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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/06/2025 and 03/13/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
Claims 1-8 are pending for examination in this Office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8 are objected to because of the following informalities: the order of the words [in claims 1, 6-8], “a first logical path among the plurality of logical paths is realized by a plurality of transmission paths”, “a second logical path among the plurality of logical paths is realized by a plurality of transmission paths”, does not make sense. Appropriate correction is required by replacing “by” with “as”. The dependent claims 2-5 are objected to for being dependent on objected base claim.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
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 state acquisition unit configured to acquire”, “an allocation unit configured to change allocation”, in claim 1; “a storage unit configured to store” in claim 2; “a configuration information acquisition unit acquires”, “the allocation unit determines” in claim 3; “the configuration information acquisition unit acquires”, “the allocation unit determines” in claim 4; “the allocation unit allocates” in claim 5, “a configuration information acquisition unit configured to acquire configuration” in claim 3; and “a management device…changing allocation” in claim 6.
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.
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 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).
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 state information acquisition unit configured 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
an allocation unit configured to 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 acquired by the state information acquisition unit (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 314 [among a plurality of paths, i.e., 314 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., 314 and 316], see e.g. para. [0034] and FIG. 3, realized as a second physical path), 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 are different from each other; 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.
As per claim 2, the management device according to claim 1 as taught by Inoue and Vasudevan, further comprising a storage unit configured to store an allocation pattern of the transmission band of each logical path for each state of the vehicle, wherein the allocation unit determines 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 and Vasudevan, further comprising a configuration information acquisition unit configured to acquire configuration information regarding a configuration of the in-vehicle network, wherein the allocation unit determines an allocation content of the transmission band of each logical path between the function units on the basis of the configuration 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 (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 and Vasudevan, wherein in accordance with transition of the state of the vehicle, the configuration information acquisition unit acquires, as the configuration information, necessary band information indicating a band necessary for communication between the function units, for each state of the vehicle, and the allocation unit determines 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 and Vasudevan, wherein the allocation unit allocates 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.
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:
a state information acquisition unit configured to acquire state information indicating a state of the vehicle; and
processing circuitry configured to: acquire state information indicating a state of the vehicle; and
an allocation unit configured to 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 acquired by the state information acquisition unit,
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, further comprising a storage unit configured to store an allocation pattern of the transmission band of each logical path for each state of the vehicle, wherein the allocation unit determines 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, further comprising a configuration information acquisition unit configured to acquire configuration information regarding a configuration of the in-vehicle network, wherein the allocation unit determines an allocation content of the transmission band of each logical path between the function units on the basis of the configuration 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.
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 in accordance with transition of the state of the vehicle, the configuration information acquisition unit acquires, as the configuration information, necessary band information indicating a band necessary for communication between the function units, for each state of the vehicle, and the allocation unit determines 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 allocation unit allocates 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 “a state information acquisition unit configured to acquire” and “an allocation unit configured to change allocation” are done by “a processing circuity”. However, the disclosed “processing circuitry” is not patentably distinct from the claimed “a state information acquisition unit” and “an allocation unit” of the instant application because the processing circuitry is configured to acquire configuration information as well as allocate a transmission band. Regarding “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. Therefore, the claimed invention of claim 1 is not patentably different from claim 1 of disclosed patent. Dependent claims 2-5 are also not patentable 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.
Conclusion
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