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 .
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant is requested to ensure the dependency of dependent claims 11-15 are correct and as intended.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to
www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-15 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-16 of co-pending Application No. 18/729,226 (hereafter ‘226 reference application). Comparison of independent claim 1 of instant invention and co-pending application ‘226 is presented below. All non-matching elements of the claims are highlighted in the table below:
Instant Invention
18/729,226 (‘226)
1. An in-vehicle control device to be installed in a vehicle, comprising:
1. An in-vehicle control device to be installed in a vehicle, comprising:
physical resources including a control unit, a storage unit, and a communication unit; and
physical resources including a control unit, a storage unit, and a communication unit; and
a management unit configured to generate a plurality of virtual machines by allocating the physical resources for each allocation time, the plurality of virtual machines including:
a management unit configured to generate a plurality of virtual machines by allocating the physical resources for each allocation time, the plurality of virtual machines including:
a first virtual machine configured to communicate with an external device provided outside the in-vehicle control device and execute processing not carriable over to a next cycle; and
a first virtual machine configured to communicate with an external device provided outside the in-vehicle control device and execute processing not carriable over to a next cycle; and
a second virtual machine configured to execute processing carriable over to the next cycle, and
a second virtual machine configured to execute processing carriable over to the next cycle,
the management unit executing
the management unit executing a first change control for changing an allocation time of each of the first virtual machine and the second
virtual machine, and
the first change control including: a control for acquiring a processing time of the first virtual machine in a first cycle; and
a first control for extending the allocation time of the first virtual machine and shortening the allocation time of the second virtual machine,
a control for extending the allocation time of the first virtual machine and shortening the
allocation time of the second virtual machine in a cycle after the first cycle,
when a predetermined condition indicating deterioration of the external device is satisfied.
when a buffer time calculated based on the acquired processing time and the allocation
time set for the first virtual machine or a rate of change of the buffer time is lower than a first predetermined value.
As illustrated in the above table, Claim 1 of instant invention recites elements similar to claim 1 of the co-pending application. Claim 1 of the instant invention is covered by claim 1 of the co-pending application except “when a predetermined condition indicating deterioration of the external device satisfied”. On the other hand, claim 1 of the co-pending application recites some elements that are missing from claim 1 of the instant invention. Claim elements “when a predetermined condition indicating deterioration of the external device is satisfied” recited in claim 1 of the instant invention is variation of elements “when a buffer time calculated based on the acquired processing time and the allocation time set for the first virtual machine or a rate of change of the buffer time is lower than a first predetermined value” as recited in claim 1 of the co-pending application i.e. the condition in the two claims being compared are different, as recognized by one of ordinary skills in the art.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim of 1 of instant invention is obvious variation of claim 1 of the co-pending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following claim language is not clearly understood:
Claim 1 recites “processing not carriable over to a next cycle” and “processing carriable to next cycle”. It is unclear which processing is considered carriable or not carriable over to next cycle i.e. what is the criteria for determining if the processing is carriable or not carriable over to next cycle.
Claim 1 recites “extending the allocation time… and shortening the allocation time”. It is unclear the allocation time is referring to the allocation duration of physical resources to the first/second virtual machines, or time of allocation (i.e. when the allocation made ) of resource to the virtual machine or duration of allocation of virtual machines for processing.
Claim 2 recites “a predetermined time or longer elapsing from a reference time point” and further recites “the external device operating a predetermined time or longer from the reference timepoint”. It is unclear if the two instance of “a predetermined time” is same or different.
Claims 9 and 10 recite elements of claim 1 and have similar deficiency as claim 1. Therefore, they are rejected for the same rationales. Remaining dependent claims 2-8 and 11-15 are also rejected due to similar deficiency inherited from the rejected independent claims.
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 1-4, and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prantner et al. (US 2020/0326980 A1, hereafter Prantner) in view of Kaneko et al. (US 2016/0179562 A1, hereafter Kaneko), and further in view of Yun et al. (US 2023/0118121 A1, hereafter Yun).
As per claim 1, Prantner teaches the invention substantially as claimed including an in-vehicle control device to be installed in a vehicle, comprising ([0058] automotive vehicle, plurality of electronic control units ECU):
physical resources including a control unit, a storage unit, and a communication unit ([0053] fig. 1 ECU 1 control unit, processors3 memories 5, [0056] fig. 1 interface, bus, ethernet connection); and
a management unit configured to generate a plurality of virtual machines by allocating the physical resources for each allocation time ([0059] fig. 2 virtualization system 20 virtual machines 24 26 28), the plurality of virtual machines including (fig. 2 24 26 28):
a first virtual machine configured to communicate with an external device provided outside the in-vehicle control device ([058] automotive vehicle, plurality of ECU, assigned to different units of the Vehicle, e.g. steering vehicle, brakes, windows, motor, sensors, drivers, actuators, interface [0059] virtualization system, virtual machines, hypervisors [0056] interfaces for other bus system [0058] ECU, connected, some sensors, drivers, and/or actuators via an interface [0065] peripheral devices [0113] peripheral [0118] periphery) and execute processing not carriable over to a next cycle ([0024] assigning, task, different virtual machines, first virtual machine have different real-time attributes [0040] real-time requirements, cyclical task loads); and
a second virtual machine configured to execute processing carriable over to the next cycle ([0024] assigning, task, different virtual machines, first virtual machine have different real-time attributes than a second virtual machine [0012] assign processing time to each of the virtual machines according to a predetermined fixed sequence of virtual machines forming a cycle period, repeated, fig. 3); and
the management unit executing a first control ([0062] virtualization system 22, processor, control the hardware and to manage the virtual machines, provide time management and scheduling [0069] scheduling, vm, task period, scheduler assigns processing time to each vcpu [0070] scheduler, schedule, different vCPU) for extending the allocation time of the first virtual machine ([0026] determining the share of each virtual machine within a cycle period [0026] determining the nominal scheduling times for each virtual machine based on the real time attributes of the virtual machines; [0027] determining real scheduling times based on the nominal scheduling times and the share of each virtual machine within a cycle period [0035] shifting all nominal scheduling times of , virtual machine, reduce stress) and shortening the allocation time of the second virtual machine ([0026] determining the share of each virtual machine within a [0026] determining the nominal scheduling times for each virtual machine based on the real time attributes of the virtual machines; [0027] determining real scheduling times based on the nominal scheduling times and the share of each virtual machine within a cycle period [0035] shifting all nominal scheduling times of , virtual machine, reduce stress), when a predetermined condition indicating deterioration of the external device is satisfied ([0034] determining the stress per a predetermined time [0035] stress, minimal distance in time to the next scheduling points for all other virtual machines [0099] stress/congestion, more than one vCPU needs to be dispatched at the same time t or within a short, predetermined time interval per the nominal schedule, stress occurs, when nominal scheduling points are close to each other).
Prantner doesn’t specifically extending the allocation time, shortening the allocation time; the condition of deterioration of the external device is satisfied.
Kaneko, however, teaches extending the allocation time ([0035] resource allocation amount is increased [0075] increases, allocation amount of a CPU at a predetermined setting interval i [0084] increase the setting interval I; fig. 10 S2-S10-S12-S14), shortening the allocation time ([0035] resource allocation amount tis decreased; [0075] decreases, allocation amount of a CPU at a predetermined setting interval I [0084] increase the setting interval I; fig. 10 S2-S10-S12-S14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to combine the teachings of Prantner with the teachings of Kaneko of increasing /decreasing the resource allocation and increasing the setting interval to improve efficiency and allow extending the allocation time, shortening the allocation time to the method of Prantner as in the instant invention. The combination would have been obvious because applying the known method of increasing /decreasing the amount of resource allocation and time of setting the allocation as taught by Kaneko to the method of Prantner to yield expected result and improved efficiency.
Prantner and Kaneko, in combination, do not specifically teach the condition of deterioration of the external device is satisfied.
Yun, however, teaches the condition of deterioration of the external device is satisfied (fig. 7 determine whether temperature sensor failed [0015] ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to combine the teachings of Prantner and Kaneko with the teachings of Yun of determining if the sensor has failed to improve efficiency and allow the condition of deterioration of the external device is satisfied to the method of Prantner and Kaneko as in the instant invention. The combination would have been obvious because applying the known method of determining the sensor has failed taught by Yun to the method of Prantner and Kaneko to yield expected result and improved efficiency.
As per claim 2, Prantner teaches the in-vehicle control device ([0037] control unit, vehicle):
wherein the predetermined condition includes:
a predetermined time or longer elapsing from a reference timepoint,
the external device operating for a predetermined time or longer from the reference timepoint ([0034] determining the stress per a predetermined time [0035] stress, minimal distance in time to the next scheduling points for all other virtual machines [0099] stress/congestion, more than one vCPU needs to be dispatched at the same time t or within a short, predetermined time interval per the nominal schedule, stress occurs, when nominal scheduling points are close to each other), or
the vehicle traveling a predetermined distance or more from the reference timepoint, and
Kaneko teaches the remaining claim elements of the reference timepoint includes:
a timepoint at which the allocation time of the first virtual machine is extended (0035] resource allocation amount is increased [0075] increases, allocation amount of a CPU at a predetermined setting interval i [0084] increase the setting interval I; fig. 10 S2-S10-S12-S14).
Yun teaches remaining claim elements of the external device is satisfied (fig. 7 temperature sensor [0015] temperature sensor), or
Reference timepoint includes: a timepoint at which use of the external device is started ([0154] starting the operation of another physical server at the same time), or
As per claim 3, Kaneko teaches remaining claim elements of wherein the storage unit stores ([0045] storage device 105, storing) a first allocation time and a second allocation time that is longer than the first allocation time (fig. 10 increase/decrease allocation amount at setting interval i S10 - increase i S14), and the management unit sets the allocation time of the first virtual machine to the first allocation time (fig. 10 set allocation amount S2, increase allocation amount at setting interval i S10), before the predetermined condition is satisfied (fig. 10 is time lag constant - no S12 increase i S14), and sets the allocation time of the first virtual machine to the second allocation time (fig. 10 set allocation amount S2, increase allocation amount at setting interval i S10), when the predetermined condition is satisfied (fig. 10 is time lag constant - no S12 increase i S14).
As per claim 4, Kaneko teaches the storage unit stores a table ([0045] storage device 105, storing) in which information relating to the predetermined condition is associated with allocation times of the first virtual machine including the first allocation time and the second allocation time (fig. 10 increase/decrease allocation amount at setting interval i S10 - increase i S14 is time lag constant - no S12 increase i S14), and the management unit, in the first control, extends the allocation time of the first virtual machine, based on an allocation time acquired with reference to the table (fig. 10 increase/decrease allocation amount at setting interval i S10 is time lag constant - no S12 increase i S14 ).
Claim 9 recites a control method for elements similar to claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationales.
Claim 10 recites a computer program for elements similar to claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationales.
Claim 11 recites the elements similar to claim 3. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationales.
Examiners Note
Applicant is further reminded of that the cited paragraphs and in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant(s) and although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider all of the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8, 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gepp et al. (US 2021/0357351 A1) teaches computing device with safe and secure coupling between virtual machines and peripheral component interconnect express device.
Hironori (JP 2023047154 A) teaches switches the virtual machine to be executed based on the allotted time set for each of the plurality of virtual machines to execute the process.
Onda et al. (US 2021/0064409 A1) teaches vehicle control device that judges a state of a vehicle, structures plurality of VMS that control equipment installed in the vehicle, and switches an order of carrying out activation or stoppage of plurality of VMs based on the state of the vehicle.
Sato (JP 2010-170320 A) teaches tasks that requires real-time / non-real-time performance, while suppressing the stagnation of processing realized by a task that does not require real-time performance that responds to external input within a predetermined time.
Taiki (US 2023/0138145 A1) teaches the processor being configured to generate plural virtual machines including a management virtual machine that manages the plural virtual machines, detect predetermined plural phases, and set resource allocation times for the plural virtual machines to predetermined schedules for each of the plural phases based on the detection result.
Authorization for Internet Communication
Applicant is encouraged to submit an authorization to communicate with the Examiner via the internet by making the following statement (MPEP 502.03)
“Recognizing that internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only by submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner’s Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABU GHAFFARI whose telephone number is (571)270-3799. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 14:00 - 15:00 Hrs.
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, Aimee Lee can be reached on 571-272-4169. 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.
/ABU ZAR GHAFFARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195
Prosecution Insights