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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 9-20 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons.
Claims 9-20 are directed to one or more distinct invitation from the previously claimed invention and warrants a search and examination burden because they have acquired a separate status in art.
Claims 9-12 are at least directed to a management device, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to specify, among the plurality of logical paths, a maximum logical path being a logical path having a greatest value of minimum values of free bands of the plurality of logical paths, classified in B60J 5/00 and/or H04B10/27.
Claim 13 is directed to a management device, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to change the allocation of the transmission bands by further allocating, to one logical path among the plurality of logical paths, a transmission band having been allocated to another logical path among the plurality of logical paths, classified in H04W 72/044.
Claims 14-15 are at least directed to a management device, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to, when a new function unit has been added to the in-vehicle network, change the allocation of the transmission bands of the plurality of logical paths and of a further logical path between the new function unit and one of the function units, classified in B60W 50/00.
Claims 16 is directed to a management device according to claim 4, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to change the allocation of the transmission bands such that a reservation band of each of the plurality of logical paths is not less than the band indicated by the necessary band information for the logical path, classified in B60W 2756/10.
Claims 17-18 are at least directed to a management device, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to change the allocation of the transmission bands of the plurality of logical paths by changing a shaping rate of a Credit Based Shaper according to an IEEE 802.1 Qav standard or a Time Aware Shaper according to an IEEE 802.1 Qbv standard in the plurality of logical paths, classified in G06K 19/06028.
Claim 19 is directed to a management device, wherein the state information includes engine information indicating that switching of an operation state of an engine of the vehicle has been performed, and the processing circuitry is configured to change the allocation of the transmission bands of the plurality of logical paths in accordance with the engine information, classified in H04W 12/0609.
Claim 20 is directed to an in-vehicle system, wherein at least one function unit among the plurality of function units is configured to: transmit data by using a logical path among the plurality of logical paths after the transmission band of the logical path has been changed in accordance with the band setting information, and return a setting of the transmission band of the logical path to a state before the change upon completion of the transmission of the data, classified in H04Q 3/00.
Since the applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention [claims 1-8], this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 9-20 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
Claim Status
Claims 9-20 are withdrawn, therefore claims 1-8 are pending for examination in this Office action.
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue (Inoue; JP 2010173366) in view of Vasudevan (Vasudevan; US 2017/0289036) and further in view of Bello et al. (Bello; US Patent No. 10,812,397).
As per claim 1, Inoue teaches a management device to be used in an in-vehicle network including a plurality of function units that are installed in a vehicle and that are connected to each other via a relay device (one or more devices connected to each other via a network and one or more relay devices; see e.g. FIGS. 2, 3 and 5), the management device comprising:
a processing circuitry to
acquire state information indicating a state of the vehicle (a network-band management unit 14 that takes an input consisting of state managing information indicating state of the vehicle, i.e. speed, acceleration, engine speed, gear position etc. and input comprising driving operation information indicating a state associated with an operation performed by a driver; see e.g. para. [0022-0023]); and
change allocation of transmission bands of a plurality of logical paths in accordance with the state of the vehicle indicated by the state information (allocating a communication band to be used by in-network vehicle 9 by the same network band managing unit based on a safety level which depends at least in part on the vehicle state information as discussed [i.e. speed information and the driving operation information]; see e.g. para. [0020-24]).
Inoue does not explicitly teach a first logical path among the plurality of logical paths is realized by a first physical transmission path, a second logical path among the plurality of logical paths is realized by a second physical transmission path, and the first physical transmission path and the second physical transmission path include physical transmission paths that are different from each other.
Vasudevan, however, teaches a first logical path among the plurality of logical paths is realized by a first physical transmission path (a first logical path 318 [among a plurality of paths, i.e., link 318 and a separate path comprising 314, NIC 306, logic switch 304, NIC 310 and 316], see e.g. FIG. 3 and para. [0034], realized as a first physical path), a second logical path among the plurality of logical paths is realized by a second physical transmission path (a second logical path [among a plurality of paths, i.e., a path comprising link 314, NIC 306, logic switch 304, NIC 310 and 316 and path 318], see e.g. para. [0034] and FIG. 3; link 314 and 316 are two way links as depicted in FIG. 3, wherein a person having ordinary skill in the art would realize a second logical path between the NUMA nodes which includes link 316, logical NIC 306, logical switch 304, logical NIC 310 and logical path 316 in addition to the direct link 318), and the first physical transmission path and the second physical transmission path include physical transmission paths that are different from each other (the first and second logical or physical paths 314, 316 [along with other components] are different from another logical path 318; see e.g. FIG. 3).
Inoue and Vasudevan are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of providing redundancy or improved speeds of communication by utilizing a plurality of transmission paths.
Vasudevan does not explicitly teach to change the allocation of transmission band of a plurality of logical paths between a same pair of the function units among the function units.
Bello, however, teaches change allocation of transmission band of a plurality of logical paths between a same pair of the function units among function units (nodes participate in real-time communication to use rules for selection of the communication paths, see e.g. col. 2, lines 13-18).
Inoue Vasudevan and Bello are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of improved error tolerance or fault tolerance as suggested by Bello.
As per claim 2, the management device according to claim 1 as taught by Inoue Vasudevan and Bello, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: store an allocation pattern of the transmission band of each logical path for each state of the vehicle, and determine an allocation content of the transmission band of each logical path between the function units in accordance with the allocation pattern corresponding to the state of the vehicle (one or more storage medium, see e.g. para. [0021], wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the allocation pattern may be programmed and stored on the storage medium based on network congestion, for example, for the purpose of network improving efficiency in the disclosed system of Inoue and Vasudevan while keeping the whole system operational and/or not affecting safety of the vehicle).
As per claim 3, the management device according to claim 1 as taught by Inoue Vasudevan and Bello, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to acquire configuration information regarding a configuration of the in-vehicle network, and determine an allocation content of the transmission band of each logical path between the function units on the basis of the configuration information and the state of the vehicle indicated by the state information (one or more network configuration on the vehicle network is obtained, i.e. network use bandwidth, see e.g. para. [0025], gear information, see e.g. para. [0023] and so forth, wherein this information along with safety information is used to allocate the band with which needs to be used by each device, see e.g. para. [0048]. Similarly, one or more logical paths of the disclosed system of Vasudevan can be assigned).
As per claim 4, the management device according to claim 3 as taught by Inoue Vasudevan and Bello, wherein the processing circuitry in accordance with transition of the state of the vehicle, acquire, as the configuration information, necessary band information indicating a band necessary for communication between the function units, for each state of the vehicle, and determine an allocation content of the transmission band of each logical path between the function units on the basis of the necessary band information acquired by the configuration information acquisition unit and the state of the vehicle indicated by the state information acquired by the state information acquisition unit (as discussed in analysis of merits of claim 3, to allocate the band with which needs to be used by each device, see e.g. para. [0048], wherein a logical path for the desired communication path is also decided and suggested by Vasudevan, see e.g. para. [0036], wherein it would have been obvious to use a desired logical path with a desired bandwidth information based on safety information, i.e. how fast the communication is desired vs available vehicle resources).
As per claim 5, the management device according to claim 1 as taught by Inoue Vasudevan and Bello, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to allocate a transmission band that is greater than zero, to all of the logical paths (transmission band and logical transmission paths are great than zero, see e.g. FIG. 3 of Vasudevan).
As per claim 6, it is interpreted and rejected as claim 1.
As per claim 7, it is interpreted and rejected as claim 1.
As per claim 8, it is interpreted and rejected as claim 1.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No.12,236,723 in view of Vasudevan.
Instant Application
US Patent No. 12,236,723
1. A management device to be used in an in-vehicle network including a plurality of function units that are installed in a vehicle and that are connected to each other via a relay device, the management device comprising:
1. A management device to be used in an in-vehicle network including a plurality of function units that are installed in a vehicle and that are connected to each other via a relay device, the management device comprising:
acquire state information indicating a state of the vehicle; and
processing circuitry configured to: acquire state information indicating a state of the vehicle; and
change allocation of transmission bands of a plurality of logical paths between a same pair of the function units among the function units in accordance with the state of the vehicle indicated by the state information,
change allocation of transmission bands of a plurality of logical paths in a set of the function units in accordance with the state of the vehicle indicated by the state information
wherein a first logical path among the plurality of logical paths is realized by a first physical transmission path,
wherein a first logical path among the plurality of logical paths is realized by a plurality of transmission paths including a first transmission path and a second transmission path each being a physical transmission path, and
a second logical path among the plurality of logical paths is realized by a second physical transmission path, and
a second logical path among the plurality of logical paths is realized by a plurality of transmission paths including the first transmission path and a third transmission path each being a physical transmission path,
the first physical transmission path and the second physical transmission path include physical transmission paths that are different from each other.
the third transmission path being different from each of the first transmission path and the second transmission path.
2. The management device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry configured to to store an allocation pattern of the transmission band of each logical path for each state of the vehicle and, determine an allocation content of the transmission band of each logical path between the function units in accordance with the allocation pattern corresponding to the state of the vehicle.
2. The management device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: store an allocation pattern of the transmission band of each logical path for each state of the vehicle, and determine an allocation content of the transmission band of each logical path between the function units in accordance with the allocation pattern corresponding to the state of the vehicle.
3. The management device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry configured to acquire configuration information regarding a configuration of the in-vehicle network, and determine an allocation content of the transmission band of each logical path between the function units on the basis of the configuration information and the state of the vehicle indicated by the state information.
3. The management device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: acquire configuration information regarding a configuration of the in-vehicle network, and determine an allocation content of the transmission band of each logical path between the function units on the basis of the configuration information and the state of the vehicle indicated by the state information.
4. The management device according to claim 3, wherein the processing circuitry in accordance with transition of the state of the vehicle, acquire, as the configuration information, necessary band information indicating a band necessary for communication between the function units, for each state of the vehicle, and determine an allocation content of the transmission band of each logical path between the function units on the basis of the necessary band information acquired by the configuration information acquisition unit and the state of the vehicle indicated by the state information acquired by the state information acquisition unit.
4. The management device according to claim 3, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: in accordance with transition of the state of the vehicle, acquire, as the configuration information, necessary band information indicating a band necessary for communication between the function units, for each state of the vehicle, and determine an allocation content of the transmission band of each logical path between the function units on the basis of the necessary band information and the state of the vehicle indicated by the state information.
5. The management device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to allocate a transmission band that is greater than zero, to all of the logical paths.
5. The management device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to allocate a transmission band that is greater than zero to all of the logical paths.
Regarding claim 1, the instant application differs compared to the patent where “the first physical transmission path and the second physical transmission path include physical transmission paths that are different from each other”, the disclosed patent teaches that the third communication path being different from each of the first transmission path and second transmission path. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the first transmission path and second transmission path are also different from each other. In addition, the disclosed patent does not teach that the claimed plurality of logical paths between a same pair of the function units among the function units. Vasudevan, however, teaches a first logical path among the plurality of logical paths as discussed in analysis of merits of claim 1, in preceding section(s).
Therefore, the claimed invention of claim 1 is not patentably different from claim 1 of disclosed patent. Dependent claims 2-5 are also not patentably distinct from the corresponding claims 2-5 of the patent as compared above.
Similarly, claims 6-8 are also rejected as being not patentable distant from claims 6-8 of the disclosed patent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejections do not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In addition, regarding applicant’s argument that the rationale didn’t come from the references themselves, Examiner submits that there is no requirement that the rationale to combine references needs to come directly from the reference(s). Even though the disclosed Inoue teaches a single communication path, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use more than one communication path and selection of a specific communication path as suggested by Vasudevan or Bello for the purpose of fault tolerance, redundancy, speed, etc.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD ADNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3705. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 10AM-6PM.
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, Steven Lim can be reached on 571-270-1210. 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.
/MUHAMMAD ADNAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
