DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 4, 7, 19, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 line 2 reads “further” and should read “is further
Claim 4 line 1 reads “wherein further comprising” and should read “further comprising”
Claim 7 line 1 and claim 19 line 1 both read “the processor further configured to” and should read “wherein the processor is further configured to”
Claim 20 reads “further configured to” and should read “is further configured to.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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, lines 16-17 recite the limitation “wherein the electronic control unit comprises a first functional safety level greater than or equal to a functional safety compliance threshold.”
It is unclear what it means for a device to comprise a first functional safety level, as the device is a physical entity and (as best understood by the examiner) incapable of making up a safety level, best understood by the examiner to be an abstract concept (e.g. the Automotive Safety Integrity Level system as defined by automotive functional safety standard ISO 26262).
For examination purposes “wherein the electronic control unit comprises a first functional safety level greater than or equal to a functional safety compliance threshold” will be read as “wherein the electronic control unit is engineered to operate reliably at a determined functional safety level.” Support for this interpretation may be found within applicant’s specification, paragraph [0058].
Claims 2, 4-6, 11, 14, and 17-18 recite similar limitations regarding comprising a safety level, and are similarly rejected and read. Please review and amend the claims as necessary.
Claims 2-10 are rejected due to dependency from claims 1.
Claims 12-16 are rejected due to dependency from claim 11.
Claims 18-20 are rejected due to dependency from claims 17.
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 1, 5-6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torii et al (hereinafter Torii), US Patent No. 4,389,639, in view of Dochow et al (hereinafter Dochow), US-PG-PUB No. 2022/0342961 and Diehl, US-PG-PUB No. 2025/0297500.
Regarding claim 1, Torii teaches an electronic control unit (ECU) for (Shown in Fig. 1, voice warning device (5)) a vehicle (Col. 4, lines 1-2) comprising: an audio network interface configured to receive an audio input signal (Shown in Fig. 1, device (5) interfaces with entertainment sound production system (1) to receive an audio signal (4d), networking the two elements, further detailed in Col. 2, lines 42-49); a vehicle network interface (A/D converter (7)) configured to receive one or more vehicle signals (Signals (6a-6c) indicate various operational conditions of the vehicle…..Col. 4, lines 22-24); a non-transitory memory (ROM (9)) storing instructions (A microcomputer of the unit operates according to stored instructions of the ROM…..Col. 4, lines 38-42); and a processor (Microcomputer (8)) communicably coupled to the audio network interface (The microcomputer outputs audio out of amp (11) back to the sound production system (1)), the vehicle network interface (The microcomputer receives the inputs from A/D converter (7)), and the non-transitory memory (Col. 4, lines 38-42), the processor, when executing the instructions, configured to: receive the one or more vehicle signals (The microcomputer makes decisions based on vehicle inputs received…..Col. 4, lines 54-56); generate a notification in response to the one or more vehicle signals (The computer synthesizes an audio signal representing a fault state indicated by the signals…..Col. 4, line 67 – Col. 5, line 3); select between the notification and the audio input signal (Switch (12) is controlled by the processor to select audio output…..Col. 5, lines 9-12) to produce an output signal (Signal is output from 13a-b); transmit, via the audio network interface (The signal output from 13a-b is received back at sound production system (1) via the interface), the audio output signal to the entertainment sound production system (1); and play the audio output signal via a speaker (3d),
wherein the electronic control unit may monitor safety-related vehicle signals such as car door states (Col. 1, lines 33-34).
Torii fails to teach:
Wherein the audio input signal is received at the processor of the ECU, instead receiving it at a switch.
Wherein the audio signals are mixed, instead teaching where one is selected over the other.
Wherein the audio output signal is output to an amplifier, instead teaching wherein pre-amplified signals are output directly to a speaker.
Wherein the electronic control unit is engineered to operate reliably at a determined functional safety level, instead only teaching which vehicle signals may be monitored (including car door signals).
Dochow teaches an audio alert system for a vehicle wherein an adder (Shown in Fig. 1, an adder receives signals (S) and L(M), analogous to the switch of Torii.....¶[0050], lines 2-8) mixes a notification (Warning signal (S).....¶[0050], line 3) and the audio input signal (Music signal (M).....¶[0050], lines 1-2) to produce a mixed audio output signal (The signals are added to form mixed audio output signal (Y).....¶[0050], lines 1-2); then transmits the mixed audio output signal to an amplifier, interfaced with computing process (B1), thus networking with it (¶[0050], lines 9-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Torii by Dochow for the benefit of implementation using inexpensive components (Dochow, ¶[0040], lines 26-28). Such modification would make obvious the features wherein the wherein the audio input signal is received at the processor to be mixed with the notification to produce a mixed audio output signal; to be transmitted via the audio network interface, the mixed audio output signal to an amplifier.
This combination still fails to teach engineering at a specified functional safety level.
Diehl teaches wherein devices for monitoring car door states (analogous to the ECU of Torii) may be engineered to operate reliably at a determined functional safety level (Such devices may be designed at ASIL-B, a functional safety level defined by ISO-26262.....¶[0012], lines 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Torii and Dochow by Diehl to provide the benefit of a higher functional safety level of dependent systems in the same vehicle (Diehl, ¶[0012]). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the electronic control unit is engineered to operate reliably at a determined functional safety level.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Torii, Dochow, and Diehl, as explained above, teach the electronic control unit of claim 1.
Dochow additionally teaches wherein an amplifier may be engineered to operate reliably at a determined functional safety level lower than a functional safety compliance threshold (The typical audio entertainment system components (including amplifiers) used to present warnings (analogous to the notifications of Torii) need not be certified above ASIL QM level (below ASIL A, the minimum safety level).....¶[0040], lines 19-26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Torii, Dochow, and Diehl further by Dochow to provide the benefit of implementation using inexpensive components (Dochow, ¶[0040], lines 26-28). Such modification would make obvious the feature wherein an amplifier may be engineered to operate reliably at a determined functional safety level lower than a functional safety compliance threshold.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Torii, Dochow, and Diehl, as explained above, teach the electronic control unit of claim 1.
Dochow additionally teaches wherein a speaker may be engineered to operate reliably at a determined functional safety level lower than a functional safety compliance threshold (The typical audio entertainment system components (including speakers) used to present warnings (analogous to the notifications of Torii) need not be certified above ASIL QM level (below ASIL A, the minimum safety level).....¶[0040], lines 19-26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Torii, Dochow, and Diehl further by Dochow to provide the benefit of implementation using inexpensive components (Dochow, ¶[0040], lines 26-28). Such modification would make obvious the feature wherein a speaker may be engineered to operate reliably at a determined functional safety level lower than a functional safety compliance threshold.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Torii, Dochow, and Diehl, as explained above, teach the electronic control unit of claim 1.
Torii additionally teaches wherein the notification comprises an audio signal (Voice (audio) warning signals…..Col. 4, lines 25-26).
Claims 2, 4, 9-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torii, Dochow, and Diehl as applied to claim 1 above (claim 8 in the case of claim 9), and further in view of Ditty et al (hereinafter Ditty), US-PG-PUB No. 2019/0258251.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Torii, Dochow, and Diehl, as explained above, teach the electronic control unit of claim 1, but fail to explicitly teach wherein the audio network interface, the vehicle network interface, the non-transitory memory, and the processor are engineered to operate reliably at a determined functional safety level.
Ditty teaches wherein an ADAS system (analogous to the ECU as taught in the rejection of claim 1) is engineered to operate reliably at a determined functional safety level (¶[0317], lines 22-23), and wherein the components required for enablement of the system (analogous to the electronic control unit, audio network interface, the vehicle network interface, the non-transitory memory, and the processor) are additionally engineered to operate reliably at a determined functional safety level (¶[0317], lines 23-27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Torii, Dochow, and Diehl by Ditty to provide the respective benefits of a functional safety level required for autonomous vehicles (Ditty, ¶[0016], lines 1-2). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the electronic control unit is engineered to operate reliably at a determined functional safety level, and wherein the audio network interface, the vehicle network interface, the non-transitory memory, and the processor are engineered to operate reliably at a determined functional safety level.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Torii, Dochow, and Diehl, as explained above, teach the electronic control unit of claim 1.
Torii additionally teaches a power tree (as the device is electronic, it inherently receives electric power from a supply (a power tree)).
This further combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the power tree is engineered to operate reliably at a determined functional safety level.
Ditty teaches wherein an ADAS system (analogous to the ECU as taught in the rejection of claim 1) is engineered to operate reliably at a determined functional safety level (¶[0317], lines 22-23), and wherein the components required for enablement of the system (analogous to the power tree) are additionally engineered to operate reliably at a determined functional safety level (¶[0317], lines 23-27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Torii, Dochow, and Diehl by Ditty to provide the respective benefits of a functional safety level required for autonomous vehicles (Ditty, ¶[0016], lines 1-2). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the power tree is engineered to operate reliably at a determined functional safety level.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Torii, Dochow, and Diehl, as explained above, teach the electronic control unit of claim 8, but fail to teach wherein the notification further comprises one or both of a feedback vibration and a lighting adjustment.
Ditty teaches an ADAS system wherein a control unit (Analogous to the ECU of Torii) is configured to, in response to a hazard (¶[0339], lines 4-8), provide a notification comprising audio and feedback vibration (ADAS provides audible and seat vibration notifications…..¶[0026], lines 1-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Torii, Dochow, and Diehl by Ditty to provide the respective benefits of a functional safety level required for autonomous vehicles (Ditty, ¶[0016], lines 1-2). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the notification further comprises one or both of a feedback vibration and a lighting adjustment.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Torii, Dochow, and Diehl, as explained above, teach the electronic control unit of claim 1, but fail to explicitly teach wherein the one or more vehicle signals comprise one or more advanced driver-assistance system (ADAS) signals
Ditty teaches, as shown in Fig. 27, an ADAS system wherein control unit (600, analogous to the ECU of Torii) receives one or more advanced driver-assistance system (ADAS) signals (ADAS systems (201) output signals to control unit (600)), the one or more ADAS signals generated in response to ADAS detection of a vehicle operating condition operating outside of a threshold range (Signals from the ADAS are generated and sent to the control unit in response to ADAS sensors detecting operating conditions that fail to meet a threshold of safety.....¶[0339], lines 1-8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Torii, Dochow, and Diehl by Ditty to provide the respective benefits of a functional safety level required for autonomous vehicles (Ditty, ¶[0016], lines 1-2). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the one or more vehicle signals comprise one or more advanced driver-assistance system (ADAS) signals, the one or more ADAS signals generated in response to ADAS detection of a vehicle operating condition operating outside of a threshold range.
Regarding claim 11, the majority of the functional limitations recited are the same as that of claim 1, and are taught, as explained above, by the combination of Torii, Dochow, and Diehl.
Regarding the additional limitations, Torii additionally teaches wherein the audio input signal is received from a head unit (Shown in Fig. 1, entertainment sound source (2) is a head unit…..Col. 4, lines 5-12).
This combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the vehicle signals are received from an ADAS system.
Ditty teaches, as shown in Fig. 27, an ADAS system wherein control unit (600, analogous to the ECU of Torii) receives one or more advanced driver-assistance system (ADAS) signals (ADAS systems (201) output signals to control unit (600)), the one or more ADAS signals generated in response to ADAS detection of a vehicle operating condition operating outside of a threshold range (Signals from the ADAS are generated and sent to the control unit in response to ADAS sensors detecting operating conditions that fail to meet a threshold of safety.....¶[0339], lines 1-8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Torii, Dochow, and Diehl by Ditty to provide the respective benefits of a functional safety level required for autonomous vehicles (Ditty, ¶[0016], lines 1-2). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the one or more vehicle signals are received via an ADAS system.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Torii, Dochow, Diehl, and Ditty as explained above, teach the method of claim 11, but fail to teach monitoring the audio system components; confirming transmission of the audio signals; and in response to an indication of transmission fault, executing fault mitigation.
Dochow additionally teaches a functionally safe audio system for monitoring a head unit (Computing process (B1) receives a music signal (M) which is received from, based on circumstantial evidence of the disclosure (namely the direction of the disclosure towards vehicle entertainment systems), an entertainment system (head unit) of a vehicle.....¶[0049], lines 10-11, ¶[0006], lines 11-12), an amplifier (Shown in Fig. 1, (V)), and an audio network (The audio system provides signals to and from complex node (B), which receives, generates, mixes, and sends acoustic signals via an audio network) status (The statuses of all previously mentioned components are monitored and verified to be functional via the functions hereinafter described in the rejection of this claim); confirming transmission of both of an audio input signal (A signal processor evaluates if the audio input signal (M) is sufficiently loud (successfully transmitted).....¶[0052], lines 1-3) and the mixed audio output signal (Shown in Fig. 1, a first code A1 is mixed with audio input signal M by means of a digitally encoded watermark, which is in turn output from loudspeaker LS. Acoustic signal Z1 is received and processed to extract the watermark, providing second code A2, which is validated by processor (H) to confirm transmission of the correct code in the mixed audio signal.....¶[0050], lines 28-36); in response to an indication of transmission fault, generating a fault message (The system indicates faults to the driver.....¶[0052], 18-22); and, executing fault mitigation (If a fault is detected within the audio system, an alternate acoustic output (ADAS speaker) may be used.....¶[0052], lines 18-22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Torii, Dochow, Diehl, and Ditty further by Dochow to provide the benefit of implementation using inexpensive components (Dochow, ¶[0040], lines 26-28). Such modification would make obvious the features wherein the method further monitoring the head unit, the amplifier, and audio network status; confirming transmission of both of the audio input signal and the mixed audio output signal; in response to an indication of transmission fault, generating a fault message; and, executing fault mitigation.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Torii, Dochow, Diehl, and Ditty as explained above, teach the method of claim 12.
Dochow additionally teaches wherein fault mitigation comprises playing a notification via an ADAS speaker (If a fault is detected within the audio system, an alternate acoustic output (ADAS speaker) may be used.....¶[0052], lines 18-22), and generating a notification via an infotainment system (A visual display (infotainment system) may be used to display the fault notification.....¶[0052], lines 18-22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Torii, Dochow, Diehl, and Ditty further by Dochow to provide the benefit of implementation using inexpensive components (Dochow, ¶[0040], lines 26-28). Such modification would make obvious the features wherein fault mitigation comprises one or more of displaying the notification via an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) meter, playing the notification via an ADAS speaker, and generating the notification via an infotainment system.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Torii, Dochow, Diehl, and Ditty as explained above, teach the method of claim 11.
Dochow additionally teaches wherein an amplifier may be engineered to operate reliably at a determined functional safety level lower than a functional safety compliance threshold (The typical audio entertainment system components (including amplifiers) used to present warnings (analogous to the notifications of Torii) need not be certified above ASIL QM level (below ASIL A, the minimum safety level).....¶[0040], lines 19-26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Torii, Dochow, Diehl, and Ditty further by Dochow to provide the benefit of implementation using inexpensive components (Dochow, ¶[0040], lines 26-28). Such modification would make obvious the feature wherein an amplifier may be engineered to operate reliably at a determined functional safety level lower than a functional safety compliance threshold.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Torii, Dochow, Diehl, and Ditty as explained above, teach the method of claim 11.
Torii additionally teaches wherein the notification comprises an audio signal (Voice (audio) warning signals…..Col. 4, lines 25-26).
Ditty additionally teaches an ADAS system wherein a control unit (Analogous to the ECU of Torii) is configured to, in response to a hazard (¶[0339], lines 4-8), provide a notification comprising audio and feedback vibration (ADAS provides audible and seat vibration notifications…..¶[0026], lines 1-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Torii, Dochow, Diehl, and Ditty further by Ditty to provide the respective benefits of a functional safety level required for autonomous vehicles (Ditty, ¶[0016], lines 1-2). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the notification further comprises one or both of a feedback vibration and a lighting adjustment.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torii, Dochow, and Diehl as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Iwagami et al (hereinafter Iwagami), US-PG-PUB No. 2014/0365839.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Torii, Dochow, and Diehl, as explained above, teach the electronic control unit of claim 1 but fail to explicitly teach wherein the processor is further configured to execute any sort of diagnostic functions.
Iwagami teaches an electronic control unit for a vehicle (¶[0002], lines 1-3) wherein the processor (Microprocessor.....¶[0012], lines 1-3) of the electronic control unit is configured to execute one or more of power on reset (¶[0039], lines 7-8), cyclical redundancy check (¶[0069], lines 4-6), windowed watchdog timer (¶[0039], lines 1-3), and a hardware module self-test (¶[0010], lines 6-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Torii, Dochow, and Diehl by Iwagami to provide the benefit wherein a control unit is more reliable (Iwagami, ¶[0014], lines 27-28). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the processor is further configured to execute cyclical redundancy checks.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torii, Dochow, and Diehl as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Okamoto, US-PG-PUB No. 2003/0153993.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Torii, Dochow, and Diehl, as explained above, teach the electronic control unit of claim 1.
Torii additionally teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: transmit, via an audio output channel, an audio output signal (now the mixed audio signal as taught in the rejection of claim 1) to a non-boosted integrated converter (Shown in Fig. 1, audio output from (a channel of) processor (8) is received at non-boosted digital to analog converter (10) which is integrated into device (5)…..Col. 5, lines 3-6).
This further combination fails to teach wherein the mixed audio output is transmitted, via the audio network interface, to a head unit.
Okamoto teaches wherein analog audio signals from electronic devices (analogous to the ECU of Torii) may be transmitted to a head unit (¶[0068], lines 13-19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Torii, Dochow, and Diehl by Okamoto to provide the benefit of wherein the head unit need not have a dedicated circuitry for decoding digital audio (Okamoto, ¶[0009]). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the mixed audio output is transmitted, via the audio network interface, to a head unit.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torii, Dochow, Diehl, and Ditty as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Okamoto.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Torii, Dochow, Diehl, and Ditty as explained above, teach the electronic control unit of claim 11.
Torii additionally teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: transmit, via an audio output channel, an audio output signal (now the mixed audio signal as taught in the rejection of claim 11) to a non-boosted integrated converter (Shown in Fig. 1, audio output from (a channel of) processor (8) is received at non-boosted digital to analog converter (10) which is integrated into device (5)…..Col. 5, lines 3-6), and wherein the head unit may be communicatively coupled to an amplifier (Col. 4, lines 5-10).
This further combination fails to teach wherein the mixed audio output is transmitted, via the audio network interface, to the head unit.
Okamoto teaches wherein analog audio signals from electronic devices (analogous to the ECU of Torii) may be transmitted to a head unit (¶[0068], lines 13-19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Torii, Dochow, Diehl, and Ditty by Okamoto to provide the benefit of wherein the head unit need not have a dedicated circuitry for decoding digital audio (Okamoto, ¶[0009]), and wherein manufacturing costs may be saved by reducing the number of amplifiers in the system. Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the mixed audio output is transmitted, via the audio network interface, to a head unit, and wherein the amplifier would be communicatively coupled downstream of the head unit, rather than the converter of the electronic control unit.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dadam, US Patent No. 11,708,084 in view of Eggers et al (hereinafter Eggers), US Patent No. 5,692,058, and Ditty.
Regarding claim 17, Dadam teaches a system for a vehicle (Shown in Fig. 1A, a system implemented in vehicle (102)), comprising:
a head unit (A main audio source (AM/FM radio/CD) for providing entertainment audio to an entertainment system.....Col. 3, lines 38-40);
an amplifier (The entertainment system communicates with an amplifier output which boosts a mixed signal for speaker playback…..Col. 3, lines 51-52);
a speaker (Speakers of the entertainment system (114)…..Col. 3, lines 47-50);
an advanced driver-assistance system (ADAS) (advanced driver assistance technology (ADAT) system (110)); and
an electronic control unit (Elements of the system comprising the ADAT Controller (138), and a mixer of the entertainment system’s amplifier module…..Col. 3, lines 38-40) communicably coupled to the head unit (The mixer of the entertainment receives AM/FM/CD audio from the head unit.....Col. 3, lines 38-40), the amplifier (The mixer outputs mixed audio to the amplifier output…..Col. 3, lines 50-52), the speaker (via the amplifier…..Col. 3, lines 52-54), and the ADAS (The ADAT (ADAS) controller communicates with the ADAS system), the electronic control unit comprising:
an audio network interface (The ADAT controller and entertainment system interface with the audio components of the entertainment system and other systems, forming a network between them.....Col. 4, lines 1-3) configured to receive an audio input signal from the head unit (The head unit inputs an (AM/FM/CD) audio signal to the mixer of the entertainment system.....Col. 3, lines 38-40);
a vehicle network interface (The ADAT system interfaces with a network of vehicle sensors, passing the inputs along to the ADAT controller.....Col. 3, lines 56-57) configured to receive one or more vehicle signals (ADAT sensors provide image, radar, and motion information from the vehicle…..Col. 58-59) from the ADAS;
a non-transitory memory storing instructions (The methods of the system are implemented via processor(s) and memory…..Col. 8, lines 19-23); and a processor (Col. 8, lines 19-23) communicably coupled to the audio network interface (The processor(s) perform the signal routing of the system, requiring communication with the network interfaces…..Col. 9, lines 40-43), the vehicle network interface (Col. 9, lines 40-43), and the non-transitory memory (Col. 8, lines 19-23), the processor, when executing the instructions, configured to:
receive the one or more vehicle signals (Sensors provide image, radar, and motion information from the vehicle to the ADAT controller…..Col. 58-59);
generate a notification (The ADAT controller can generate audible warnings (notifications)…..Col. 4, lines 1-2) in response to the one or more vehicle signals (The warnings are responsive to inputs from the sensors (vehicle signals)…..Col. 3, lines 58-64);
mix the notification and the audio input signal (As the audio input signal and notification are both output via the speakers of the entertainment system, they are considered to be mixed in the entertainment system…..Col. 4, lines 57-59, Col. 3, lines 38-41) to produce a mixed audio output signal (As the entertainment receives multiple sources and directs them out to speakers, the audio outputs from the entertainment system are mixed audio signals…..Col. 3, lines 38-41); transmit the mixed audio output signal to the amplifier (Audio is output from the amplifier after passing through the mixing unit…..Col. 3, lines 48-50); and play, via the speaker, the mixed audio output signal (Audio output from the amplifier is played by speakers…..Col. 3, lines 48-50).
Dadam fails to explicitly teach the following:
Wherein the audio input signal is received from the head unit via an amplifier, instead teaching where it is received directly from the head unit.
Wherein the electronic control unit is engineered to operate reliably at a determined functional safety level, and wherein the audio network interface, the vehicle network interface, the non-transitory memory, and the processor are engineered to operate reliably at a determined functional safety level.
Eggers teaches, as shown in Fig. 4 wherein multiple audio signals ((32a-32e) analogous to the audio input signal and notification signal of Dadam) may be received at an amplifier (comprised of preamps (52), (53) and power amplifier (55)), forwarded to a mixer (54) (analogous to the mixer of the electronic control unit of Dadam) to create a mixed audio output signal, wherein the mixed audio output signal is transmitted back to the amplifier (at power amplifier (55)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dadan by Eggers to provide the respective benefits of an audio interface to provide selective muting of audio not considered a priority audio (such as ADAS warnings) (Eggers, Col. 4, lines 57-58). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the audio input signal is received from the head unit via an amplifier.
Ditty teaches wherein an ADAS system is engineered to operate reliably at a determined functional safety level (¶[0317], lines 22-23), and wherein the components required for enablement of the system (analogous to the electronic control unit, audio network interface, the vehicle network interface, the non-transitory memory, and the processor) are additionally engineered to operate reliably at a determined functional safety level (¶[0317], lines 23-27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dadan and Eggers by Ditty to provide the respective benefits of a functional safety level required for autonomous vehicles (Ditty, ¶[0016], lines 1-2). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the electronic control unit is engineered to operate reliably at a determined functional safety level, and wherein the audio network interface, the vehicle network interface, the non-transitory memory, and the processor are engineered to operate reliably at a determined functional safety level.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dadam, Eggers, and Ditty as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Dochow.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Dadam, Eggers, and Ditty, as explained above, teach the system of claim 17 but fail to teach wherein one or both of the amplifier and the speaker comprise a second functional safety level less than the functional safety compliance threshold.
Dochow additionally teaches wherein an amplifier may be engineered to operate reliably at a determined functional safety level lower than a functional safety compliance threshold (The typical audio entertainment system components (including amplifiers) used to present warnings (analogous to the notifications of Torii) need not be certified above ASIL QM level (below ASIL A, the minimum safety level).....¶[0040], lines 19-26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dadam, Eggers, and Ditty by Dochow to provide the benefit of implementation using inexpensive components (Dochow, ¶[0040], lines 26-28). Such modification would make obvious the feature wherein an amplifier may be engineered to operate reliably at a determined functional safety level lower than a functional safety compliance threshold.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dadam, Eggers, and Ditty as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Torii and Okamoto.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Dadam, Eggers, and Ditty, as explained above, teach the system of claim 17 but fail to teach transmitting, via an audio output channel, the mixed audio output signal to an integrated converter; and, transmitting the mixed audio output signal to the head unit.
Torii teaches a processor (Processor (8) of Fig. 1, analogous to the processor of ) configured to: transmit, via an audio output channel, an audio output signal (analogous to the mixed audio signal of Dadan) to a non-boosted integrated converter (Shown in Fig. 1, audio output from (an audio output channel of) processor (8) is received at non-boosted digital to analog converter (10) which is integrated into the same device (5) as processor (8)…..Col. 5, lines 3-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dadan, Eggers, and Ditty, by Torii, to provide the benefit of wherein the head unit need not have a dedicated circuitry for decoding digital audio (Supported by Okamoto, ¶[0009]). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the mixed audio output signal is transmitted, via an audio output channel, to a non-boosted integrated converter.
This further combination fails to teach wherein the mixed audio output is transmitted, via the audio network interface, to a head unit.
Okamoto teaches wherein analog audio signals from electronic devices (analogous to the ECU of Torii) may be transmitted to a head unit prior to audio playback (¶[0068], lines 13-19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dadan, Eggers, Ditty, and Torii, by Okamoto to provide the benefit of wherein the head unit need not have a dedicated circuitry for decoding digital audio (Okamoto, ¶[0009]). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the mixed audio output signal is transmitted, via the audio network interface, to the head unit.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dadam, Eggers, and Ditty as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Iwagami.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Dadam, Eggers, and Ditty, as explained above, teach the system of claim 17 but fail to teach wherein the processor is further configured to execute any sort of diagnostic functions.
Iwagami teaches an electronic control unit for a vehicle (¶[0002], lines 1-3) wherein the processor (Microprocessor.....¶[0012], lines 1-3) of the electronic control unit is configured to execute one or more of power on reset (¶[0039], lines 7-8), cyclical redundancy check (¶[0069], lines 4-6), windowed watchdog timer (¶[0039], lines 1-3), and a hardware module self-test (¶[0010], lines 6-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dadam, Eggers, and Ditty by Iwagami to provide the benefit wherein a control unit is more reliable (Iwagami, ¶[0014], lines 27-28). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein the processor is further configured to execute cyclical redundancy checks.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kobayashi et al, US-PG-PUB No. 2007/0230716 teaches a method of mixing entertainment audio with vehicle safety notifications.
Nakamura, US Patent No. 7,561,703 teaches a method of a car audio processor to reproduce both entertainment and high priority audio notifications.
Doughty et al, US-PG-PUB No. 2015/0051787 teaches communications between an automotive control unit, user device, and head unit.
Zhou et al, US Patent No. 10,012,691 teaches a method of monitoring an audio output system for faults.
Paepcke, US Patent No. 10,205,428 teaches an automotive head unit for providing audible alerts in response to detected conditions and hazards.
Rapeta et al, US Patent No. 11,120,642 teaches a Functional Safety Critical Audio System For Autonomous And Industrial Applications.
Dochow et al, US-PG-PUB No. 2021/0387572 teaches relative volume control (mixing) of an audio input signal and warning signal.
Chavalli et al, US-PG-PUB No. 2025/0217219 teaches management of safety critical audio infrastructure for vehicles.
Hong et al, US-PG-PUB No. 2025/0368040 teaches an ASIL-certified audio system.
Chellappan et al, US-PG-PUB No. 2019/0139399 teaches functional safety validation for an audio system used in the playback of combined IVI and safety chime audio.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN M RINEHART whose telephone number is (571)272-2778. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM - 6:00 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, Fan Tsang can be reached on (571) 272-7547. 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.
/SEAN M RINEHART/Examiner, Art Unit 2694
/FAN S TSANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2694
Prosecution Insights