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 .
Respo0nse to Amendment
The amendment filed June 12, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-20 remain
pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 12, 2026 have been fully considered. Applicant argued that Suganuma does not disclose the limitations of the amended claim 1: "in response to determining that the abnormality occurs in the first calculation unit, the control unit acquires, from the second calculation unit, substitute capability information indicating whether the second calculation unit can substitute execution content of the first calculation unit" and "based on the acquired substitute capability information, the control unit determines a functional level of substitute execution content of the first calculation unit, wherein the second calculation unit is determined based on the functional level."
In this office action, Otsuka is further cited, and 102 rejections are changed to 103 rejections.
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) 1, 3-8, 10-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suganuma et al. (US 20020099487 A1), which was cited by Applicant, in view of Otsuka et al. (US 20180281816 A1), which was cited by Applicant.
Regarding claim 1, Suganuma discloses:
An in-vehicle electronic device connected to a plurality of calculation units mounted on a vehicle, the in- vehicle electronic device comprising {paragraph [0013]: a plurality of structural-element control portions for driving and controlling the actuators on the basis of the state quantities detected by the sensors according to preset control programs}:
a communication unit configured to communicate with the plurality of calculation units {[0013]: a communication line}; and
a control unit configured to issue an instruction of substitution control to a second calculation unit in response to determining that an abnormality occurs in a first calculation unit that is one of the plurality of calculation units {[0013]: a manager control portion for storing one or more substitute programs designed to implement functions of ones among the structural-element control portions which are necessary for travel of the vehicle… when the failure detecting means detects a failure of one of the structural-element control portions which is necessary for travel of the vehicle, selecting one from non-failed ones of the structural-element control portions as a download destination in accordance with the priority degrees and downloading the substitute program corresponding to the failed structural-element control portion into the selected download-destination structural-element control portion}.
Suganuma does not disclose:
wherein in response to determining that the abnormality occurs in the first calculation unit, the control unit acquires, from the second calculation unit, substitute capability information indicating whether the second calculation unit can substitute execution content of the first calculation unit; and
wherein based on the acquired substitute capability information, the control unit determines a functional level of substitute execution content of the first calculation unit, wherein the second calculation unit is determined based on the functional level.
Otsuka teaches acquiring substitute capability information from the second calculation unit in paragraph [0002]: a substitute requesting means that requests substitution of the failed function to the second electronic control unit, in which the second electronic control unit includes a determination means that determines whether the substitution of the failed function is available, and substitution means that substitute for the failed function if the availability of the substitution is determined. Otsuka further teaches determining a functional level of substitute execution content of the first calculation unit, and the second calculation unit being determined based on the functional level in [0002]: determines whether the substitution of the failed function is available, and substitution means that substitute for the failed function if the availability of the substitution is determined.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the substitute capability determining by the second calculation unit feature of Otsuka with the described invention of Suganuma in order to ensure the substitute possibility by a target calculation unit.
Similar reasoning applies to claims 12, 20.
Regarding claim 3, which depends from claim 1, Suganuma discloses: wherein the functional level is a level of control content of the vehicle {[0075]}.
Similar reasoning applies to claim 13.
Regarding claim 4, which depends from claim 3, Suganuma discloses: wherein the control unit includes a data table that determines the functional level according to the substitute capability information {Fig. 4}.
Similar reasoning applies to claim 14.
Regarding claim 5, which depends from claim 4, Suganuma discloses: wherein the control unit: identifies the second calculation unit capable of substituting an execution unit of the first calculation unit based on the substitute capability information, and transmits a substitute program for substituting an execution program of the first calculation unit to the second calculation unit through the communication unit {Fig. 4, [0075], [0076], [0013]: downloading the substitute program corresponding to the failed structural-element control portion into the selected download-destination structural-element control portion}.
Similar reasoning applies to claim 15.
Regarding claim 6, which depends from claim 5, Suganuma discloses: wherein the control unit transmits a substitute program of the first calculation unit to the second calculation unit according to a level of the data table {Fig. 4, [0075], [0076], [0013]}.
Similar reasoning applies to claim 16.
Regarding claim 7, which depends from claim 5, Suganuma discloses: wherein the substitute program is stored in a storage mounted in vehicle in advance, and the control unit acquires a substitute program from the storage after the functional level is determined {[0013]: a manager control portion for storing one or more substitute programs designed to implement functions of ones among the structural-element control portions}.
Similar reasoning applies to claim 17.
Regarding claim 8, which depends from claim 5, Suganuma discloses: wherein the control unit calculates a substitute capability according to an operation mode of the vehicle {Fig. 3, [0075]}.
Similar reasoning applies to claim 18.
Regarding claim 10, which depends from claim 4, Suganuma discloses: wherein the control unit determines a substitutable functional level according to at least one of a substitute capability, a ROM free space, and a RAM free space for each of the calculation units stored in the data table {[0076], [0077]}.
Regarding claim 11, which depends from claim 1, Suganuma discloses: wherein in response to receiving a problem occurrence notification from the first calculation unit, the control unit considers the substitution control {[0013]}.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suganuma in view of Otsuka and in further view of Kawakami (US 20200290641 A1).
Regarding claim 9, which depends from claim 6, modified Suganuma does not disclose:
wherein the control unit first acquires the substitute program in a state of being set to a low functional level and causes the second calculation unit to execute the substitute program based on a traveling status of the vehicle, and then, re-acquires a substitute program at a level based on the traveling status and causes the second calculation unit to execute the substitute program.
Kawakami teaches re-acquiring a substitute program at a level based on the traveling status in paragraph [0057]: when the anomaly component has successfully recovered to the normal state, the state of the vehicle transitions to the safety state S3, and the vehicle control device 10 maintains the autonomous driving mode. [0058]: The anomaly detection ECU 13 tries to execute a recovery operation also in the period T2. When the anomaly component has successfully recovered to the normal state in the period T2, the state of the vehicle transitions to the safety state S3. [0136]: an alternative operation is defined in addition to reactivation and a degraded operation (low functional level) as operations to be executed. [0138]: the alternative operation 1 that takes over the function of the recognition/determination ECU 11 at the time of occurrence of an anomaly in the recognition/determination ECU 11, and an alternative operation 2 that takes over the function of the integrated control ECU 12 at the time of occurrence of an anomaly in the integrated control ECU 12 are defined.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the re-acquiring feature of Kawakami with the described invention of modified Suganuma in order to restore functionality based on the current traveling status.
Similar reasoning applies to claim 19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Katayama et al. (US 20220055637 A1) teaches that a separate management domain unit substitutes for a basic domain unit for vehicle ECUs.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHANMIN PARK whose telephone number is (408)918-7555. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/RUSSELL FREJD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights