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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-17 have been presented and examined.
Claims 1, and 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-5, and 8-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honner (US 2011/0046844) in view of Arai (JP 2017-33321) in view of Hirano (US 2021/0009054).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honner in view of Arai in view of Hirano in view of Zhang (US 2010/0198910).
Priority Date
The earliest priority date for these claims is 11/13/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
All references of IDS filed 04/15/2025 have been considered in this action.
All references of IDS filed 11/07/2024 have been considered in this action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, and 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and an analysis of the independent claim of this set in accordance with the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is provided below:
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? Yes, this claim is directed towards a machine (“a management device”).
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes, this claim recites “…select a startup method for the device” which represents an abstract idea as it is a function that can be performed solely within the human mind.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim is directed to the abstract idea presented in the claim and does not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes meaningful limitation on the judicial exception.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the additional elements recited in the claim either represent insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. “obtain…information…”) or serve to characterize the performance of the abstract idea (i.e. listing the different startup methods that are being selected from) and therefore themselves represent a part of the abstract idea and do not represent additional elements sufficient to cause the claim as-a-whole to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent Claims: the listed dependent claims do not add additional elements that either integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or cause the claims as-a-whole to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Examiner’s Note: Claims 2-5, and 16-17 have not been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they all contain a limitation which itself contains a step in which components of a network are actively started which represents an additional element that is sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application thereby resulting in the eligibility of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, and 8-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honner (US 2011/0046844) in view of Arai (JP 2017-33321) in view of Hirano (US 2021/0009054). These references are analogous as they all are related to networked device power control (See Paragraph [0001] of Honner, [Abstract] of Arai, and Paragraph [0002] of Hirano).
As per Claim 1:
Honner discloses the following limitations:
“A management device for a vehicle on-board network system, the management device comprising processing circuitry configured to: obtain, subsequent to modifications made to the vehicle on-board network system, information related to a target device that operated during execution of a predetermined function in the vehicle on-board network system, the target device being one of devices that are connected to the vehicle on-board network system;”
Honner Paragraph [0003] discloses identifying specific power consumption modes that can relate to different contextual situations for a vehicle network. Paragraph [0027] discloses multiple ways that an ECU can be activated either be a direct connection to an activation line or by a network controller signal.
Honner does not disclose the following limitations that Arai suggests:
“ based on the obtained information, select a startup method for the target device from: a first startup method for starting the target device through power control that controls whether to supply power to the target device”
Arai [Abstract] discloses direct power control over a control circuit.
Honner in view of Arai does not disclose the following limitations that Hirano suggests:
“and a second startup method for starting the target device by communicating with the target device to request startup for the target device; and start the target device using the selected startup method.”
Hirano Figure 2 teaches a system in which a target unit is signaled with a request to startup
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Honner with the first method suggested by Arai and the second method suggested by Hirano. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more efficient by targeting startup methods for specific components based on contextual information.
With regards to Claim 2, Honner in view of Arai in view of Hirano discloses or suggests all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: after selecting the startup method for the target device based on the obtained information, store the selected startup method to learn the startup method for the target device; and start the target device using the learned startup method.”
Honner Paragraph [0027] discloses identifying startup methods based on contextual information and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the same methods when presented with the same contextual information.
With regards to Claim 3, Honner in view of Arai in view of Hirano discloses or suggests all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the processing circuitry is configured to obtain, subsequent to the modifications made to the vehicle on-board network system, the information by starting the target device using the first startup method.”
Honner Paragraph [0027] discloses identifying startup methods based on contextual information and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try both alternative methods.
With regards to Claim 4, Honner in view of Arai in view of Hirano discloses or suggests all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the processing circuitry is configured to obtain, subsequent to the modifications made to the vehicle on-board network system, the information by starting the target device using the second startup method.”
Honner Paragraph [0027] discloses identifying startup methods based on contextual information and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try both alternative methods.
With regards to Claim 5, Honner in view of Arai in view of Hirano discloses or suggests all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the processing circuitry is configured to obtain, subsequent to the modifications made to the vehicle on-board network system, the information by starting the target device using the startup method used prior to the modifications made to the vehicle on-board network system.”
Honner Paragraph [0027] discloses identifying startup methods based on contextual information and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the same methods when presented with the same contextual information.
With regards to Claim 8, Honner in view of Arai in view of Hirano discloses or suggests all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the vehicle on-board network system includes bus networks that are connected to the management device, each of the bus networks includes a power control line that starts the target device using the first startup method, and the processing circuitry is configured to obtain the information for each of the bus networks and select the startup method for each of the bus networks.”
Honner Paragraph [0027] discloses identifying components for startup but a bus line can also represent the target device of the system.
With regards to Claim 9, Honner in view of Arai in view of Hirano discloses or suggests all of the limitations of Claim 8 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein in a case in which the modifications have been made to the vehicle on-board network system, the processing circuitry is configured to: identify one of the bus networks that has been affected by the modifications; and for only the bus network that has been affected by the modifications, reselect the startup method.”
Honner Paragraph [0027] discloses selecting startup methods based on contextual information, such an arrangement would be reperformed should contextual information change.
With regards to Claim 10, Honner in view of Arai in view of Hirano discloses or suggests all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein in a case in which the modifications have been made to the vehicle on-board network system, the processing circuitry is configured to: for a function that is to be executed, obtain the information corresponding to the function and determine whether to reselect the startup method.”
Honner Paragraph [0027] discloses selecting startup methods based on contextual information for the vehicle
With regards to Claim 11, Honner in view of Arai in view of Hirano discloses or suggests all of the limitations of Claim 10 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the vehicle on-board network system includes bus networks that are connected to the management device, each of the bus networks includes a power control line that starts the target device using the first startup method, and in a case in which the modifications have been made to the vehicle on-board network system, the processing circuitry is configured to: identify one of the bus networks that has been affected by the modifications; and reselect the startup method for another target device that operates during execution of the function using the target device connected to the bus network that has been affected by the modifications.”
Honner Paragraph [0027] discloses selecting startup methods based on contextual information, such an arrangement would be reperformed should contextual information change.
With regards to Claim 12, Honner in view of Arai in view of Hirano discloses or suggests all of the limitations of Claim 10 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein in a case in which the modifications have been made to the vehicle on-board network system, the processing circuitry is configured to: identify a target device that has been affected by the modifications; and reselect the startup method for another target device that operates during execution of the function using the target device that has been affected by the modifications.”
Honner Paragraph [0027] discloses selecting startup methods based on contextual information, such an arrangement would be reperformed should contextual information change.
With regards to Claim 13, Honner in view of Arai in view of Hirano discloses or suggests all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the modifications made to the vehicle on-board network system include an increase or decrease in the number of the devices connected to the vehicle on-board network system.”
Honner discloses an arbitrary network in which networked devices can be modified in any arbitrary manner.
With regards to Claim 14, Honner in view of Arai in view of Hirano discloses or suggests all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the modifications made to the vehicle on-board network system include a software update in a vehicle that includes the vehicle on-board network system.”
Honner discloses an arbitrary network in which changes can be made an any arbitrary manner.
With regards to Claim 15, Honner in view of Arai in view of Hirano discloses or suggests all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the modifications made to the vehicle on-board network system include rearrangement of the devices connected to the vehicle on-board network system.”
Honner discloses an arbitrary network in which networked devices can be modified in any arbitrary manner.
As per Claim 16: this claim is substantially similar to Claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
As per Claim 17: this claim is substantially similar to Claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honner in view of Arai in view of Hirano in view of Zhang (US 2010/0198910). Zhang is analogous to the other references as it is also related to networked devices and powering said devices (See Paragraph [0001]).
With regards to Claim 6, Honner in view of Arai in view of Hirano discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 but does not disclose the following limitation that Zhang suggests:
“wherein the processing circuitry is configured to obtain, as the information, data related to the number of target devices that operated along with the execution of the predetermined function.”
Zhang Paragraph [0013] suggests identifying the number of devices in a network at startup.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Honner in view of Arai in view of Zhang with the identification of the number of devices in a network disclosed by Zhang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by identifying a number of associated devices.
With regards to Claim 7, Honner in view of Arai in view of Hirano in view of Zhang discloses all of the limitations of Claim 6 and further suggests the following limitations:
“wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: when the number of the target devices that operated along with the execution of the predetermined function is greater than or equal to a specified number of devices, select the first startup method; and when the number of the target devices that operated along with the execution of the predetermined function is less than the specified number of devices, select the second startup method.”
Zhang Paragraph [0013] suggests identifying the number of devices in a network at startup for the purposes of power management.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Honner in view of Arai in view of Zhang with the identification of the number of devices in a network disclosed by Zhang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by identifying a number of associated devices.
Relevant References
Kawanishi (US 5,629,941)
Related to multiplex transmission systems.
Lebeau (US 2023/0096943)
Related to an electricity distribution system for networked devices.
Hirano (US 2022/0055556)
Related to in-vehicle network systems.
Tokunaga (US 2021/0258186)
Related to a communication network.
Xiong (US 2020/0358882)
Related to device networking activation methods.
Doring (US 2013/0275784)
Related to operation of a vehicle network.
Balbierer (US 2012/0320793)
Related to activated network component of a network system.
Diab (US 2012/0173905)
Related to power distribution and management system in a vehicle network.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Godfrey Maciorowski, whose telephone number is (571) 272-4652. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:30am to 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 examiner by telephone are unsuccessful the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Worden can be reached on (571) 272-4876. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GODFREY ALEKSANDER MACIOROWSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658