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 .
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 6-8, 10-12, 14, 15-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Iida et al. (United States Patent Application Publication US 2022/0204044), hereinafter Iida.
Regarding claim 6, Iida teaches one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by one or more processors, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform operations ([0064] “computer-readable non-transitory storage medium storing instructions that cause a computer to perform functions of the vehicle electronic control device”) comprising:
at a first time, receiving a first request to operate a vehicle in a first operational mode; determining that the first operational mode is associated with a first set of software applications comprising a first software application; based at least in part on receiving the first request, initiating execution of the first software application ([0026] “The first controller 10 may be configured to assist the driver in performing driving operations (for example, to reduce the operation forces of the driving operators).” [0035] “The vehicle electronic control device 1 includes the first controller 10 and the second controller 20. The first controller 10 and the second controller 20 are connected to a communication bus CAN.” [0036] “The first controller 10 includes a first sensor 11, a first autonomous driving control device 12, a first driving force control device 13, a first braking force control device 14, and a first steering angle control device 15.” [0043] “The first CPU starts a first autonomous driving process in step 300.” As the first controller, which includes a first autonomous driving control device, a first driving force control device, a first braking force driving device, and a first steering angle control device, controls a vehicle, an operational mode of the vehicle is performed by the first controller. Furthermore, when the first controller operates the vehicle, a first autonomous driving control device, a first driving force control device, a first braking force driving device, and a first steering angle control device are executed. A software application is interpreted as a software to perform specific tasks or functions. Since the first and the second controllers are executed as a program to perform their functions to control the vehicle, programs of first and the second controller are interpreted as software applications.);
based at least in part on receiving the first request and determining that a second software application is outside the first set, at least one of: stopping execution of the second software application, or refraining from initiating execution of the second software application ([0051] “when it is determined that an abnormality has occurred in the first system and that the first CPU is unable to control the vehicle V (when the error flag F is "1"), the second controller 20 controls the vehicle Vin place of the first controller 10.” FIG. 2 “10” “20” When the first controller controls or executes the operation of the vehicle, a second controller, which is outside of the first controller, is stopped or not executed.);
at a second time, receiving a second request to operate the vehicle in a second operational mode ([0051] “when it is determined that an abnormality has occurred in the first system and that the first CPU is unable to control the vehicle V (when the error flag F is "1"), the second controller 20 controls the vehicle Vin place of the first controller 10.”);
determining that the second operational mode is associated with a second set of software applications comprising the second software application; based at least in part receiving the second request, initiating execution of the second software application; and based at least in part on receiving the second request and determining that the first software application is outside the second set, stopping execution of the first software application ([0044] “when the first controller 10 becomes unable to control the vehicle V, the second controller 20 takes over the control of the vehicle V. As soon as the second controller 20 starts controlling the vehicle V, information for causing the occupant to start operating the driving operators is presented.” [0051] “when it is determined that an abnormality has occurred in the first system and that the first CPU is unable to control the vehicle V (when the error flag F is "1"), the second controller 20 controls the vehicle Vin place of the first controller 10.” [0053] “the second CPU controls the second driving force control device 23, the second braking force control device 24, and the second steering angle control device 25 based on the data acquired from the second sensor 21 to autonomously drive the vehicle V.” When the second controller starts controlling the vehicle, the second driving force control device 23, the second braking force control device 24, and the second steering angle control device 25 of the second controller controls the vehicle, which is outside of the first controller. Furthermore, the first controller stops controlling the vehicle when the second controller controls the vehicle.).
Regarding claim 7, Iida teaches wherein the first operational mode is associated with autonomous control of the vehicle ([0043] “The first CPU starts a first autonomous driving process in step 300.”), and
wherein the operations further comprise: based at least in part on determining that the first software application is in a first initialized state and the second software application is in a second initialized state, enabling autonomous control of the vehicle ([0028] “when an abnormality (failure) occurs in the vehicle electronic control device 1, the main ECU disables the switching operation from the manual drive mode to the autonomous drive mode.” [0035] “The vehicle electronic control device 1 includes the first controller 10 and the second controller 20. The first controller 10 and the second controller 20 are connected to a communication bus CAN.” [0044] “when the first controller 10 becomes unable to control the vehicle V, the second controller 20 takes over the control of the vehicle V.” Iida teaches switching from the first controller to the second controller when an error flag indicates that the first controller becomes unable to control the vehicle. Thus, at the start-up or initialization of the vehicle, both of the first controller and the second controller must be initialized. Furthermore, both of the first controller and the second controller must not be abnormality in order for the vehicle to operate in autonomous drive mode.).
Regarding claim 8, Iida further teaches enabling autonomous control of the vehicle based at least in part on determining that a requirement for autonomous control is satisfied ([0028] “when an abnormality (failure) occurs in the vehicle electronic control device 1, the main ECU disables the switching operation from the manual drive mode to the autonomous drive mode.” [0040] “The first CPU has a self-diagnosis function to detect whether an abnormality has occurred in a first system that is composed of the first battery Pl and the first controller 10.”),
wherein the requirement is associated with at least one of a location or a velocity measure associated with the vehicle ([0041] “The first CPU also periodically sends a response request signal to the first sensor 11, the first driving force control device 13, the first braking force control device 14, and the first steering angle control device 15… The first CPU updates the error flag F to "1" when the first CPU fails to receive the response signals from any one or more of the first sensor 11, the first driving force control device 13, the first braking force control device 14, and the first steering angle control device 15 within the predetermined time after the first CPU sent the response request signal.”).
Regarding claim 10, Iida teaches wherein the second operational mode is associated with at least one of: manual control of the vehicle, remote control of the vehicle, charging of the vehicle, at least one of deploying or updating at least one software application associated with the vehicle, shutting down a vehicle computing device associated with the vehicle, or operating the vehicle with reduced power usage ([0054] “the second CPU waits for the occupant to start the driving operation while autonomously driving the vehicle V. In the case where the occupant does not start the driving operation even after a predetermined first time Tl according to the state of the occupant at the time the warning sound AS was generated elapses, the second CPU slows down and stops the vehicle V. When the second CPU perceives that the occupant is asleep, the second CPU immediately starts the "process of slowing down and stopping the vehicle V."” [0059] “the second CPU causes the main ECU to switch the operation mode of the vehicle V to the manual drive mode in step 508, and ends the second autonomous driving process in step 511.”).
Regarding claim 11, Iida teaches the second operational mode is associated with charging the vehicle, and receiving the second request comprises receiving an indication that the vehicle has been connected to a power source ([0061] “The second time T2 is the battery duration Tmax (e.g., "60 seconds," see FIGS. 7A and 7B) minus the first time T1 (T2=Tmax-T1). The battery duration Tmax is the maximum time until the second battery P2 that is fully charged and that is not charged any more can no longer continue to operate the second controller 20. That is, the second time T2 is the time for which the second controller 20 can be operated with the maximum capacity of the second battery P2 minus the amount of power consumed by the second controller 20 within the first time Tl.”).
Regarding claim 12, Iida teaches wherein at least one of the first software application or the second software application is associated with at least one of: a first machine-learned model configured to process sensor data associated with a vehicle to detect an object in an environment of the vehicle, a second machine-learned model configured to determine a predicted trajectory for the object, or a third machine-learned model configured to determine a trajectory associated with the vehicle based at least in part on the predicted trajectory ([0043] “The first CPU starts a first autonomous driving process in step 300. The first CPU then acquires data representing a captured image of the road ahead of the vehicle V, the distance to an obstacle, the current position of the vehicle V, the speed of the vehicle V, etc. from the environmental sensor 111. In step 301, the first CPU identifies (perceives) the driving environment of the vehicle V (degree to which the traveling lane is curved, position of the vehicle V in the lane, following distance, presence or absence of obstacles, etc.) based on the data.”).
Regarding claim 14, Iida teaches initiating execution of the first software application comprises initiating execution of the first software application on a resource-constrained computing platform associated with a vehicle ([0036] “the electric power of the first battery Pl is supplied to the first sensor 11, the first autonomous driving control device 12, the first driving force control device 13, the first braking force control device 14, and the first steering angle control device 15 via the power supply path PLl.” [0040] “the first CPU starts monitoring the output voltage of the first battery Pl. As long as the output voltage of the first battery Pl is within a predetermined voltage range, the first CPU will not update the error flag F.”); and
at least one of stopping execution of the second software application or refraining from initiating execution of the second software application comprises at least one of: stopping execution of the second software application on the resource-constrained computing platform, or refraining from initiating execution of the second software application on the resource-constrained computing platform ([0061] “The second time T2 is the battery duration Tmax (e.g., "60 seconds," see FIGS. 7A and 7B) minus the first time T1 (T2=Tmax-T1). The battery duration Tmax is the maximum time until the second battery P2 that is fully charged and that is not charged any more can no longer continue to operate the second controller 20. That is, the second time T2 is the time for which the second controller 20 can be operated with the maximum capacity of the second battery P2 minus the amount of power consumed by the second controller 20 within the first time Tl.”).
Regarding claim(s) 15-17, 19, and 20, the claim(s) 15-17, 19, and 20 are the method claims of the claim(s) 6-8, 10, and 11. The claim(s) 15-17, 19, and 20 do not further teach or define the limitation over the limitations recited in the rejected claims above. Therefore, Iida teaches all the limitations of the claim(s) 15-17, 19, and 20.
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.
Claim(s) 9, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iida in view of SASAKI (United States Patent Application Publication US 2020/0314023), hereinafter SASAKI.
Regarding claim 9, Iida teaches all the limitations of the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 6, as discussed above.
However, Iida does not teach based at least in part on receiving the second request, deallocating a first network bandwidth associated with the first software application and allocating at least a portion of the first network bandwidth to the second software application.
SASAKI teaches based at least in part on receiving the second request, deallocating a first network bandwidth associated with the first software application and allocating at least a portion of the first network bandwidth to the second software application ([0040] “Then, it is checked whether a state of an application in the foreground state is changed (S1005). The change in the state occurs when the user activates an application and the application enters the foreground state, when an application in the foreground state enters the background state, or when an application in the background state enters the foreground state.” [0042] “When the communication line is changed, the process returns to Sl 001 and it is checked whether or not the changed line is a line on which it is necessary to impose a restriction.’ [0062] “when the "background priority" is set to 1, and the band width of the communication line being used is 11 mega bps, the application in the foreground state uses 10 mega bps, and the application in the background state uses 1 mega bps.” Based on the state change of the state of the communication line, the bandwidth of the application is also changed. Furthermore, SASAKI teaches changing state of the priority of the application, which further changes allocation of the bandwidth of the applications. Thus, SASAKI suggests that the bandwidth between applications is allocated based on the change of the state.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Iida by incorporating the teaching of SASAKI of based at least in part on receiving the second request, deallocating a first network bandwidth associated with the first software application and allocating at least a portion of the first network bandwidth to the second software application. As recognized by Iida, by allocating limited bandwidth between applications based on a state of the system, the overall performance of the system to execute the application can be optimized. Therefore, it would be advantageous to incorporate the teaching of SASAKI of based at least in part on receiving the second request, deallocating a first network bandwidth associated with the first software application and allocating at least a portion of the first network bandwidth to the second software application in order to improve the performance of the system with limited resource.
Regarding claim(s) 18, the claim(s) 18 is the method claims of the claim(s) 9. The claim(s) 18 does not further teach or define the limitation over the limitations recited in the rejected claims above. Therefore, Iida in view of SASAKI teaches all the limitations of the claim(s) 18.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 are allowed.
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent from including all o the limitations of the bae claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Iida teaches switching from a first controller to a second controller when the first controller becomes abnormality. However, Iida does not teach “determining that the first operational mode is associated with a first set of software applications comprising a first software application and a second software application,” “determining that the second software application is operationally dependent on the first software application,” “based at least in part on determining that the second software application is operationally dependent on the first software application, initiating execution of the second software application based at least in part on a delay period.”
SASAKI teaches allocating of network bandwidth among applications. However, SASAKI does not teach “determining that the first operational mode is associated with a first set of software applications comprising a first software application and a second software application,” “determining that the second software application is operationally dependent on the first software application,” “based at least in part on determining that the second software application is operationally dependent on the first software application, initiating execution of the second software application based at least in part on a delay period.”
ZHU et al (United States Patent Application Publication US 2025/0187606) teaches that a first controller enables the first function in the first working state and disables the first function in the second working state. However, ZHU does not teach “determining that the first operational mode is associated with a first set of software applications comprising a first software application and a second software application,” “determining that the second software application is operationally dependent on the first software application,” “based at least in part on determining that the second software application is operationally dependent on the first software application, initiating execution of the second software application based at least in part on a delay period.”
Ohki (United States Patent Application Publication US 2014/0152430) teaches execute the user-selected application when the operational mode of a vehicle is identified as being stopped, such that a user of the automobile is enabled to access the user-selected application. However, Ohki does not teach “determining that the first operational mode is associated with a first set of software applications comprising a first software application and a second software application,” “determining that the second software application is operationally dependent on the first software application,” “based at least in part on determining that the second software application is operationally dependent on the first software application, initiating execution of the second software application based at least in part on a delay period.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KAJI et al (United States Patent Application Publication US 2019/0286128) teaches controlling travel of a vehicle in various driving modes.
Malone et al. (United States Patent Application Publication US 2014/0074330) teaches improving powertrain responsiveness in a vehicle while maintaining fuel economy by inhibiting entry into, or exiting, energy-saving modes when oncoming traffic is detected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HYUN SOO KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1768. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 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, Jaweed Abbaszadeh can be reached at (571)270-1640. 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.
/HYUN SOO KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2176