandwidth capacity for other routers in the network [Lim: 3:20-56]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim-Kapur in view of Lim in order to allocate at least a portion of a bandwidth allocated to one functional unit to another functional unit in the system of Kim-Kapur.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Kim-Kapur with Lim as doing so would utilize unused bandwidth by providing additional bandwidth to other routers in the network [Lim: 3:20-56].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Baba et al. (US 2021/0400452 A1) which teaches an individual NW repeater that performs communications (packet forwarding) based on Ethernet and sets/controls disconnection, duplication, bandwidth limitation, and priority level on packet communications [Baba: 0059].
In the case of amendments, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and support, for ascertaining the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN J MOREAU whose telephone number is (571) 272-5179. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 - 6:00 ET.
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, Brian Gillis can be reached on 571-272-7952. 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.
/AUSTIN J MOREAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2446
Prosecution Insights