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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed, 04 August 2026, of application filed, with the above serial number, on 27 December 2023 in which claims 1, 3, 5-7, 10-20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claims are amended to recite “calculates a required time period required to change a network setting by computationally predicting a localized processing latency”. The specification does not appear to support such prediction with latency, rather as outlined in par.100-102, a table stores time periods for changes, see Fig. 5. For example, if there are 2 parameters to be changed, the value of the change time period is xxx, there is no predicting latency as the values are already determined.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-13, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al (hereinafter “Matsumoto”, 2023/0163983) in view of Zinner et al (hereinafter “Zinner”, 2021/0392013) and Fujii (hereinafter “Fijii”, 2014/0215454).
As per Claim 1, Matsumoto discloses an in-vehicle control device to be installed in a vehicle and comprising a control circuit performing control related to communication between a first in-vehicle device and a second in-vehicle device via an in-vehicle network,
wherein the control circuit executes
generates setting information of the in-vehicle network according to a state of the vehicle (at least paragraph 46, 51, 64, 71; settings of control profile being changed with vehicle state transition information for future state),
calculates a required time period required to change a network setting in the first in-vehicle device (at least paragraph 67-69; clocking part 07 may output a clock signal to each piece of equipment connected to the in-vehicle network and the control device/control unit that controls it; each piece of equipment may have a timer; each piece of equipment can operate synchronously..to align the timing of restoring a normal active state from a low-power consumption standby state; each piece of equipment to operate synchronously according to the signal),
calculates a required time period required to change a network setting in the second in-vehicle device (at least paragraph 67-69; clocking part 07 may output a clock signal to each piece of equipment connected to the in-vehicle network and the control device/control unit that controls it; each piece of equipment may have a timer; each piece of equipment can operate synchronously..to align the timing of restoring a normal active state from a low-power consumption standby state; each piece of equipment to operate synchronously according to the signal), and
performs a setting change instruction on at least one of the network setting in the first in-vehicle device and the network setting in the second in-vehicle device (at least paragraph 73; apply a control profile according to a next transition destination state by acquiring a control profile using such vehicle state transition information. For instance, in FIG. 9, since it is known that the vehicle state ID 1 will transition to the vehicle state ID 2, it is possible to control equipment in advance anticipating an ACC state. Concretely, since in-vehicle information terminals may turn on in an ACC state, by activating control units and ECUs controlling the in-vehicle information terminals in advance, the operation can be started without delay when the state transitions to the vehicle state ID 2).
Matsumoto fails to explicitly disclose such that a time period during which the network setting in the first in-vehicle device is changed overlaps with a time period during which the network setting in the second in-vehicle device is changed, and a time point when a change of the network setting in the first in-vehicle device is completed coincides with a time point when a change of the network setting in the second in-vehicle device is completed. However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Zinner. Zinner discloses, in an analogous vehicle control unit configuration art, activating communication configuration changes at the same time (at least paragraph 98-100). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of Zinner’s timing with Matsumoto as Zinner teaches that the control units need to use the new configuration at the same time so that old values are not used with new values and the network would block newer staggered processes.
Matsumoto and Zinner fail to explicitly disclose such calculating by computationally predicting a localized processing latency according to a data volume or a parameter count within the setting information. However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Fujii. Fujii discloses, in an analogous art, an installation time for a system configuration is estimated based on a size of a setting data (at least paragraph 79-80, 63, 60, 105-107). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of Fujii’s estimation of installation with Matsumoto and Zinner as Zinner discloses new configurations of a plurality of ECUs attempting and ensuring activation, or the start of flashing or changing the configuration at the same time (at least paragraph 98-100) and using Fujii’s system, as is well known, would allow the estimating finishing or completion of such flashing or changing at the same time. Such being arguably more important and desirable for Matsumoto and Zinner’s system for the synchronized update in a situation where one configuration of a device may be much larger and take much longer, the update process would likely not be synchronized, and a simple estimation based on their size would account for such a scenario.
As per Claim 2. The in-vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the in-vehicle control device is included in at least one of the first in-vehicle device and the second in-vehicle device (at least Fig. 3; eg. master control management).
As per Claim 3. The in-vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the control circuit includes a relay processing circuit that performs relay processing of communication between the first in-vehicle device and the second in-vehicle device, the control circuit specifies an order of and a time point at which changes of the network settings are started by the first in-vehicle device and the second in-vehicle device based on the required time periods, outputs the setting information to the relay processing circuit and performs the setting change instruction on at least one of the network setting in the first in-vehicle device and the network setting in the second in-vehicle device, according to specified order and time point, and the relay processing circuit starts changing the network setting according to the outputted setting information (at least Fig. 3; paragraph 82-84, 73-74; eg. communication from slave #1 ecu relayed by master to slave #2 ecu; timer and each device interrupt sync timing for each device to transition to next vehicle transition destination state).
As per Claim 4. The in-vehicle control device according to claim 3, wherein the relay processing circuit functions as a layer 2 switch or a layer 3 switch (at least paragraph 67; eg. layer 2 802.1AS).
As per Claim 6. The in-vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the control circuit performs the setting change instruction on at least one of the network setting in the first in-vehicle device and the network setting in the second in-vehicle device so that a time point when a change of the network setting in the first in-vehicle device is completed coincides with a time point when a change of the network setting in the second in-vehicle device is completed (at least paragraph 67-70; synchronized timing of state change and respective configuration).
As per Claim 7. Matsumoto fails to explicitly disclose wherein the required time period for the second in-vehicle device includes: a reception time period from a time point when the control circuit outputs the setting change instruction to the second in-vehicle device to a time point when the second in-vehicle device completes reception processing in response to the setting change instruction, and a change time period from a time point when a change of the network setting is started to a time point when the change of the network setting is completed based on the setting change instruction for which the reception processing is completed in the second in-vehicle device.
However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Zinner. Zinner discloses, in an analogous vehicle control unit configuration art, distributing changed configurations in random succession and then activating the changes at the same time such that the activation time can only be after the time periods of distribution to all devices and synchronized activation time (at least paragraph 98-100). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of Zinner’s timing with Matsumoto as Zinner teaches that the control units need to use the new configuration at the same time so that old values are not used with new values and the network would block newer staggered processes and as the new values cannot be activated until all of the devices have the changed configurations distributed to them and can subsequently activate them together.
As per Claim 8. The in-vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the control circuit generates, in a case where an event that shifts a state of the vehicle is detected, the setting information based on the event (at least paragraph 73; operation started without delay when state transitions).
As per Claim 9. The in-vehicle control device according to as claim 1, wherein the in-vehicle network is connected to a plurality of the second in-vehicle devices functioning as relay devices, and the control circuit of the first in-vehicle device functioning as the in-vehicle control device controls communication with the relay devices (at least Fig. 3; master management network control for slave network control apparatus’).
Claims 10-12 do not, in substance, add or define any additional limitations over claims 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons, supra. Claim 10 is a system, claim 11 is a method, and claim 12 is a corresponding computer program product for performing the operations performed by the device of claim 1.
Claim 13 does not, in substance, add or define any additional limitations over claims 3 and therefore is rejected for similar reasons, supra.
Claim 17-20 do not, in substance, add or define any additional limitations over claim 6 and therefore is/are rejected for similar reasons, supra.
Claim(s) 5, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto in view of Zinner and Fujii, further in view of Sagfors et al (hereinafter “Sagfors”, 2011/0007698).
Matsumoto in view of Zinner/Fujii fail to explicitly disclose wherein the control circuit specifies a longest required time period for each of the required time periods, and performs the setting change instruction on at least one of the network setting in the first in-vehicle device and the network setting in the second in-vehicle device so that in a time period during which one of the network settings that requires the specified longest required time period is being changed, the other one of the network settings is changed.
However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Sagfors. Sagfors discloses activation time of a configuration change taking into account the longest possible reconfiguration delay (at least paragraph 28). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of Sagfors timing with Matsumoto and Zinner/Fujii as Sagfors teaches a device may take on a reconfiguration before the other device is also reconfigured which would obviously result in a potential lost connection as both devices would not be able to communicate if their configurations aren’t changed together, thus delaying by a worst case transmission delay alleviates such scenario.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is indicated in PTO form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY TODD whose telephone number is (303)297-4763. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5 MST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Nicholas Taylor can be reached on 571-272-3889. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/GREGORY TODD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
