DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a communication determination section configured to” and “a communication setting section configured to” in Claim 1, “a second communication determination section configured to” and “a second communication setting section configured to” in Claim 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Support can be found: structure Fig 4, [0026]-[0032], algorithm Fig 7 & 8, [0033]-[0142].
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “wherein any of the communication nodes includes”. It should have a colon after includes. It should read “wherein any of the communication nodes includes:”.
Claim 2 recites “a second communication node other than the first communication node among the plurality of communication nodes includes”. It should have a colon after includes. It should read “a second communication node other than the first communication node among the plurality of communication nodes includes:”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
112(b):
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites “a communication setting section configured to, when the communication determination section determines that the current communication is the failure diagnosis communication at either a time of transmitting a diagnosis request from the request source to the request destination or a time of transmitting a diagnosis result from the request destination to the request source, pack a first communication frame” in lines 9-12. This renders the claim unclear as to determining a failure diagnosis at the time of transmitting….and then pack a communication frame (for transmitting). {for examination purpose: before the time of transmitting}
This same rejection applies to Claim 2 (see lines 8-12).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 3 recites “the second communication setting section packs the first communication frame into the second communication frame when the second communication determination section determines that the current communication is the failure diagnosis communication at another of the time of transmitting the diagnosis request and the time of transmitting the diagnosis result, and the first communication setting section unpacks the first communication frame from the second communication frame when the first communication determination section determines that the current communication is the failure diagnosis communication at another of the time of transmitting the diagnosis request and the time of transmitting the diagnosis result.” in lines 2-11. This renders the claim unclear as to pack/unpack the first communication frame when a failure diagnosis is determined at another of the time of transmitting. {for examination purpose: before the time of transmitting}
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites “pack a first communication frame of a first communication protocol whose use is defined in a communication standard of the failure diagnosis” in lines 13-17. This renders the claim as to which element in the claim “whose” refers back to.
Claim 2 recites the limitations “the diagnosis request” and “the diagnosis result” in multiple places. This renders the claim unclear as there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 2 depends on Claim 1 and Claim 1 recites both “a diagnosis request” and “a diagnosis result” twice. It is unclear as to which of those “the diagnosis request” and “the diagnosis result” in Claim 2 refer back to.
This same rejection applies to Claim 3.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: transmitting current communication to the second communication node from the first communication node. Claim 2 recites “a second communication node … includes a second communication determination section configured to determine whether the current communication is the failure diagnosis communication” in lines 13-16. It is unclear as to the second node making a determination on the current communication when the current communication has not been transmitted to the second node by the first node as this step is missing.
This same rejection applies to Claim 3.
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, 5-6, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0270068 Al (Wakita) in view of US 2023/0224289 A1 (Kiyokawa).
Regarding Claim 1:
Wakita teaches A communication system (Fig 1, communication system 100) comprising: a plurality of communication nodes that relay failure diagnosis communication of a diagnosis request and a diagnosis result between a request source of a failure diagnosis and a request destination of the failure diagnosis, ([0016] The communication system 100 includes, as communication apparatuses, a plurality of ECUs (Electronic Control Units) 111 to 118 and 121 to 128, and a gateway apparatus (G/W) 101. In the communication system 100, the plurality of ECU s are divided into a plurality of domains. [0032]-[0037] Fig 4B, ECU nodes relaying diagnosis request and diagnosis result messages.)
wherein any of the communication nodes includes a communication determination section configured to determine whether current communication (ie. received frame) is the failure diagnosis communication (ie. diagnosis request or diagnosis result), ([0039]-[0044] Fig 5, determination as to whether or not the request is addressed to the receiving ECU (if not, request is forwarded). Next, determination as to whether the receiving ECU can process the request. [0047] The ECU processes the diagnosis request to generate a diagnosis result. [0048] Diagnosis result is received (by the master ECU).) A determination is made by each ECU as to the communication being a diagnosis request or diagnosis result intended for the ECU or another ECU.
and a communication setting section configured to, when the communication determination section determines that the current communication is the failure diagnosis communication before either a time of transmitting a diagnosis request from the request source to the request destination or a time of transmitting a diagnosis result from the request destination to the request source, pack a first communication frame of a first communication protocol whose use is defined in a communication standard of the failure diagnosis into a second communication frame of a second communication protocol different (Generate a frame using a different communication protocol: [0038] Communication between the diagnostic apparatus 130 and the gateway apparatus 101 may comply with a protocol different from that for communication in the main bus 103 and the sub buses 119 and 129. In this case, the diagnostic apparatus 130 transfers, to the gateway apparatus 101, pieces of information included in the ID field 400a and data field 400b of the frame 401 in accordance with another protocol, and the gateway apparatus 101 generates the frame 402 in accordance with the information. The gateway apparatus 101 extracts the pieces of information included in the ID field 400a and data field 400b of the frame 405, and transfers the pieces of information to the diagnostic apparatus 130.)
Wakita teaches on utilizing other protocols ([0038]). However, Wakita is silent on pack a first communication frame of a first communication protocol whose use is defined in a communication standard of the failure diagnosis into a second communication frame of a second communication protocol having a higher communication speed than the first communication protocol.
Kiyokawa teaches, in the same field of endeavor, a communication device capable of suppressing mistaken determination of an abnormal-communication state even in cases in which authentication fails for some messages received from plural communication devices, and to a vehicle, [0005].
Kiyokawa also teaches on a first communication frame of a first communication protocol whose use is defined in a communication standard of the failure diagnosis into a second communication frame of a second communication protocol having a higher communication speed than the first communication protocol. ([0044] In the vehicle communication system 12 either a controller area network (CAN) protocol is adopted as a communication format for performing communication between the ECUs 10, or a CAN with flexible data rate (CAN-FD) protocol that has a faster communication speed.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wakita per Kiyokawa to include a first communication frame of a first communication protocol whose use is defined in a communication standard of the failure diagnosis into a second communication frame of a second communication protocol having a higher communication speed than the first communication protocol. This would have been advantageous as discussed above, as it would allow the modified system to provide faster communications for diagnostic measures, allowing for quicker delivery times for alert messages.
Regarding Claim 2:
Wakita (as modified by Kiyokawa) teaches on the invention of claim 1 as described.
Wakita teaches wherein a communication node of the communication nodes corresponds to a first communication node, ([0016] The communication system 100 includes, as communication apparatuses, a plurality of ECUs (Electronic Control Units) 111 to 118 and 121 to 128, and a gateway apparatus (G/W) 101. In the communication system 100, the plurality of ECU s are divided into a plurality of domains. [0032]-[0037] Fig 4B, ECU nodes relaying diagnosis request and diagnosis result messages.)
the communication determination section corresponds to a first communication determination section, the communication setting section corresponds to a first communication setting section, the first communication setting section packs the first communication frame into the second communication frame when the first communication determination section determines that the current communication is the failure diagnosis communication before either the time of transmitting the diagnosis request or the time of transmitting the diagnosis result, ([0033]-[0037] The frame received is processed (ie. unpacked) to generate result or it is transmitted/forwarded without change to a target ECU. A frame is unpacked if it is processed. A new frame is generated (ie. packed) for the result – and forwarded.) A determination is made by each ECU as to the communication being a diagnosis request or diagnosis result intended for the ECU or another ECU.
and a second communication node other than the first communication node among the plurality of communication nodes ([0016] The communication system 100 includes, as communication apparatuses, a plurality of ECUs (Electronic Control Units) 111 to 118 and 121 to 128, and a gateway apparatus (G/W) 101. In the communication system 100, the plurality of ECU s are divided into a plurality of domains. [0032]-[0037] Fig 4B, ECU nodes relaying diagnosis request and diagnosis result messages.) includes
a second communication determination section configured to determine whether the current communication (ie. received frame) is the failure diagnosis communication (ie. diagnosis request or diagnosis result), ([0039]-[0044] Fig 5, determination as to whether or not the request is addressed to the receiving ECU (if not, request is forwarded). Next, determination as to whether the receiving ECU can process the request. [0047] The ECU processes the diagnosis request to generate a diagnosis result. [0048] Diagnosis result is received (by the master ECU).) A determination is made by each ECU as to the communication being a diagnosis request or diagnosis result intended for the ECU or another ECU.
and a second communication setting section configured to unpack the first communication frame from the second communication frame when the second communication determination section determines that the current communication is the failure diagnosis communication before either the time of transmitting the diagnosis request or the time of transmitting the diagnosis result. ([0033]-[0037] The frame received is processed (ie. unpacked) to generate result or it is transmitted/forwarded without change to a target ECU. A frame is unpacked if it is processed. A new frame is generated (ie. packed) for the result – and forwarded.)
Regarding Claim 3:
Wakita (as modified by Kiyokawa) teaches on the invention of claim 2 as described.
Wakita teaches the second communication setting section packs the first communication frame into the second communication frame when the second communication determination section determines that the current communication is the failure diagnosis communication before another of the time of transmitting the diagnosis request and the time of transmitting the diagnosis result, ([0033]-[0037] The frame received is processed (ie. unpacked) to generate result or it is transmitted/forwarded without change to a target ECU. A frame is unpacked if it is processed. A new frame is generated (ie. packed) for the result – and forwarded.) A determination is made by each ECU as to the communication being a diagnosis request or diagnosis result intended for the ECU or another ECU.
and the first communication setting section unpacks the first communication frame from the second communication frame when the first communication determination section determines that the current communication is the failure diagnosis communication before another of the time of transmitting the diagnosis request and the time of transmitting the diagnosis result. ([0033]-[0037] The frame received is processed (ie. unpacked) to generate result or it is transmitted/forwarded without change to a target ECU. A frame is unpacked if it is processed. A new frame is generated (ie. packed) for the result – and forwarded.) A determination is made by each ECU as to the communication being a diagnosis request or diagnosis result intended for the ECU or another ECU.
Regarding Claim 5:
Wakita (as modified by Kiyokawa) teaches on the invention of claim 1 as described.
Wakita teaches the communication setting section packs the first communication frame into the second communication frame when the communication determination section determines that the current communication is the failure diagnosis communication and further that at least one of a manual parking gear, a side brake, or an electric parking brake is in a state of stopping a vehicle (ie. brake is actuated by actuator 207). ([0020] FIG. 3A. The column of the "diagnosis request" of the table 301 indicates contents of a diagnosis request for the vehicle. Examples of the diagnosis request are a request of inquiring about the type and contents of a message used at the time of occurrence of a failure in the brake system, and a request of inquiring about the operation result of an ABS (Antilock Braking System) function for a test input. [0023] FIG. 1, the master ECU 111 is an ECU taking charge of the brake function. Therefore, the control circuit 201 collects information about a brake using a sensor 206, and controls the actuation of the brake using an actuator 207 in accordance with the information.)
Regarding Claim 6:
Wakita (as modified by Kiyokawa) teaches on the invention of claim 1 as described.
Wakita teaches the communication setting section packs the first communication frame into the second communication frame when the communication determination section determines that the current communication is the failure diagnosis communication and further that an external tool (ie. sensor 206) for failure diagnosis is connected to the communication system as the request source of the failure diagnosis. ([0023] FIG. 1, the master ECU 111 is an ECU taking charge of the brake function. Therefore, the control circuit 201 collects information about a brake using a sensor 206, and controls the actuation of the brake using an actuator 207 in accordance with the information.)
Regarding Claim 10:
Wakita (as modified by Kiyokawa) teaches on the invention of claim 1 as described.
Wakita teaches wherein the first communication protocol is a CAN protocol. ([0018] Communication via the sub bus 119 or 129 and the main bus 103 may comply with a CAN (Controller Area Network) communication protocol or another protocol.)
Regarding Claim 11:
Wakita (as modified by Kiyokawa) teaches on the invention of claim 1 as described.
Wakita teaches wherein at least one of the communication nodes is an electronic control device. ([0016] The communication system 100 includes, as communication apparatuses, a plurality of ECUs (Electronic Control Units) 111 to 118 and 121 to 128, and a gateway apparatus (G/W) 101.)
Regarding Claim 12:
Wakita (as modified by Kiyokawa) teaches on the invention of claim 1 as described.
Wakita teaches wherein at least one of the communication nodes is a processor core. ([0022] The master ECU 111 includes a control circuit 201 and communication circuits 204 and 205. The control circuit 201 controls the overall operation of the master ECU 111. The control circuit 201 includes a processor 202 such as a microprocessor formed by a CPU.)
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0270068 Al (Wakita) in view of US 2023/0224289 A1 (Kiyokawa) further in view of US 2018/0241584 A1 (Ruvio).
Regarding Claim 4:
Wakita (as modified by Kiyokawa) teaches on the invention of claim 1 as described.
Wakita teaches on a vehicle internal communication system ([0016][0017]). However, Wakita (as modified by Kiyokawa) is silent that the communication setting section increases a priority of a priority parameter representing a priority of communication in the second communication frame when packing the first communication frame into the second communication frame.
Ruvio teaches, in the same field of endeavor, methods for manipulating operation of at least one electronic control unit (ECU) connected to a controller area network (CAN) bus, Abstract.
Ruvio also teaches the communication setting section increases a priority of a priority parameter representing a priority of communication in the second communication frame when packing the first communication frame into the second communication frame. ([0011] CAN utilizes an addressing system based on identifiers rather than physical addresses for each node. In addition each identifier assigns a priority to the respective message based on binary value. [0035] CAN communication applies a decentralized priority driven access control methods to guarantee the transmission of a top priority frame first and an error detecting mechanism that can detect errors and interrupt communication.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wakita (as modified by Kiyokawa) by modifying Wakita per Ruvio to include the communication setting section increases a priority of a priority parameter representing a priority of communication in the second communication frame when packing the first communication frame into the second communication frame. This would have been advantageous as discussed above, as it would allow the combined system to provide faster communications for diagnostic measures, allowing precedence for alert messages.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0270068 Al (Wakita) in view of US 2023/0224289 A1 (Kiyokawa) further in view of US 2022/0317753 A1 (Tokunaga).
Regarding Claim 7:
Wakita (as modified by Kiyokawa) teaches on the invention of claim 1 as described.
Wakita teaches wherein the communication setting section packs the first communication frame into the second communication frame when the communication determination section determines that the current communication is the failure diagnosis communication. ([0033]-[0037] The frame received is processed (ie. unpacked) to generate result or it is transmitted/forwarded without change to a target ECU. A frame is unpacked if it is processed. A new frame is generated (ie. packed) for the result – and forwarded. [0039]-[0044] Fig 5, determination as to whether or not the request is addressed to the receiving ECU (if not, request is forwarded). Next, determination as to whether the receiving ECU can process the request. [0047] The ECU processes the diagnosis request to generate a diagnosis result.)
Wakita teaches on a vehicle internal communication system ([0016][0017]). However, Wakita (as modified by Kiyokawa) is silent that a vehicle includes an electric motor as a drive source, and that a rechargeable battery that supplies power to the electric motor is being charged.
Tokunaga teaches, in the same field of endeavor, an in-vehicle electronic system comprises a core ECU (Electronic Control Unit) mounted in a vehicle and a plurality of slave ECUs.
Tokunaga also teaches that a vehicle includes an electric motor as a drive source, and that a rechargeable battery that supplies power to the electric motor is being charged. ([0020] The ECU 220a is an ECU for controlling a fuel injection device. The ECU 220b is an ECU for controlling a high-voltage battery that accumulates electric energy for running the vehicle 20. The ECU 220c is an ECU for controlling an electric power convertor that converts a high voltage from a high-voltage battery to a lower voltage to charge a low-voltage battery. [0042] scheduling/monitoring charging and battery level.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wakita (as modified by Kiyokawa) by modifying Wakita per Tokunaga to include that a vehicle includes an electric motor as a drive source, and that a rechargeable battery that supplies power to the electric motor is being charged. This would have been advantageous as discussed above, as it would allow the combined system to provide diagnostic measures if necessary while the car is being charged for safety measures and to prevent overcharging.
Claim(s) 8, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0270068 Al (Wakita) in view of US 2023/0224289 A1 (Kiyokawa) further in view of US 2023/0090042 A1 (Poloni).
Regarding Claim 8:
Wakita (as modified by Kiyokawa) teaches on the invention of claim 1 as described.
Wakita teaches wherein the communication setting section packs the first communication frame into the second communication frame when the communication determination section determines that the current communication is the failure diagnosis communication. ([0033]-[0037] The frame received is processed (ie. unpacked) to generate result or it is transmitted/forwarded without change to a target ECU. A frame is unpacked if it is processed. A new frame is generated (ie. packed) for the result – and forwarded. [0039]-[0044] Fig 5, determination as to whether or not the request is addressed to the receiving ECU (if not, request is forwarded). Next, determination as to whether the receiving ECU can process the request. [0047] The ECU processes the diagnosis request to generate a diagnosis result.)
Wakita teaches on a vehicle internal communication system ([0016][0017]). However, Wakita (as modified by Kiyokawa) is silent that a vehicle includes an internal combustion engine, and that the vehicle is being fueled.
Poloni teaches, in the same field of endeavor, Engine systems, vehicles and methods related to refueling in conjunction with infrastructure to vehicle communication, Abstract.
Poloni also teaches that a vehicle includes an internal combustion engine, and that the vehicle is being fueled. ([0035] an internal combustion engine. [0042] Fig 4, the method starts with initializing the method 200. Initialization 200 occurs, for example, when the fuel tank is filled and a fuel tank state is recorded either through a vehicle-internal sensor (i.e., a sensor associated with the fuel tank to indicate refueling is completed.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wakita (as modified by Kiyokawa) by modifying Wakita per Poloni to include that a vehicle includes an internal combustion engine, and that the vehicle is being fueled. This would have been advantageous as discussed above, as it would allow the combined system to provide diagnostic measures during fueling if required as this would prevent damage/harm and spillage.
Regarding Claim 13:
Wakita (as modified by Kiyokawa) teaches on the invention of claim 1 as described.
Wakita teaches on a vehicle internal communication system with a plurality of communication nodes ([0016][0017]). However, Wakita (as modified by Kiyokawa) is silent on wherein at least one of the communication nodes is a virtual machine.
Poloni teaches wherein at least one of the communication nodes is a virtual machine. ([0051] Onboard and offboard sensor fusion takes place, to combine information from various sensors. One or more sensors may be positioned in the exhaust airstream. A specific combination may be an engine system having a mass air flow (MAF) sensor, which may be a physical sensor (such as a flow meter, Venturi meter, etc.) or which may be a virtual sensor that uses temperature, pressure and other sensor signals to calculate MAF entering the engine.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wakita (as modified by Kiyokawa) by modifying Wakita per Poloni to include that wherein at least one of the communication nodes is a virtual machine. This would have been advantageous as discussed above, as it would allow the combined system to provide flexible architectures based on load by implementing virtual nodes along with/on physical nodes.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0270068 Al (Wakita) in view of US 2023/0224289 A1 (Kiyokawa) further in view of US 2019/0258251 A1 (Ditty).
Regarding Claim 9:
Wakita (as modified by Kiyokawa) teaches on the invention of claim 1 as described.
Wakita teaches wherein the communication setting section packs the first communication frame into the second communication frame when the communication determination section determines that the current communication is the failure diagnosis communication. ([0033]-[0037] The frame received is processed (ie. unpacked) to generate result or it is transmitted/forwarded without change to a target ECU. A frame is unpacked if it is processed. A new frame is generated (ie. packed) for the result – and forwarded. [0039]-[0044] Fig 5, determination as to whether or not the request is addressed to the receiving ECU (if not, request is forwarded). Next, determination as to whether the receiving ECU can process the request. [0047] The ECU processes the diagnosis request to generate a diagnosis result.)
Wakita teaches on a vehicle internal communication system ([0016][0017]). However, Wakita (as modified by Kiyokawa) is silent that an amount of communication other than the failure diagnosis communication is equal to or less than a predetermined amount.
Ditty teaches, in the same field of endeavor, on an end-to-end platform with a flexible architecture, including an architecture for autonomous vehicles that leverages computer vision and known ADAS techniques, Abstract.
Ditty also teaches that an amount of communication other than the failure diagnosis communication is equal to or less than a predetermined amount. ([0225] The system can set a threshold value for the confidence and consider only the detections exceeding the threshold value as true positive detections. [0429] On Demand Diagnostics—Diagnostics that will be requested dynamically in response to event occurrence, e.g., memory diagnostic after single bit error reporting exceeds a pre-set threshold, a certain number of frames are dropped in a certain amount of time.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wakita (as modified by Kiyokawa) by modifying Wakita per Ditty to include that an amount of communication other than the failure diagnosis communication is equal to or less than a predetermined amount. This would have been advantageous as discussed above, as it would allow the combined system to provide a confidence for determining when diagnostic measures are necessary, see Ditty [0225].
Conclusion & Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL J HACKENBERG whose telephone number is (571)272-5417. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm M-F.
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, Glenton B Burgess can be reached at (571)272-3949. 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.
/RACHEL J HACKENBERG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454