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 .
Response to Arguments
The applicant respectfully argues
Hirata and Jupp, either alone or in combination fail to teach “receives a first message from a first control unit, among a plurality of control units grouped into a plurality of groups according to whether the control units are configured to use messages to which a protocol associated with the vehicle functional safety is applied, wherein the first control unit is included in a first group among the plurality of groups and wherein the first message is based on the first group” as required by claim 1.
Hirata and Jupp, either alone or in combination fail to teach “change the first message to a second message based on a second group, among the plurality of groups, different from the first group, when transmitting the first message to a second control unit included in the second group” as required by claim 1.
The term “protocol associated with vehicle functional safety” as recited in claim 1 refers to a protocol of a functional safety layer (i.e., safety layer, e.g., E2E) that is positioned at a layer higher than the physical/data-link layer such as E2E protection, in other words, the protocol of claim 1 is associated with vehicle functional safety, and thus, not disclosed or taught by Hirata.
The office action indicates that Hirata discloses changing the data format from the CAN-FD frame to the CAN frame, however, the distinction between the CAN-FD protocol and the Can protocol in Hirata is a distinction at the physical layer and/or the data-link layer.
The office action fails to consider the difference between changing protocols at a safety layer level and changing protocol at a physical layer level.
Hirata fails to teach “receiving a first message from a first unit, among a plurality of control units grouped into a plurality of groups according to whether the control units are configured to use messages to which a protocol associated with vehicle functional safety is applied, wherein the first control unit is included in a first group among the plurality of groups, and wherein the first message is based on the first group” as recited in claim 1, and Jupp fails to cure these deficiencies and has not been cited as doing so.
Hirata fails to teach “changing the first message to a second message is based on a second group, among the plurality of groups, different from the first group, when transmitting the first message to a second control unit included in the second group” as recited in claim 1, and Jupp fails to cure these deficiencies and has not been cited as doing so.
The office action asserts that Jupp discloses the concept of the E2E protocol, however, a person of ordinary skill in the art, recognizing the E2E protocol of Jupp, would not have combined it with Hirata so as to arrive at the vehicle control apparatus of claim 1. In other words, the E2E protocol disclosed by Jupp cannot be extended to deny the patentability of claim 1 based on obviousness.
Neither Hirata nor Jupp provides any suggestion or motivation to derive a feature that whether the control units are configured to use messages to which a protocol associated with vehicle functional safety is applied is used as a basis for grouping control units, as recited in claim 1.
The examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons
Hirata teaches the limitation of “receives a first message from a first control unit, among a plurality of control units grouped into a plurality of groups according to whether the control units are configured to use messages to which a protocol associated with the vehicle functional safety is applied, wherein the first control unit is included in a first group among the plurality of groups and wherein the first message is based on the first group” as required by claim 1. Specifically, Hirata teaches that the processor is configured to receive (data A is to be transmitted to the engine ECU 131; [0172]) a first message (fig. 6; data (messages) A; [0168-0170]) from a first control unit (data transmitted from the CGW-ECU 110 to the engine ECU 131; [0105; 0169]), among a plurality of control units (fig. 1; pluralities of ECUs 130; [0064]) grouped into a plurality of groups (via. can buses 121-123 as shown in fig. 1; [0131]; note: plurality of ECUs shown in each group) according to whether the control units are configured to use messages to which a protocol associated with vehicle functional safety is applied (fig. 1; PCS (Pre-Crash Safety)-ECU 132, LKA (Lane Keeping Assist)-ECU 133; [0065]), wherein the first control unit (fig. 1; CGW-ECU 110) is included in a first group (fig. 1; can buses 121) among the plurality of groups (as shown in fig. 1), and wherein the first message (fig. 6; data (messages) A) is based on the first group (as explained above). Further, PCS (Pre-Crash Safety)-ECU 132 and LKA (Lane Keeping Assist)-ECU 133, as recited in [0065] necessarily contain protocols associated with vehicle safety and also applies those same protocols in a functional manner so as to increase vehicle safety. Further, the prior art of Jupp is not relied upon to teach the above limitation.
Hirata teaches the limitation of “change the first message to a second message based on a second group, among the plurality of groups, different from the first group, when transmitting the first message to a second control unit included in the second group” as required by claim 1. Specifically, Hirata teaches that the processor is configured to change the first message to a second message (fig. 4-5; changing the data format from the CAN-FD frame to the CAN frame; [0115]; the ECUs 131-136 are divided into two groups based on the predetermined numbers of times N1 and N2, and the communication speed and the communication data amount are switched in two stages; [0262]; the number of times of error occurrence has returned to zero, data [CGW]CAN-FD3 transmitted to the engine ECU 131 is switched to the CAN-FD frame; [0240]; When the number of times of error occurrence in the CAN bus 121 is smaller than the predetermined number of times N1, the communication controller 115 holds (keeps) the values of the data holding units 115A and 115B at “1”; [0108]; When the number of times of error occurrence in the CAN bus 121 is equal to or larger than the predetermined number of times N2, the communication controller 115 sets the values of the data holding units 115A and 115B to “0”; [0110]; Here, as described above, data (message) a is changed from a first message, in a first format, to a second message in a second format.) based on a second group (fig. 1; group on can bus 122), among the plurality of groups, different from the first group (as shown in fig. 1), when transmitting the first message to a second control unit included in the second group (when an error occurs the predetermined number of times N1 or more in the CAN bus 121 or 122, data which the CGW-ECU 110 outputs to the CAN bus 121 or 122, and data which the ECU (one of the ECUs 131, 132, 134, 135) that received the above data outputs to the CAN bus 121 or 122 at the lower communication speed are less likely or unlikely to cause a communication delay or a communication failure in other ECUs; [0247]). Further, the prior art of Jupp is not relied upon to teach the above limitation.
The examiner is aware that claim 1 recites the phrase “protocol associated with vehicle functional safety” and the examiner is also aware that the specification uses the phrase “protocol associated with vehicle functional safety” in reference to a protocol of a functional safety layer (i.e., safety layer, e.g., E2E) that is positioned at a layer higher than the physical/data-link layer such as E2E protection. The claims (dated 08/07/2024) fail to recite the phrase “protocol associated with vehicle functional safety” in reference to a protocol of a functional safety layer (i.e., safety layer, e.g., E2E) that is positioned at a layer higher than the physical/data-link layer such as E2E protection. The claims also fail to even recite the term “functional safety layer”. This being the case, the examiner has given the phrase “protocol associated with vehicle functional safety”, its broadest reasonable interpretation, so as to not improperly narrow the scope of the claims. This being the case, Hirata discloses in [0065], both PCS (Pre-Crash Safety)-ECU 132 and LKA (Lane Keeping Assist)-ECU 133, which necessarily contains protocols associated with vehicle safety functions.
While the distinction between the CAN-FD protocol and the CAN protocol in Hirata, may be a distinction at the physical layer and/or the data-link layer, the claims (filed 08/07/2024) also make no mention of either a physical layer or a data-link layer.
The claims filed (08/07/2024) make no mention of a difference between changing protocols at a safety layer level and changing protocol at a physical layer level.
See a above.
See b above.
Claim 1 fails to recite a limitation regarding an E2E protocol. Further, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), which is an anticipation rejection and is different from a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, which is an obviousness rejection. The prior art of Jupp is not relied upon for the rejection of claim 1. However, the prior art of Jupp is relied upon for the rejection of claims 10 and 20, under 35 U.S.C. 103, as explained below.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and does not rely on the prior art of Jupp, as explained below. Further, claim 1 fails to explicitly recite the limitation of “derive a feature that whether the control units are configured to use messages to which a protocol associated with vehicle functional safety is applied is used as a basis for grouping control units”.
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, 6-9, 11 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirata (U.S. 20180113836).
In re claim 1, Hirata teaches a vehicle control apparatus (fig. 1; on-board network system 100 is installed on a vehicle, and performs communications among the ECUs 130; [0072]), comprising:
a memory configured to store instructions (RAM, ROM; [0071]); and
a processor (CPU; [0071]) configured to execute the instructions, wherein the processor is configured to:
receive (data A is to be transmitted to the engine ECU 131; [0172]) a first message (fig. 6; data (messages) A; [0168-0170]) from a first control unit (data transmitted from the CGW-ECU 110 to the engine ECU 131; [0105; 0169]), among a plurality of control units (fig. 1; pluralities of ECUs 130; [0064]) grouped into a plurality of groups (via. can buses 121-123 as shown in fig. 1; [0131]; note: plurality of ECUs shown in each group) according to whether the control units are configured to use messages to which a protocol associated with vehicle functional safety is applied (fig. 1; PCS (Pre-Crash Safety)-ECU 132, LKA (Lane Keeping Assist)-ECU 133; [0065]),
wherein the first control unit (fig. 1; CGW-ECU 110) is included in a first group (fig. 1; can buses 121) among the plurality of groups (as shown in fig. 1), and
wherein the first message (fig. 6; data (messages) A) is based on the first group (as explained above), and
change the first message to a second message (fig. 4-5; changing the data format from the CAN-FD frame to the CAN frame; [0115]; the ECUs 131-136 are divided into two groups based on the predetermined numbers of times N1 and N2, and the communication speed and the communication data amount are switched in two stages; [0262]; the number of times of error occurrence has returned to zero, data [CGW]CAN-FD3 transmitted to the engine ECU 131 is switched to the CAN-FD frame; [0240]; When the number of times of error occurrence in the CAN bus 121 is smaller than the predetermined number of times N1, the communication controller 115 holds (keeps) the values of the data holding units 115A and 115B at “1”; [0108]; When the number of times of error occurrence in the CAN bus 121 is equal to or larger than the predetermined number of times N2, the communication controller 115 sets the values of the data holding units 115A and 115B to “0”; [0110]; Here, as described above, data (message) a is changed from a first message, in a first format, to a second message in a second format.) based on a second group (fig. 1; group on can bus 122), among the plurality of groups, different from the first group (as shown in fig. 1), when transmitting the first message to a second control unit included in the second group (when an error occurs the predetermined number of times N1 or more in the CAN bus 121 or 122, data which the CGW-ECU 110 outputs to the CAN bus 121 or 122, and data which the ECU (one of the ECUs 131, 132, 134, 135) that received the above data outputs to the CAN bus 121 or 122 at the lower communication speed are less likely or unlikely to cause a communication delay or a communication failure in other ECUs; [0247]).
In re claim 6, Hirata teaches the vehicle control apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches wherein
the processor is configured to change
first message data (fig. 6; data (messages) A) corresponding to a first protocol associated with vehicle functional safety (fig. 1; PCS (Pre-Crash Safety)-ECU 132, LKA (Lane Keeping Assist)-ECU 133; [0065]),
the first message data being included in the first message (as indicated in fig. 4),
to second message data (as indicated in fig. 5) corresponding to a second protocol associated with vehicle functional safety to change the first message to the second message (as explained in claim 5 above),
when transmitting the first message received from
the first control unit (the CGW-ECU 110 relays data among the CAN buses 121, 122, 123, so that the ECUs 131-139 can communicate data with each other, via the CAN buses 121, 122, 123; [0075]; Here, data is relayed between the ECUs, including between the ECUs on CAN bus 121, and the data is relayed in an unaltered state. Note: CAN bus uses broadcast data transmission) configured to
use messages to which the first protocol is applied (as explained above, and indicated in [0065])
to the second control unit (the CGW-ECU 110 relays data among the CAN buses 121, 122, 123, so that the ECUs 131-139 can communicate data with each other, via the CAN buses 121, 122, 123; [0075]; Here, data is relayed between the ECUs, including between the ECUs on CAN bus 121, and the data is relayed in an unaltered state. Note: CAN bus uses broadcast data transmission) configured to
use messages to which the second protocol is applied (as explained in claim 5 above).
In re claim 7, Hirata teaches the vehicle control apparatus of claim 6, and further teaches wherein
the processor is configured to change a position (fig. 4; position of DLC, as shown in control field; note: DLC is shown in position 6; further note: fig. 4 shows CAN frame) corresponding to the first message data included in the first message, in a data field of the first message, to another position (fig. 5; position of DLC, as shown in control field; note: DLC is shown in position 3; further note: fig. 5 shows CAN-FD frame) corresponding to the second message data to change the first message to the second message.
In re claim 8, Hirata teaches the vehicle control apparatus of claim 6, and further teaches wherein
the first message data includes at least one of cyclic redundancy code (CRC) information for verifying integrity of the first message (fig. 4; CRC field; [0152; 0157]), counter information indicating an order of the first message, or any combination thereof (as indicated via. [0156-0157]).
In re claim 9, Hirata teaches the vehicle control apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches wherein
the processor is configured to refrain from changing the first message, when transmitting the first message to a third control unit included in the first group (the CGW-ECU 110 relays data among the CAN buses 121, 122, 123, so that the ECUs 131-139 can communicate data with each other, via the CAN buses 121, 122, 123; [0075]; Here, data is relayed between the ECUs, including between the ECUs on CAN bus 121, and the data is relayed in an unaltered state. Note: CAN bus uses broadcast data transmission).
In re claim 11, Hirata teaches the vehicle control method, as explained in claim 1 above.
In re claim 16, see claims 11 and 6 above.
In re claim 17, see claims 16 and 7 above.
In re claim 18, see claims 16 and 8 above.
In re claim 19, see claims 11 and 9 above.
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 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata (U.S. 20180113836) in view of Jupp et al. (U.S. 20190232969).
In re claim 10, Hirata teaches het vehicle control apparatus of claim 1, but lacks wherein
the protocol associated with vehicle functional safety comprises an end to end (E2E) protocol based on automotive open system architecture (AUTOSAR).
Hirata further teaches the elements of
control fields (as shown in fig. 4-5)
data transfer (the on-board network system 100 that can perform communications again at the higher communication speed, in the larger communication data volume, after the number of times of error occurrence becomes equal to zero, can be provided; [0266])
verification (via. CRC field and ACK field, note: crc includes a checksum, as is known in the art. Here, the checksum and the acknowledge field (ACK field) are considered to be a form of verification)
error handling (error detecting units 111, 112, 113 are connected to the CAN buses 121, 122, 123, respectively, and independently detect an error that occurs in the CAN buses 121, 122, 123. The error detecting units 111, 112, 113 perform error detection, in every control cycle of the CGW-ECU 110. ; [0078]; the on-board network system 100 that can perform communications again at the higher communication speed, in the larger communication data volume, after the number of times of error occurrence becomes equal to zero, can be provided.; [0266])
networking (as shown in fig. 1; networked ECUs via. CAN bus 121-123; the CAN buses 121, 122, 123 thus connected by the CGW-ECU 110 as described above, the CAN 120 constructs an on-board network that permits mutual communications among a plurality of ECUs 130, according to the CAN-FD protocol.; [0131])
data exchange between a plurality of ECUs (With regard to the CAN buses 121 and 122, among the CAN buses 121, 122, 123, the communication speed and the communication data amount are switched by the communication controller 115; [0132]).
Here, while Hirata, fails to teach an end to end (E2E) protocol based on automotive open system architecture (AUTOSAR), Hirata does teach the separate elements of: control fields, data transfer, verification, error handling, networking, and data exchange between a plurality of ECUs that are required by the end to end (E2E) protocol based on automotive open system architecture (AUTOSAR).
Jupp teaches an analogous data communication method for data communications network within a vehicle and further teaches
an end-to-end (E2E) protection mechanism as is defined within the AUTOSAR protocol.
This being the case, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Hirata, to incorporate an end to end (E2E) protocol based on automotive open system architecture (AUTOSAR), as clearly suggested and taught by Jupp, in order to provide a means for ensuring that data messages are timely received ([0012])
In re claim 20, see claims 10 and 11 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 and 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.
Reasons for Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
The prior art of record fails to show or reasonably teach in combination a vehicle system having the recited elements, as required by claim 2, including
update a routing table including information about messages to be generated for communication between the plurality of control units,
based on receiving the response signal; and
change the first message to the second message using the updated routing table;
or a vehicle system having the recited elements, as required by claim 5, including
add message data corresponding to the protocol associated with vehicle functional safety to at least a portion of the first message to change the first message to the second message,
when transmitting the first message received from
the first control unit
configured to use messages to which the protocol associated with vehicle functional safety is not applied
to the second control unit
configured to use messages to which the protocol associated with vehicle functional safety is applied;
or a vehicle method having the recited steps, as required by claim 12, including
update a routing table including information about messages to be generated for communication between the plurality of control units,
based on receiving the response signal;
wherein changing the first message to the second message including changing the first message to the second message using the updated routing table;
or a vehicle method having the recited elements, as required by claim 15, including
changing the first message to the second message includes
adding message data corresponding to the protocol associated with vehicle functional safety to at least a portion of the first message to change the first message to the second message,
when transmitting the first message received from
the first control unit configured to
use messages to which the protocol associated with vehicle functional safety is not applied
to the second control unit configured to
use messages to which the protocol associated with vehicle functional safety is applied.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D BAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5692. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5625. 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.
/JOHN D BAILEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/KURT PHILIP LIETHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights