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 . Claims 1-10 have been examined and are pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on DE10 2023 203 665.7 filed 20 April 2023.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are in claims 1, 6 and 9: at least one data processing device configured to execute, and the electrical/electronic architecture configured to provide.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-10 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.
Claims 1 and 6 include “the electrical/electronic architecture configured to provide further vehicle functions and/or vehicle data” however there are no previous or initial vehicle functions and/or vehicle data. Accordingly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for further vehicle functions and/or vehicle data. Note that the language “in addition to the functions and/or data provided by the at least one data processing device” does not require the functions and/or data to be vehicle functions and/or vehicle data. All respective dependent claims are likewise rejected.
Claim 1 includes “wherein the access interface is defined suitable for the different configurations and independently of a specific configuration of the electrical/electronic architecture”. It is not clear what the scope of “is defined suitable for” is. All respective dependent claims are likewise rejected.
Claim 6 includes “converting the vehicle signal and/or the vehicle service specification to provide the vehicle signal and/or the vehicle service specification compatible for use in an interface description language”. It is not clear what it means to convert a thing to provide it compatible for use in an IDL? All respective dependent claims are likewise rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-10 are directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter.
With respect to independent claims 1, 6 and dependent claims 8, 9, 10, the execute, converting, generating covers performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea). The providing limitations are recited at a high level of generality and do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea; these limitations are directed to insignificant extra solution activities. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the exception in a computer environment using generic computer functions or components. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 2, 3, 4, 5 the initiating, reading, controlling, execute, defined cover performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea). The sensor, actuator, device, provide are recited at a high level of generality and do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea; these limitations are directed to insignificant extra solution activities. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the exception in a computer environment using generic computer functions or components. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 7, the convert, compile, select cover performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea). No additional elements are recited and so the claims do not provide a practical application and are not considered to be significantly more. The claims are not eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eggers et al., Pub. No.: DE102004039633A1, hereinafter Eggers (paragraph numbering refers to provided EPO English translation document).
As per claim 1, Eggers discloses method for providing access from at least one vehicle software application to at least one of different vehicle systems, the vehicle systems comprising differently configured electrical/electronic architecture, the electrical/electronic architecture comprises at least one data processing device configured to execute the at least one vehicle software application for providing functions and/or data, and the electrical/electronic architecture configured to provide further vehicle functions and/or vehicle data in addition to the functions and/or data provided by the at least one data processing device (see at least pars. 2-7 of the provided EPO English translation and note that par. 5 discloses access by applications to vehicle information across differing vehicle bus and differing vehicle system technologies), the method comprising:
providing the at least one vehicle software application, the at least one vehicle software application configured to be executed in runtime environments of the at least one data processing device (par. 7: service framework with application programs, par. 108: services, service framework, OSGi framework, etc.); and
providing an access interface to the runtime environments for the at least one vehicle software application, the access interface defined by an interface description language (at least par. 7 discloses VAPI which is an access interface; additionally, and/or alternatively, par. 108 discloses CORBA which utilizes CORBA IDL to specify interfaces, and maps from IDL to implementation in specific programming languages like C++ or Java. Claim interpretation note: par. 11 of the specification defines interface description language as “a declarative formal language and includes language syntax for describing interfaces of a software component”),
wherein the access interface is defined by the interface description language for access to the functions and/or data and the further vehicle functions and/or vehicle data (pars. 100, 101, 107, 108 disclose XML based formal descriptions defining interfaces and metadata which corresponds to an IDL; also, par. 108 discloses CORBA which utilizes CORBA IDL to specify interfaces, and maps from IDL to implementations in specific programming languages), and
wherein the access interface is defined suitable for the different configurations and independently of a specific configuration of the electrical/electronic architecture (see rejection of limitations above including at least pars. 3, 4, 29, 33, 48).
As per claim 6, Eggers discloses a method for providing at least one vehicle software application to at least one of different vehicle systems, the vehicle systems comprising differently configured electrical/electronic architecture, the electrical/electronic architecture comprising at least one data processing device configured to execute the at least one vehicle software application configured to provide functions and/or data, and the respective electrical/electronic architecture configured to provide further vehicle functions and/or vehicle data in addition to the functions and/or data provided by the data processing device (see at least pars. 2-7 and rejection of claim 1 above), the method comprising:
providing a vehicle signal and/or a vehicle service specification (par. 8, 33, 80-81 disclose vehicle signals, defining data objects and mappings in a profile, models, databases and profiles specifying available vehicle data objects which corresponds to vehicle signal and service specifications);
converting the vehicle signal and/or the vehicle service specification to provide the vehicle signal and/or the vehicle service specification compatible for use in an interface description language (pars. 73, 81 disclose vehicle data specifications are formally captured in XML, making them compatible with an interface description syntax; par. 108 includes “…offer an XML format for vehicle API accesses and data. The formats are to be matched to one another.” Par. 9 discloses “Here, the device-local base interface of the vehicle API is converted into an interface based on another target language”. Par. 48 includes “Each basic data type is assigned a mapping (low-level mapping) to a low-level source/sink, which converts the corresponding vehicle datum into the object model of the vehicle API.” See also, pars. 67-78);
generating at least one interface description for at least one access interface using the interface description language, the at least one access interface provided to access the functions and/or data and the further vehicle functions and/or vehicle data (pars. 7, 8, 99, 103, 110 disclose generation of interface descriptions); and
generating the at least one vehicle software application using the at least one interface description generated (par. 79-80 discloses data object mapping to API (connection of manufacturer-specific application) and see par. 108 - note that OSGi is a framework for modular development of applications).
As per claim 2, Eggers discloses The method according to Claim 1, wherein: the electrical/electronic architecture comprises (i) at least one sensor and at least one actuator, and (ii) at least one further data processing device, wherein the at least one further data processing device is used at least in part for at least semi-autonomous driving and/or for controlling the at least one actuator and/or for reading out the at least one sensor, and wherein the at least one vehicle software application initiates control and/or reading (see at least pars. 7, 41, 53, 58, 110 and note that in automotive systems, low-level data sources (sensors, ECUs) generate raw signals, while sinks (actuators, other ECUs, displays) consume them).
As per claim 3, Eggers discloses The method according to Claim 1, wherein: the functions and the further vehicle functions comprise controls, regulations, and/or measurements internal to the vehicle system and/or connected to the vehicle system, and the data and further vehicle data comprise measurement data from at least one sensor internal to the vehicle system and/or a sensor connected to the vehicle system, and the respective electrical/electronic architecture and the runtime environments comprise a switching function, to provide access to the further vehicle functions and/or vehicle data via the access interface defined independently of different configurations of the electrical/electronic architecture (pars. 5, 33, 58-59, 67, 110).
As per claim 5, Eggers discloses The method according to Claim 1, wherein: the access interface is additionally defined by the interface description language using a vehicle signal and/or vehicle service specification for access to the functions and/or data and to the further vehicle functions and/or vehicle data, the vehicle signal and/or vehicle service specification provides a syntax, to structure and standardize vehicle signals and vehicle services within a context of the at least one vehicle software application (pars. 7, 8, 99, 100, 103, 107, 108. XML based interface descriptions define vehicle data objects and access methods constitute a syntax structuring and standardizing vehicle signal/services).
As per claim 7, Eggers discloses The method according to Claim 6, further comprising: converting the interface description to use the interface description in a desired programming language including Java, C, C++, or Rust, to generate the at least one vehicle software application in the desired programming language; compiling the generated vehicle software application; and selecting a runtime environment of the at least one data processing device to execute the compiled vehicle software application on the selected runtime environment (see rejection of claim 6 and at least pars. 107-108. Eggers describes converting the interface for use in Java or C++ and generating applications, by creating local interfaces (mappings) for specific target languages, as well as selecting a runtime environment to execute the applications by means of specific execution environments such as OSGi).
As per claim 8, Eggers discloses The method according to Claim 1, wherein a computer program comprises instructions that, when the computer program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform the method (see rejection of claim 1).
As per claim 9, Eggers discloses A device for data processing, configured to perform the method according to Claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
As per claim 10, Eggers discloses A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, comprising instructions that, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform the method according to Claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
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.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eggers in view of Brandel et al., Pub. No.: US 20200410996 A1, hereinafter Brandel.
As per claim 4, Eggers discloses The method according to Claim 1.
Eggers does not expressly disclose, however Brandel discloses wherein the at least one vehicle software application is provided by a WebAssembly byte code, as a Wasm component, to execute the at least one vehicle software application portably on different data processing devices (Brandel, pars. 21, 28-30, 40, 58 and see Eggers as cited in the rejection of claim 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Brandel would have allowed Eggers to execute vehicle application interfaces using WebAssembly based runtime so that the same application logic could be deployed and executed across differing electronic architectures without recompilation, thereby predictably improving portability and maintainability/implementation efficiency in multi-platform vehicle systems.
Pertinent Prior Art
Prior art that is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure but not currently relied upon: WO 2021178979 A1, CN 115328853 A, US 20100292867 A1, US 20120173044 A1, KR 102717895 B1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED HASAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5008. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5 pm.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571)270-5626. 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.
/SYED H HASAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154