DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendment does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 9-11 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (US 2007/0103820 A1) in view of Jankovic et al. (S. Jankovic and D. Maksimovic, “Power Saving Modes in Modern Microcontroller Design and Chip Diagnostics”, In Proc. 23rd International Conf. on Microelectronics (MIEL 2002), Yugoslavia, 12-15 May, 2022, pp. 593-596).
Regarding claim 9, Kobayashi teaches a method for operating a control device of a motor vehicle, the control device including a microcontroller (see Kobayashi figs. 1-2 and [0022]-[0029] regarding a vehicle power window system 1, i.e. a “control device of a motor vehicle”, comprising: a lift apparatus 2 (including a motor 20), an operational switch 4, and a control apparatus 3 (including a controller 31). See also fig. 3 and [0033] regarding controller 31 comprising a microcomputer, i.e. microcontroller, including a CPU 40), the method comprising:
operating the microcontroller at a given clock frequency and processing a number of commands in dependence on the clock frequency (inherent. The number of instructions processed per second by a microprocessor/microcontroller is governed by the clock frequency. See also [0065] regarding CPU 40 executing the (stored) operational program based on a clock signal when the controller 31 is in the active state);
determining current requirements for the control device by way of the microcontroller (see Kobayashi [0057]-[0060] where, when operational switch 4 is operated, switch 4 outputs a command to the controller 31 to perform a closing or opening operation of the window by driving the motor 20. The detection of the switch command by the controller, which indicates that the motor needs to be driven, comprises a determination of “current requirements for the control device by way of the microcontroller”);
Kobayashi teaches transitioning the microcontroller from a sleep state to an active state based on the determined current requirements for the control device (see Kobayashi fig. 3 and [0087] where the CPU 40 of controller 31 transitions from a sleep state to an active state when an external wakeup signal WU2 is generated by operation of operational switch 4. As noted above, the operation of operational switch 4 results in the driving of the motor and, therefore, comprises a determination of “current requirements for the control device by way of the microcontroller”), but does not explicitly teach adjusting the clock frequency of the microcontroller in dependence on the current requirements.
Jankovic teaches where a sleep mode for a microcontroller, such as the one in Kobayashi, comprises adjusting the clock frequency of the microcontroller (see Jankovic p. 594 “POWER SAVING MODES” which teaches that entering a microcontroller into sleep mode comprises blocking, i.e. adjusting, the CPU clock).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kobayashi so as to block, i.e. adjust, the clock frequency of the microcontroller, as taught in Jankovic, because this reduces the power consumption of the microcontroller (see Jankovic p. 594 “POWER SAVING MODES”). Since Kobayashi exits sleep mode based on the current requirements, the combination of Kobayashi and Jankovic would teach “adjusting the clock frequency of the microcontroller in dependence on the current requirements”.
Regarding claim 10, modified Kobayashi teaches where the method further comprises determining the current requirements continuously (as noted above in the rejection of claim 9, the motor is driven based on the detection of the external signal WU2. Since the controller can detect signal WU2 in all modes, it determines the current requirements continuously).
Regarding claim 11, modified Kobayashi teaches where the method further comprises reducing the clock frequency only after a given period of time (see Kobayashi [0068] where the controller enters sleep mode (and thus stops the clock) after a predetermined period of time has elapsed since the time of ending the operation of the motor).
Regarding claim 16, modified Kobayashi teaches where the control device is a door control device of the motor vehicle, and the method comprises adapting the clock frequency of the door control device depending on current requirements (see the rejection of claim 9 regarding the control device in Kobayashi comprising a vehicle power window control device, i.e. a door control device, and wherein the clock frequency is dependent on operation of the motor, i.e. the current requirements).
Regarding claim 17, modified Kobayashi teaches a control device of a motor vehicle, the control device comprising a microcontroller configured to operate in accordance with the method according to claim 9 (see the rejection of claim 9 regarding controller 31).
Regarding claim 18, modified Kobayashi teaches where the control device is configured as a door control device of the motor vehicle (see the rejection of claim 9 regarding vehicle power window system 1).
Regarding claim 19, modified Kobayashi teaches where the method further comprises reducing the clock frequency of the microcontroller for processing a relatively low number of commands within a given time frame and increasing the clock frequency of the microcontroller for processing a relatively high number of commands within the given time frame (see Kobayashi fig. 5B and [0066]-[0068] where, after a predetermined time since the motor was operated, the controller 31 enters a first sleep mode. See also [0075]-[0084] where, while in the first sleep mode, the controller periodically returns to active mode after a time Ts, based on operation of a sub-clock 51, and then returns to the first sleep mode after performing operations during time Ta. Since the controller is not continuously active/inactive in the first sleep mode, the effective clock is reduced and a relatively low number of commands during the period P. In the active mode, during the same period P, the controller is governed by main clock 44 and will process more commands).
Regarding claim 20, modified Kobayashi teaches where the method further comprises reducing the clock frequency to a minimum value when the current requirements require only a minimum number of commands to be executed (see Kobayashi fig. 5B and [0066]-[0068] where, after a predetermined time since the motor was operated, the controller 31 enters a first sleep mode. See also [0075]-[0084] where, while in the first sleep mode, the controller periodically returns to active mode after a time Ts, based on operation of a sub-clock 51, and then returns to the first sleep mode after performing operations during time Ta. As noted above, when the switch 4 is activated, the controller will switch to awake mode and process the motor commands. Therefore, when the motor is not driven, only the commands in time Ta are processed).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this or any earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Peter Nolan, whose telephone number is 571-270-7016. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 7:30 am to 5:00 pm.
The fax number for the organization to which 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, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Peter D Nolan/
Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights