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
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to applicant’s filing on July 24, 2024. Claims 1-21 and 68-69 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
The following title is suggested: VEHICLE CONTROL SYSTEM TO CONTROL VEHICLE COMPONENT IN A DOMAIN VIA NETWORK.
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered claims 68 and 69 will be referenced as 22 and 23 respectively.
Claim 22 (previous claim 68) is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites “A vehicle, comprising the vehicle control system according to claim 1”. The examiner suggests positively reciting the claim limitations of claim 1 in claim 22 to avoid any ambiguity. Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 1, 8, 11 and 22 (previous claim 68) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FAW, CN 116620192 A in view of Takeda, JP 2010215008 A.
Regarding claim 1, FAW teaches a vehicle control system, comprising:
a central controller and a plurality of vehicle components, the plurality of vehicle components belonging to a plurality of different functional domains; (FAW, see at least page 7 ¶ 17 “Fig. 5 is a schematic structural diagram of another electrical and electronic architecture of a commercial vehicle based on the fusion of regions and functional domains according to Embodiment 3 of the present invention. As shown in Fig. 5, compared with the electrical and electronic architecture shown in Fig. 3, the power For the functional domain, chassis functional domain and intelligent driving functional domain, the ECUs in each functional domain are directly connected to the central server, and the design of the infotainment functional domain remains unchanged; the central area of the cab, the left door area and the right door The area part is merged into the cab area part, and only one cab area controller is reserved, and the cab area controller is directly connected to the central server through CANFD and Ethernet.”)
at least one vehicle component in a first functional domain of the plurality of different functional domains and another vehicle component in the first functional domain being connected to each other through a first network and being directly connected to the central controller; (FAW, see at least page 6 ¶ 12-13 “Connect the controllers in the power steering system, braking system and suspension system through one CANFD; The central server 10 is connected through one CANFD and one Ethernet.”)
at least one vehicle component in a second functional domain of the plurality of different functional domains and another vehicle component in the second functional domain being connected to each other through a second network and being directly connected to the central controller; (FAW, see at least page 7 ¶ 17 “Fig. 5 is a schematic structural diagram of another electrical and electronic architecture of a commercial vehicle based on the fusion of regions and functional domains according to Embodiment 3 of the present invention. As shown in Fig. 5, compared with the electrical and electronic architecture shown in Fig. 3, the power For the functional domain, chassis functional domain and intelligent driving functional domain, the ECUs in each functional domain are directly connected to the central server, and the design of the infotainment functional domain remains unchanged; the central area of the cab, the left door area and the right door The area part is merged into the cab area part, and only one cab area controller is reserved, and the cab area controller is directly connected to the central server through CANFD and Ethernet.” and Fig. 5)
FAW does not specifically teach the following. However, Takeda teaches
at least one vehicle component in the first functional domain being connected to at least one vehicle component in the second functional domain through a third network; and
the central controller being configured to send control information to at least one vehicle component. (Takeda, see at least page 6 ¶ 9 and 10 “As a result, communication to the global network 300 by the sub-domain ECU 60 that has detected a communication start request in the powertrain domain is immediately started.When the communication by the sub domain ECU 60 of the power train domain is required by, for example, the sub domain ECU 66 of the chassis domain which is another functional domain, the communication arbitration means 32 of the chassis ECU 30 is transmitted by the sub domain ECU 60 of the power train domain. The communication priority may be raised and transmitted from the global network 300 to the local network 310 in the chassis domain.
As a result, the information transmitted from the sub domain ECU 60 of the power train domain to the global network 300 can be preferentially transmitted to the local network 310 of the chassis domain. As a result, communication delay between subdomain ECUs of different functional domains can be reduced as much as possible.” And Fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of FAW with those of Takeda as both relate to control systems that controls the behavior of a control object or component mounted on a vehicle. (Takeda, see at least page 2 ¶ 2) In addition, this would be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, FAW teaches a vehicle control system. FAW does not specifically teach the following. However, Takeda teaches
the central controller is further configured to implement data inter-transmission between different functional domains. (Takeda, see at least page 6 ¶ 9 and 10 “As a result, communication to the global network 300 by the sub-domain ECU 60 that has detected a communication start request in the powertrain domain is immediately started.When the communication by the sub domain ECU 60 of the power train domain is required by, for example, the sub domain ECU 66 of the chassis domain which is another functional domain, the communication arbitration means 32 of the chassis ECU 30 is transmitted by the sub domain ECU 60 of the power train domain. The communication priority may be raised and transmitted from the global network 300 to the local network 310 in the chassis domain.
As a result, the information transmitted from the sub domain ECU 60 of the power train domain to the global network 300 can be preferentially transmitted to the local network 310 of the chassis domain. As a result, communication delay between subdomain ECUs of different functional domains can be reduced as much as possible.” And Fig. 1) (see claim 1 above for rationale supporting obviousness, motivation, and reason to combine.)
Regarding claim 11, FAW in view of Takeda teaches a vehicle control system, wherein the plurality of vehicle components comprise one or more of a drive assembly, a braking system, a steering system, an inertial measurement unit, an intelligent driving controller, a steering wheel rotation angle sensor, a wheel velocity sensor, a camera, and a radar. (FAW, see at least page 6 ¶ 12-13 “Connect the controllers in the power steering system, braking system and suspension system through one CANFD; The central server 10 is connected through one CANFD and one Ethernet.”) (see claim 1 above for rationale supporting obviousness, motivation, and reason to combine.)
Claim 22, (claim68) is rejected using substantially the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7, 9-10, 12-21 and 23 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN P SWEENEY whose telephone number is (313)446-4906. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 7:30AM to 5:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James J. Lee, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-5965. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/BRIAN P SWEENEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668