DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to an application filed August 26th, 2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 26th, 2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 2-5 recite the term “PCIe” which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted throughout in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the use of the term “PCIe”, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted throughout in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The use of the term “PCIe”, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted throughout in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8, 10-18, and 20 objected to because of the following informalities:
The use of the term PCIe, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 11, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hoare et al. (US Pub. No. 20250128736 A1), herein after Hoare.
Regarding claim 1, Hoare teaches [a] vehicle control apparatus, comprising (Hoare: Para. 0015, teaching the invention is for an autonomous vehicle system): a communication device; a memory storing at least one instruction; and a controller operatively connected to the communication device and the memory, wherein the at least one instruction executed by the controller is configured to, cause the vehicle control apparatus to (Hoare: Para. 0118, teaching that the invention includes a CPU and memory programmed to perform the steps of the invention): perform a first peripheral component interconnect express (PCIe) reset and a first link-up for PCIe communication between target devices, using the communication device (Hoare: Para. 0043, teaching restarting a communication connection between components in response to a detected failure condition; and Para. 0053, teaching that the communication link may be PCIe based); determine a PCIe parameter, based on at least one of a communication speed between the target devices, abnormal information, whether a fault is identified, or real-time temperatures of the target devices, or any combination thereof (Hoare: Para. 0067, teaching that the restarted communication connection monitored for abnormalities such as failure conditions that are not resolved with a simple restart); perform a second PCIe reset for the target devices, in response that the controller concludes that a PCIe reset trigger is generated; and perform a second link-up between the target devices based on the determined PCIe parameter, in response that the second PCIe reset is completed (Hoare: Para. 0069, teaching that if simpler communication connection restarting is not sufficient to resolve a failure condition then the invention escalates to more extreme restarting such as a full stack restart process that shuts down and re-initializes the entire stack associated with the failure condition).
Regarding claim 4, Hoare remains as applied as in claim 1 and goes on to further teach [t]he vehicle control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one instruction executed by the controller is further configured to, cause the vehicle control apparatus to: determine that the PCIe reset trigger is generated, in response that the controller identifies that a power state of the vehicle control apparatus switches from OFF to ON (Hoare: Para. 0069, teaching that the restart process shuts down the impacted connection and re-initializes it).
Regarding claim 5, Hoare remains as applied as in claim 1 and goes on to further teach [t]he vehicle control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one instruction executed by the controller is further configured to, cause the vehicle control apparatus to: monitor whether the abnormal information related to communication performance while performing the PCIe communication between the target devices is identified, in response that the first link-up is completed (Hoare: Para. 0042, teaching that a degraded state of the AV and its system is detected and identifying the source of failure to be caused by the degraded state); and determine the PCIe parameter based on the abnormal information, in response that the abnormal information is identified (Hoare: Para. 0040, teaching that the type of failure that triggered a malfunction in the communication connections is determined is identified).
Regarding claim 11, Hoare teaches [a] vehicle control method, comprising (Hoare: Para. 0015, teaching the invention is for an autonomous vehicle system): performing, by a controller, a first peripheral component interconnect express (PCIe) reset and a first link-up for PCIe communication between target devices, using a communication device operatively connected to the controller (Hoare: Para. 0043, teaching restarting a communication connection between components in response to a detected failure condition; and Para. 0053, teaching that the communication link may be PCIe based); determining, by the controller, a PCIe parameter, based on at least one of a communication speed between the target devices, abnormal information, whether a fault is identified, or real-time temperatures of the target devices, or any combination thereof (Hoare: Para. 0067, teaching that the restarted communication connection monitored for abnormalities such as failure conditions that are not resolved with a simple restart); performing, by the controller, a second PCIe reset for the target devices, in response that the controller concludes that a PCIe reset trigger is generated; and performing, by the controller, a second link-up between the target devices based on the determined PCIe parameter, in response that the second PCIe reset is completed (Hoare: Para. 0069, teaching that if simpler communication connection restarting is not sufficient to resolve a failure condition then the invention escalates to more extreme restarting such as a full stack restart process that shuts down and re-initializes the entire stack associated with the failure condition).
Regarding claim 14, Hoare remains as applied as in claim 11 and goes on to further teach [t]he vehicle control method of claim 11, further including: determining, by the controller, that the PCIe reset trigger is generated, in response that the controller identifies that a power state of the vehicle control apparatus switches from OFF to ON (Hoare: Para. 0069, teaching that the restart process shuts down the impacted connection and re-initializes it).
Regarding claim 15, Hoare remains as applied as in claim 11 and goes on to further teach [t]he vehicle control method of claim 11, further including: monitoring whether the abnormal information related to communication performance while performing the PCIe communication between the target devices is identified, in response that the first link-up is completed (Hoare: Para. 0042, teaching that a degraded state of the AV and its system is detected and identifying the source of failure to be caused by the degraded state); and determining, by the controller, the PCIe parameter based on the abnormal information, in response that the abnormal information is identified (Hoare: Para. 0040, teaching that the type of failure that triggered a malfunction in the communication connections is determined is identified).
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.
Claims 2, 3, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoare as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Yamashita; Noritaka (US Pub. No. 20220250655 A1), herein after Yamashita.
Regarding claim 2, Hoare remains as applied as in claim 1, however Hoare is silent to [t]he vehicle control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one instruction executed by the controller is further configured to, cause the vehicle control apparatus to: monitor whether the target devices enter a reset safety state, in response that the controller identifies that the communication speed between the target devices is less than a predetermined speed; and determine the PCIe parameter based on the communication speed, in response that the controller identifies that the target devices enter the reset safety state.
In a similar field, Yamashita teaches [t]he vehicle control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one instruction executed by the controller is further configured to, cause the vehicle control apparatus to: monitor whether the target devices enter a reset safety state, in response that the controller identifies that the communication speed between the target devices is less than a predetermined speed (Yamashita: Para. 0024, teaching detecting a state of the communication links in a system that monitors parameters such as communication speed; and Para. 0029, teaching that the communication speed is monitored for if it is decreasing below the optimal speed); and determine the PCIe parameter based on the communication speed, in response that the controller identifies that the target devices enter the reset safety state (Yamashita: Para. 0031, teaching determining that the communication speed is reduced and causing functions of the communication units to be manipulated to try to regain the communication speed that was lost; and Para. 0033, teaching that the communication units may also be restarted or the processes associated with the system may be restarted as part of the response to the communication status) for the benefit of maintaining optimal operations of the communication systems.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the communication connection failure detection and restarting based on the detection of the failure from Hoare to include monitoring the connection speed for degraded performance, as taught by Yamashita, for the benefit of maintaining optimal operations of the communication systems.
Regarding claim 3, Hoare and Yamashita remain as applied as in claim 2, and Hoare goes on to further teach [t]he vehicle control apparatus of claim 2, wherein the at least one instruction executed by the controller is further configured to, cause the vehicle control apparatus to: control a host vehicle using one of the target devices by the controller (Hoare: Para. 0056, teaching that during or before the restarting of the communication connections the autonomous vehicle is controlled to reach a safe state to perform the restarting); control the host vehicle using the target devices without using the PCIe communication by the controller (Hoare: Para. 0053, teaching that the main embodiment of the invention has communications used to control the vehicle to be shared memory-based transport but it may also be applicable to PCIe based connections); or determine that the target devices enter the reset safety state, in response that the controller identifies that a time required to perform a reset for the target devices, in a situation in which the controller controls the host vehicle using the target devices based on the PCIe communication, is less than or equal to a predetermined time (Hoare: Para. 0056, teaching that during or before the restarting of the communication connections the autonomous vehicle is controlled to reach a safe state to perform the restarting; and Para. 0058, teaching that the invention determines a timeout duration that a restart must be completed by).
Regarding claim 12, Hoare remains as applied as in claim 11, however Hoare is silent to [t]he vehicle control method of claim 11, further including: monitoring, by the controller, whether the target devices enter a reset safety state, in response that the controller identifies that the communication speed between the target devices is less than a predetermined speed; and determining, by the controller, the PCIe parameter based on the communication speed, in response that the controller identifies that the target devices enter the reset safety state.
In a similar field, Yamashita teaches [t]he vehicle control method of claim 11, further including: monitoring, by the controller, whether the target devices enter a reset safety state, in response that the controller identifies that the communication speed between the target devices is less than a predetermined speed (Yamashita: Para. 0024, teaching detecting a state of the communication links in a system that monitors parameters such as communication speed; and Para. 0029, teaching that the communication speed is monitored for if it is decreasing below the optimal speed); and determining, by the controller, the PCIe parameter based on the communication speed, in response that the controller identifies that the target devices enter the reset safety state (Yamashita: Para. 0031, teaching determining that the communication speed is reduced and causing functions of the communication units to be manipulated to try to regain the communication speed that was lost; and Para. 0033, teaching that the communication units may also be restarted or the processes associated with the system may be restarted as part of the response to the communication status) for the benefit of maintaining optimal operations of the communication systems.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the communication connection failure detection and restarting based on the detection of the failure from Hoare to include monitoring the connection speed for degraded performance, as taught by Yamashita, for the benefit of maintaining optimal operations of the communication systems.
Regarding claim 13, Hoare and Yamashita remain as applied as in claim 12, and Hoare goes on to further teach [t]he vehicle control method of claim 12, further including: controlling, by the controller, a host vehicle using one of the target devices (Hoare: Para. 0056, teaching that during or before the restarting of the communication connections the autonomous vehicle is controlled to reach a safe state to perform the restarting); controlling, by the controller, the host vehicle using the target devices without using the PCIe communication (Hoare: Para. 0053, teaching that the main embodiment of the invention has communications used to control the vehicle to be shared memory-based transport but it may also be applicable to PCIe based connections); or determining, by the controller, that the target devices enter the reset safety state, in response that the controller identifies that a time required to perform a reset for the target devices, in a situation in which the controller controls the host vehicle using the target devices based on the PCIe communication, is less than or equal to a predetermined time (Hoare: Para. 0056, teaching that during or before the restarting of the communication connections the autonomous vehicle is controlled to reach a safe state to perform the restarting; and Para. 0058, teaching that the invention determines a timeout duration that a restart must be completed by).
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoare as applied to claims 5 and 15 above, in further view of Yamashita and further in view of Pethe et al. (US Pub. No. 20160267048), herein after Pethe.
Regarding claim 6, Hoare remains as applied as in claim 5, however Hoare is silent to [t]he vehicle control apparatus of claim 5, wherein the at least one instruction executed by the controller is further configured to, cause the vehicle control apparatus to: determine that the abnormal information is identified, in response that the controller concludes that the communication speed is less than a first speed according to the first link-up or that the PCIe communication does not meet a link training & status state machine (LTSSM) according to the first link-up.
In a similar field, Yamashita teaches [t]he vehicle control apparatus of claim 5, wherein the at least one instruction executed by the controller is further configured to, cause the vehicle control apparatus to: determine that the abnormal information is identified, in response that the controller concludes that the communication speed is less than a first speed according to the first link-up (Yamashita: Para. 0024, teaching detecting a state of the communication links in a system that monitors parameters such as communication speed; and Para. 0029, teaching that the communication speed is monitored for if it is decreasing below the optimal speed) for the benefit of maintaining optimal operations of the communication systems.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the communication connection failure detection and restarting based on the detection of the failure from Hoare to include monitoring the connection speed for degraded performance, as taught by Yamashita, for the benefit of maintaining optimal operations of the communication systems.
They are silent to the controller concludes… that the PCIe communication does not meet a link training & status state machine (LTSSM) according to the first link-up.
In a similar field, Pethe teaches the controller concludes… that the PCIe communication does not meet a link training & status state machine (LTSSM) according to the first link-up (Pethe: Claim 3, teaching determining that an error occurred in a link training status and state machine (LTSSM) logic for a link is encountered) for the benefit of detecting and correcting errors associated with the connection.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the communication connection failure condition from Hoare in view of Yamashita to also consider an error in a link training status and state machine (LTSSM) logic for a link as a failure condition, as taught by Pethe, for the benefit of detecting and correcting errors associated with the connection.
Regarding claim 16, Hoare remains as applied as in claim 15, however Hoare is silent to [t]he vehicle control method of claim 15, further including: determining, by the controller, that the abnormal information is identified, in response that the controller concludes that the communication speed is less than a first speed according to the first link-up or that the PCIe communication does not meet a link training & status state machine (LTSSM) according to the first link-up.
In a similar field, Yamashita teaches [t]he vehicle control method of claim 15, further including: determining, by the controller, that the abnormal information is identified, in response that the controller concludes that the communication speed is less than a first speed according to the first link-up (Yamashita: Para. 0024, teaching detecting a state of the communication links in a system that monitors parameters such as communication speed; and Para. 0029, teaching that the communication speed is monitored for if it is decreasing below the optimal speed) for the benefit of maintaining optimal operations of the communication systems.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the communication connection failure detection and restarting based on the detection of the failure from Hoare to include monitoring the connection speed for degraded performance, as taught by Yamashita, for the benefit of maintaining optimal operations of the communication systems.
They are silent to the controller concludes… that the PCIe communication does not meet a link training & status state machine (LTSSM) according to the first link-up.
In a similar field, Pethe teaches the controller concludes… that the PCIe communication does not meet a link training & status state machine (LTSSM) according to the first link-up (Pethe: Claim 3, teaching determining that an error occurred in a link training status and state machine (LTSSM) logic for a link is encountered) for the benefit of detecting and correcting errors associated with the connection.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the communication connection failure condition from Hoare in view of Yamashita to also consider an error in a link training status and state machine (LTSSM) logic for a link as a failure condition, as taught by Pethe, for the benefit of detecting and correcting errors associated with the connection.
Claims 7, 8, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoare as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Tung; Sheng-Ya (US Pub. No. 20230229619 A1), herein after Tung.
Regarding claim 7, Hoare remains as applied as in claim 1 and goes on to further teach [t]he vehicle control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one instruction executed by the controller is further configured to, cause the vehicle control apparatus to: monitor whether the fault is identified while performing the PCIe communication, in response that the controller concludes… that the abnormal information is not identified (Hoare: Para. 0058, teaching that a fast restart approach is implemented when it is detected that the connection is failing without first determining what the failure condition is); determine whether the fault is included in a recoverable range, in response that the fault is identified; monitor whether the target devices enter a reset safety state, in response that the fault is included in the recoverable range (Hoare: Para. 0060, teaching that part of a subsystem is restarted rather than the full stack when it is determined that the failure condition only affects the capability of a few nodes of the subsystem); and determine the PCIe parameter based on information related to the fault, in response that the controller identifies that the target devices enter the reset safety state (Hoare: Para. 0062, teaching that the restarted nodes are analyzed for if the restart resolved the failure condition and if not escalating the restart option accordingly).
Hoare is silent to the controller concludes that the communication speed is greater than or equal to a predetermined speed.
In a similar field, Tung teaches a controller for monitoring a PCIe connection which concludes that the communication speed is greater than or equal to a predetermined speed (Tung: Para. 0006, teaching a PCIe speed-adjusting method that causes a communication system to switch between PCIe connections based on a monitored the current speed of the active PCIe connection and a noise level threshold and a current data-rate requirement; and Para. 0037, 0046, and 0048, teaching a process where the current PCIe speed is compared to a noise level threshold and a current data-rate requirement, where if the current PCIe speed is above the current data-rate requirement and below the noise level threshold the system maintains the current PCIe speed) for the benefit of maintaining optimal performance while reducing degradation of the link connections.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the monitoring of a communication connection for failure conditions from Hoare to also monitor the speed of the connections and if they are at or above the desired speed, as taught by Tung, for the benefit of maintaining optimal performance while reducing degradation of the link connections.
Regarding claim 8, Hoare remains as applied as in claim 1 and goes on to further teach [t]he vehicle control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one instruction executed by the controller is further configured to, cause the vehicle control apparatus to: monitor whether the fault is identified while performing the PCIe communication, in response that the controller concludes… that the abnormal information is not identified (Hoare: Para. 0058, teaching that a fast restart approach is implemented when it is detected that the connection is failing without first determining what the failure condition is); determine whether the fault is included in a recoverable range, in response that the fault is identified (Hoare: Para. 0060, teaching that part of a subsystem is restarted rather than the full stack when it is determined that the failure condition only affects the capability of a few nodes of the subsystem); and identify the fault as a permanent fault and store information related to the fault in the memory, in response that the fault is not included in the recoverable range (Hoare: Para. 0067, teaching that the restarted communication connection monitored for abnormalities such as failure conditions that are not resolved with a simple restart such as physical failures in the hardware).
Hoare is silent to the controller concludes that the communication speed is greater than or equal to a predetermined speed.
In a similar field, Tung teaches a controller for monitoring a PCIe connection which concludes that the communication speed is greater than or equal to a predetermined speed (Tung: Para. 0006, teaching a PCIe speed-adjusting method that causes a communication system to switch between PCIe connections based on a monitored the current speed of the active PCIe connection and a noise level threshold and a current data-rate requirement; and Para. 0037, 0046, and 0048, teaching a process where the current PCIe speed is compared to a noise level threshold and a current data-rate requirement, where if the current PCIe speed is above the current data-rate requirement and below the noise level threshold the system maintains the current PCIe speed) for the benefit of maintaining optimal performance while reducing degradation of the link connections.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the monitoring of a communication connection for failure conditions from Hoare to also monitor the speed of the connections and if they are at or above the desired speed, as taught by Tung, for the benefit of maintaining optimal performance while reducing degradation of the link connections.
Regarding claim 17, Hoare remains as applied as in claim 11 and goes on to further teach [t]he vehicle control method of claim 11, further including: monitoring, by the controller, whether the fault is identified while performing the PCIe communication, in response that the controller concludes… that the abnormal information is not identified (Hoare: Para. 0058, teaching that a fast restart approach is implemented when it is detected that the connection is failing without first determining what the failure condition is); determining, by the controller, whether the fault is included in a recoverable range, in response that the fault is identified; monitoring whether the target devices enter a reset safety state, in response that the fault is included in the recoverable range (Hoare: Para. 0060, teaching that part of a subsystem is restarted rather than the full stack when it is determined that the failure condition only affects the capability of a few nodes of the subsystem); and determining, by the controller, the PCIe parameter based on information related to the fault, in response that the controller identifies that the target devices enter the reset safety state (Hoare: Para. 0062, teaching that the restarted nodes are analyzed for if the restart resolved the failure condition and if not escalating the restart option accordingly).
Hoare is silent to the controller concludes that the communication speed is greater than or equal to a predetermined speed.
In a similar field, Tung teaches a controller for monitoring a PCIe connection which concludes that the communication speed is greater than or equal to a predetermined speed (Tung: Para. 0006, teaching a PCIe speed-adjusting method that causes a communication system to switch between PCIe connections based on a monitored the current speed of the active PCIe connection and a noise level threshold and a current data-rate requirement; and Para. 0037, 0046, and 0048, teaching a process where the current PCIe speed is compared to a noise level threshold and a current data-rate requirement, where if the current PCIe speed is above the current data-rate requirement and below the noise level threshold the system maintains the current PCIe speed) for the benefit of maintaining optimal performance while reducing degradation of the link connections.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the monitoring of a communication connection for failure conditions from Hoare to also monitor the speed of the connections and if they are at or above the desired speed, as taught by Tung, for the benefit of maintaining optimal performance while reducing degradation of the link connections.
Regarding claim 18, Hoare remains as applied as in claim 11 and goes on to further teach [t]he vehicle control method of claim 11, further including: monitoring, by the controller, whether the fault is identified while performing the PCIe communication, in response that the controller concludes… that the abnormal information is not identified (Hoare: Para. 0058, teaching that a fast restart approach is implemented when it is detected that the connection is failing without first determining what the failure condition is); determining, by the controller, whether the fault is included in a recoverable range, in response that the fault is identified (Hoare: Para. 0060, teaching that part of a subsystem is restarted rather than the full stack when it is determined that the failure condition only affects the capability of a few nodes of the subsystem); and identifying, by the controller, the fault as a permanent fault and storing, by the controller, information related to the fault in a memory, in response that the fault is not included in the recoverable range (Hoare: Para. 0067, teaching that the restarted communication connection monitored for abnormalities such as failure conditions that are not resolved with a simple restart such as physical failures in the hardware).
Hoare is silent to the controller concludes that the communication speed is greater than or equal to a predetermined speed.
In a similar field, Tung teaches a controller for monitoring a PCIe connection which concludes that the communication speed is greater than or equal to a predetermined speed (Tung: Para. 0006, teaching a PCIe speed-adjusting method that causes a communication system to switch between PCIe connections based on a monitored the current speed of the active PCIe connection and a noise level threshold and a current data-rate requirement; and Para. 0037, 0046, and 0048, teaching a process where the current PCIe speed is compared to a noise level threshold and a current data-rate requirement, where if the current PCIe speed is above the current data-rate requirement and below the noise level threshold the system maintains the current PCIe speed) for the benefit of maintaining optimal performance while reducing degradation of the link connections.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the monitoring of a communication connection for failure conditions from Hoare to also monitor the speed of the connections and if they are at or above the desired speed, as taught by Tung, for the benefit of maintaining optimal performance while reducing degradation of the link connections.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoare in view of Tung as applied to claims 7 and 17 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (US Pub. No. 20230004320 A1), herein after Choi.
Regarding claim 9, Hoare and Tung remain as applied as in claim 7, and Hoare goes on to further teach determine that the fault is included in the recoverable range (Hoare: Para. 0060, teaching that part of a subsystem is restarted rather than the full stack when it is determined that the failure condition only affects the capability of a few nodes of the subsystem).
They are silent to [t]he vehicle control apparatus of claim 7, further including: a sensor device operatively connected to the controller, wherein the at least one instruction executed by the controller is further configured to, cause the vehicle control apparatus to: identify at least one of an external temperature or impedance of the target devices, or any combination thereof, using the sensor device; and in response that the controller identifies that the fault occurs due to the external temperature or the impedance or in response that the controller identifies that the fault includes a communication delay due to dependency between the target devices.
In a similar field, Choi teaches [t]he vehicle control apparatus of claim 7, further including: a sensor device operatively connected to the controller (Choi: Para. 0107, teaching a temperature sensor for monitoring the temperature of a storage device), wherein the at least one instruction executed by the controller is further configured to, cause the vehicle control apparatus to: identify at least one of an external temperature or impedance of the target devices, or any combination thereof, using the sensor device (Choi: Para. 0138, teaching monitoring for if an abnormality occurs in a communication link based on the operating temperature); and in response that the controller identifies that the fault occurs due to the external temperature or the impedance or in response that the controller identifies that the fault includes a communication delay due to dependency between the target devices (Choi: Para. 0138, teaching monitoring for if an abnormality occurs in a communication link such as a power up or reset of the link not completing in a predetermined time interval based on the operating temperature) for the benefit of reducing error caused by thermal events.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the communication connection failure condition monitoring from Hoare in view of Tung to monitor and consider excessive temperatures as a failure condition, as taught by Choi, for the benefit of reducing error caused by thermal events.
Regarding claim 19, Hoare and Tung remain as applied as in claim 7, and Hoare goes on to further teach determining, by the controller, that the fault is included in the recoverable range (Hoare: Para. 0060, teaching that part of a subsystem is restarted rather than the full stack when it is determined that the failure condition only affects the capability of a few nodes of the subsystem).
They are silent to [t]he vehicle control method of claim 17, further including: identifying at least one of an external temperature or impedance of the target devices, or any combination thereof, using a sensor device operatively connected to the controller; and in response that the controller identifies that the fault occurs due to the external temperature or the impedance or in response that the controller identifies that the fault includes a communication delay due to dependency between the target devices.
In a similar field, Choi teaches [t]he vehicle control method of claim 17, further including: identifying at least one of an external temperature or impedance of the target devices, or any combination thereof, using a sensor device operatively connected to the controller (Choi: Para. 0107, teaching a temperature sensor for monitoring the temperature of a storage device; and Para. 0138, teaching monitoring for if an abnormality occurs in a communication link based on the operating temperature); and in response that the controller identifies that the fault occurs due to the external temperature or the impedance or in response that the controller identifies that the fault includes a communication delay due to dependency between the target devices (Choi: Para. 0138, teaching monitoring for if an abnormality occurs in a communication link such as a power up or reset of the link not completing in a predetermined time interval based on the operating temperature) for the benefit of reducing error caused by thermal events.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the communication connection failure condition monitoring from Hoare in view of Tung to monitor and consider excessive temperatures as a failure condition, as taught by Choi, for the benefit of reducing error caused by thermal events.
Claims 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoare as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Choi.
Regarding claim 10, Hoare remains as applied as in claim 1, however Hoare silent to [t]he vehicle control apparatus of claim 1, further including: a sensor device operatively connected to the controller, wherein the at least one instruction executed by the controller is further configured to, cause the vehicle control apparatus to: obtain the real-time temperature of each of the target devices, using the sensor device; and determine the PCIe parameter, based on a result of comparing the real-time temperatures of the target devices.
In a similar field, Choi teaches [t]he vehicle control apparatus of claim 1, further including: a sensor device operatively connected to the controller (Choi: Para. 0107, teaching a temperature sensor for monitoring the temperature of a storage device), wherein the at least one instruction executed by the controller is further configured to, cause the vehicle control apparatus to: obtain the real-time temperature of each of the target devices, using the sensor device (Choi: Para. 0138, teaching monitoring for if an abnormality occurs in a communication link based on the operating temperature); and determine the PCIe parameter, based on a result of comparing the real-time temperatures of the target devices (Choi: Para. 0138, teaching monitoring for if an abnormality occurs in a communication link such as a power up or reset of the link not completing in a predetermined time interval based on the operating temperature) for the benefit of reducing error caused by thermal events.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the communication connection failure condition monitoring from Hoare to monitor and consider excessive temperatures as a failure condition, as taught by Choi, for the benefit of reducing error caused by thermal events.
Regarding claim 20, Hoare remains as applied as in claim 10, however Hoare is silent to [t]he vehicle control method of claim 11, further including: obtaining, by the controller, the real-time temperature of each of the target devices, using a sensor device operatively connected to the controller; and determining the PCIe parameter, based on a result of comparing the real-time temperatures of the target devices.
In a similar field, Choi teaches [t]he vehicle control method of claim 11, further including: obtaining, by the controller, the real-time temperature of each of the target devices, using a sensor device operatively connected to the controller (Choi: Para. 0138, teaching actively monitoring for if an abnormality occurs in a communication link based on the operating temperature); and determining the PCIe parameter, based on a result of comparing the real-time temperatures of the target devices (Choi: Para. 0138, teaching monitoring for if an abnormality occurs in a communication link such as a power up or reset of the link not completing in a predetermined time interval based on the operating temperature) for the benefit of reducing error caused by thermal events.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the communication connection failure condition monitoring from Hoare in view of Tung to monitor and consider excessive temperatures as a failure condition, as taught by Choi, for the benefit of reducing error caused by thermal events.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chang; Wei-Hsuan (US Pub. No. 20230143167 A1) discloses a vehicle communication system that monitors the communication channels for parameters such as connection speed and resets channels that are underperforming.
Chae et al. (US Pub. No. 20170250858 A1) discloses a system for monitoring communication channels in a vehicle and resetting the channels that have a detected fault.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aaron K McCullers whose telephone number is (571)272-3523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, Roughly 9 AM - 6 PM ET.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/A.K.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663