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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-14 are pending in Instant Application.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority benefits of DE10 2022 210 908.2 filed 10/14/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 02/17/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the "same invention" type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that "whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process ... may obtain a patent therefor ..." (Emphasis added). Thus, the term "same invention," in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957); and In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the conflicting claims so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claim1, 11, 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6, 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12278863. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
U.S. Patent 12278863
Instant Application
Analysis
6. A gateway for connection to a host processor and multiple slaves, the gateway and the slaves being organized in a point-to-point (P2P) topology such that the gateway has an independent channel for each of the slaves, the gateway being configured to :receive multiple control signals, each control signal including at least one control signal for a particular predetermined slave from the multiple slaves, from the host processor; determine whether the slaves for which the at least one control signal has been received are in an operational state; and simultaneously output the control signals received from the host processor to the slaves for which the at least one control signal has been received only when all of the slaves for which the at least one control signal has been received are in the operational state, wherein the gateway comprises: a first interface for communication with the host processor by means of a first communication standard; a second interface for communication with the slaves by means of a second communication standard; and a memory connected to the first and/or to the second interface for the purpose of temporarily storing data that are received at the gateway via the first and/or the second interface, wherein the memory is protected by means of an error detection method and/or an error correction method.
1. A gateway for connection to a host processor and multiple slaves, the gateway and the slaves being organized in a point-to-point (P2P) topology such that the gateway has an independent channel for each of the slaves, the gateway being configured to: receive multiple control signals, each control signal including at least one control signal for a particular predetermined slave from the multiple slaves, from the host processor; determine whether the slaves for which the at least one control signal has been received are in an operational state; and simultaneously output the control signals received from the host processor to the slaves for which the at least one control signal has been received only when all of the slaves for which the at least one control signal has been received are in the operational state.
18. A method for operating a gateway for connection to a host processor and multiple slaves, the gateway and the slaves being organized in a point-to-point (P2P) topology such that the gateway has an independent channel for each of the slaves, the gateway being configured to: receive multiple control signals, each control signal including at least one control signal for a particular predetermined slave from the multiple slaves, from the host processor; determine whether the slaves for which the at least one control signal has been received are in an operational state; and simultaneously output the control signals received from the host processor to the slaves for which the at least one control signal has been received only when all of the slaves for which the at least one control signal has been received are in the operational state, wherein the gateway includes: a first interface for communication with the host processor by means of a first communication standard; a second interface for communication with the slaves by means of a second communication standard; and a memory connected to the first and/or to the second interface for the purpose of temporarily storing data that are received at the gateway via the first and/or the second interface, wherein the memory is protected by means of an error detection method and/or an error correction method, the method comprising: receiving multiple control signals, each comprising at least one control signal for a particular predetermined slave from the multiple slaves, at the gateway from the host processor; determining whether the slaves for which the at least one control signal has been received are in an operational state; simultaneously outputting the control signals received from the host processor to the slaves for which the at least one control signal has been received only when all of the slaves for which the at least one control signal has been received are in the operational state; and protecting data received by means of the first and/or the second interface by means of an error detection method and/or an error correction method at the first interface, the second interface and/or the memory.
11. A motor vehicle comprising: the gateway as claimed in claim 1 or ;a system for data processing having the gateway as claimed in claim 1;the host processor, connected to the gateway, that is configured to output the multiple control signals, each comprising the at least one control signal for a particular predetermined slave from the multiple slaves, to the gateway; and the multiple slaves connected to the gateway, the gateway and the slaves being organized in the P2P topology such that the gateway has the independent channel for each of the slaves.
12. A method for operating a gateway as claimed in claim 1, the method comprising: receiving multiple control signals, each comprising at least one control signal for a particular predetermined slave from the multiple slaves, at the gateway from the host processor; determining whether the slaves for which the at least one control signal has been received are in an operational state; and simultaneously outputting the control signals received from the host processor to the slaves for which the at least one control signal has been received only when all of the slaves for which the at least one control signal has been received are in the operational state.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the amendment filed 06/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The reasons are set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al., hereinafter “Kato” (U.S. Patent Application: 20220315025) in view of Millsap et al., hereinafter “Millsap” (U.S. Patent: 6484082).
As per Claim 1, Kato discloses a gateway for connection to a host processor and multiple slaves, the gateway and the slaves being organized in a point-to-point (P2P) topology such that the gateway has an independent channel for each of the slaves (Kato, Para.26, The core ECU 202 includes a gateway function for relaying data communication between the slave ECU 203, the ICB 204, the slave ECU 100a, the slave ECU 100b, the slave ECU 205a, and the slave ECU 205b, and data communication between the communication terminal 50 and each of the ICB 204, the slave ECU 100a, and the slave ECU 100b, Para.20, The core ECU 202, the slave ECU 203, the ICB 204, the slave ECU 100a, the slave ECU 100b, the slave ECU 205a, and the slave ECU 205b are electronic control units for controlling vehicle-mounted devices, Para.22, The core ECU 202 is connected to the TCU 201 via an in-vehicle network 180a. The core ECU 202 and the TCU 201 can communicate with each other via the in-vehicle network 180a. The core ECU 202 is connected to the slave ECU 203 via an in-vehicle network 180b. The core ECU 202 and the slave ECU 203 can communicate with each other via the in-vehicle network 180b. For example, the slave ECU 203 may be an ECU pertaining to an automatic driving system. The core ECU 202 is connected to the ICB 204 via an in-vehicle network 180c. The core ECU 202 and the ICB 204 can communicate with each other via the in-vehicle network 180c.), the gateway being configured to:
receive multiple control signals, each control signal including at least one control signal for a particular predetermined slave from the multiple slaves, from the host processor (Kato, Para.30, The slave ECU 100a transmits a control signal corresponding to an arbitration result to the slave ECU 205a so as to cause the slave ECU 205a to operate the operating unit 150a. The slave ECU 100b transmits a control signal based on an arbitration result to the slave ECU 205b so as to cause the slave ECU 205b to operate the operating unit 150b.);
output the control signals received from the host processor to the slaves for which the at least one control signal has been received only when all of the slaves for which the at least one control signal has been received are in the operational state (Kato, Para.28, When operation requests from a plurality of systems are accepted, the core ECU 202 performs arbitration for the operation requests from the plurality of systems and transmits an arbitration result to at least one of the slave ECUs 100a and 100b. Specifically, the inter-system arbitration unit 102 of the core ECU 202 performs arbitration for the operation requests from the plurality of systems, Para.16, the human-system arbitration unit 120a generates a control signal for making a request to the operating unit 150a for the determined operation, and outputs the same to the exterior-light control unit 140a. Based on the input control signal, the exterior-light control unit 140a outputs a drive signal for operating the operating unit 150a to the operating unit 150a.).
However Kato does not explicitly disclose particular predetermined slave and determine whether the slaves for which the at least one control signal has been received are in an operational state.
Millsap discloses simultaneously output the control signals (Millsap, Col.6, Line:58-65, If, while the seat heating process is being carried out, the driver selects the front right door window switch, the window virtual network 22 is activated with ECU 18 being the master and the other ECUs on that virtual network being the slaves. Thus, ECU 14 would simultaneously be a master for purposes of the seat heating virtual network 23 and a slave for purposes of the window virtual network 22.), particular predetermined slave (Millsap, Col.5, Line:34-40, the control input for the driver's heated seat is to an ECU (the driver control panel ECU 14) that is different than the ECU used to activate the seat warmer (the driver's heated seat ECU 19). Thus, the heated seat virtual network 23 is activated whenever the appropriate switch on the driver's control panel is selected.) and determine whether the slaves for which the at least one control signal has been received are in an operational state (Millsap, Col.6, Line:21-28, The network management of the virtual networks 22-24 uses a messaging protocol over the vehicle bus 12 that permits all ECUs within a particular virtual network to be activated and maintained in an operational state until the associated control task is complete. The activation of the ECUs within a virtual network is typically initiated by one of the ECUs in the virtual network, although other triggers and sources can be used.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Kato with the teachings as in Millsap. The motivation for doing so would have been for provides an on-board vehicle network and method for operating the network which permits an ECU to activate the other ECUs used for a particular vehicle control task without having to know in advance what ECUs are utilized in performing the control task. The network comprises a plurality of on-board vehicle electronic control units (ECUs) connected together via at least one network bus, with the network being arranged into a plurality of virtual networks that each comprise a group of the ECUs that together perform a vehicle control task. Thus, the ECUs that together comprise a first one of the virtual networks are operable together to perform a first control task and are each identified using a first code that is associated with the first virtual network. (Millsap, Col.2, Line: 36-50).
As per Claim 2, Kato in view of Millsap discloses the gateway as claimed in claim 1, wherein the gateway is configured to take information received from the respective slave as a basis for determining whether the respective slave is in the operational state (Millsap, Col.6, Line:21-28, The network management of the virtual networks 22-24 uses a messaging protocol over the vehicle bus 12 that permits all ECUs within a particular virtual network to be activated and maintained in an operational state until the associated control task is complete. The activation of the ECUs within a virtual network is typically initiated by one of the ECUs in the virtual network, although other triggers and sources can be used.).
The same motivation that was utilized for combining Kato, Millsap as set forth in claim 1 is equally applicable to claim 11.
As per Claim 3, Kato in view of Millsap discloses the gateway as claimed in claim 1, wherein the gateway is configured to take information received from the host processor as a basis for determining for which of the slaves from the multiple slaves a respective control signal, from the multiple control signals, received from the host processor is intended (Keto,Para.30, At least one of the core ECU 202, the slave ECU 203, the ICB 204, the slave ECU 100a, and the slave ECU 100b obtains input information of an operation instruction for the operating unit 150 from a human, and performs arbitration for the operation instruction from the human and an arbitration result provided by the core ECU 202 for operation requests from a plurality of systems…The slave ECU 100a transmits a control signal corresponding to an arbitration result to the slave ECU 205a so as to cause the slave ECU 205a to operate the operating unit 150a. The slave ECU 100b transmits a control signal based on an arbitration result to the slave ECU 205b so as to cause the slave ECU 205b to operate the operating unit 150b. In this way, since the core ECU 202 does not need to perform arbitration for input information from a human, the performance of response to a manipulation performed by the human can be enhanced, Millsap, Col.6, Line:21-28, The network management of the virtual networks 22-24 uses a messaging protocol over the vehicle bus 12 that permits all ECUs within a particular virtual network to be activated and maintained in an operational state until the associated control task is complete. The activation of the ECUs within a virtual network is typically initiated by one of the ECUs in the virtual network, although other triggers and sources can be used.).
The same motivation that was utilized for combining Kato, Millsap as set forth in claim 1 is equally applicable to claim 3.
As per Claim 4, Kato in view of Millsap discloses the gateway as claimed in claim 1, wherein the gateway has a memory configured to temporarily store the control signals received from the host processor (Keto, Para.20, The core ECU 202, the ICB 204, the slave ECU 100a, the slave ECU 100b, the slave ECU 205a, and the slave ECU 205b may each include a computer provided with a processor, a volatile memory, and a nonvolatile memory. The TCU 201 is a telematics control unit.).
As per Claim 5, Kato in view of Millsap discloses the gateway as claimed in claim 1, wherein the gateway is configured to: receive a further control signal from the host processor; and simultaneously output the control signals received from the host processor to the slaves for which the control signal has been received only when all of the slaves for which the control signal has been received are in the operational state and the further control signal has been received at the gateway from the host processor (Kato, Para.28, When operation requests from a plurality of systems are accepted, the core ECU 202 [gateway] performs arbitration for the operation requests from the plurality of systems and transmits an arbitration result to at least one of the slave ECUs 100a and 100b. Specifically, the inter-system arbitration unit 102 of the core ECU 202 performs arbitration for the operation requests from the plurality of systems, Para.30, The slave ECU 100a transmits a control signal corresponding to an arbitration result to the slave ECU 205a so as to cause the slave ECU 205a to operate the operating unit 150a. The slave ECU 100b transmits a control signal based on an arbitration result to the slave ECU 205b so as to cause the slave ECU 205b to operate the operating unit 150b, Millsap, Col.6, Line:21-28, The network management of the virtual networks 22-24 uses a messaging protocol over the vehicle bus 12 that permits all ECUs within a particular virtual network to be activated and maintained in an operational state until the associated control task is complete. The activation of the ECUs within a virtual network is typically initiated by one of the ECUs in the virtual network, although other triggers and sources can be used.).
The same motivation that was utilized for combining Kato, Millsap as set forth in claim 1 is equally applicable to claim 6.
As per Claim 7, Kato in view of Millsap discloses a system for data processing, the system comprising: the gateway as claimed in claim 1; the host processor, connected to the gateway, that is configured to output the multiple control signals, each comprising the at least one control signal for a particular predetermined slave from the multiple slaves, to the gateway (Kato, Para.28, When operation requests from a plurality of systems are accepted, the core ECU 202 [gateway] performs arbitration for the operation requests from the plurality of systems and transmits an arbitration result to at least one of the slave ECUs 100a and 100b. Specifically, the inter-system arbitration unit 102 of the core ECU 202 performs arbitration for the operation requests from the plurality of systems, Para.30, The slave ECU 100a transmits a control signal corresponding to an arbitration result to the slave ECU 205a so as to cause the slave ECU 205a to operate the operating unit 150a. The slave ECU 100b transmits a control signal based on an arbitration result to the slave ECU 205b so as to cause the slave ECU 205b to operate the operating unit 150b); and multiple slaves connected to the gateway, the gateway and the slaves being organized in the P2P topology such that the gateway has an independent channel for each of the slaves ((Keto, Para.20, The core ECU 202, the ICB 204, the slave ECU 100a, the slave ECU 100b, the slave ECU 205a, and the slave ECU 205b may each include a computer provided with a processor, a volatile memory, and a nonvolatile memory. The TCU 201 is a telematics control unit.).).
However Kato does not explicitly disclose particular predetermined slave.
Millsap discloses particular predetermined slave (Millsap, Col.5, Line:34-40, the control input for the driver's heated seat is to an ECU (the driver control panel ECU 14) that is different than the ECU used to activate the seat warmer (the driver's heated seat ECU 19). Thus, the heated seat virtual network 23 is activated whenever the appropriate switch on the driver's control panel is selected.).
The same motivation that was utilized for combining Kato, Millsap as set forth in claim 1 is equally applicable to claim 7.
As per Claim 8, Kato in view of Millsap discloses the system for data processing as claimed in claim 7, wherein the gateway is configured to take information received from the respective slave as a basis for determining whether the respective slave is in the operational state, and wherein the slaves each configured to output to the gateway the information on the basis of which the gateway can determine whether the respective slave is in the operational state (Millsap, Col.6, Line:21-28, The network management of the virtual networks 22-24 uses a messaging protocol over the vehicle bus 12 that permits all ECUs within a particular virtual network to be activated and maintained in an operational state until the associated control task is complete. The activation of the ECUs within a virtual network is typically initiated by one of the ECUs in the virtual network, although other triggers and sources can be used.).
As per Claim 9, Kato in view of Millsap discloses system for data processing as claimed in claim 7, wherein the host processor is configured to output to the gateway the information based on which the gateway determines for which of the slaves from the multiple slaves a respective control signal, received from the host processor, from the multiple control signals is intended (Keto,Para.30, At least one of the core ECU 202, the slave ECU 203, the ICB 204, the slave ECU 100a, and the slave ECU 100b obtains input information of an operation instruction for the operating unit 150 from a human, and performs arbitration for the operation instruction from the human and an arbitration result provided by the core ECU 202 for operation requests from a plurality of systems…The slave ECU 100a transmits a control signal corresponding to an arbitration result to the slave ECU 205a so as to cause the slave ECU 205a to operate the operating unit 150a. The slave ECU 100b transmits a control signal based on an arbitration result to the slave ECU 205b so as to cause the slave ECU 205b to operate the operating unit 150b. In this way, since the core ECU 202 does not need to perform arbitration for input information from a human, the performance of response to a manipulation performed by the human can be enhanced.).
As per Claim 10, Kato in view of Millsap discloses the system for data processing as claimed in claim 7, wherein the gateway is configured to: receive a further control signal from the host processor; and simultaneously output the control signals received from the host processor to the slaves for which the control signal has been received only when all of the slaves for which the control signal has received are in the operational state and the further control signal has been received at the gateway from the host processor, wherein the host processor is further configured to output the further control signal to the gateway (Kato, Para.28, When operation requests from a plurality of systems are accepted, the core ECU 202 [gateway] performs arbitration for the operation requests from the plurality of systems and transmits an arbitration result to at least one of the slave ECUs 100a and 100b. Specifically, the inter-system arbitration unit 102 of the core ECU 202 performs arbitration for the operation requests from the plurality of systems, Para.30, The slave ECU 100a transmits a control signal corresponding to an arbitration result to the slave ECU 205a so as to cause the slave ECU 205a to operate the operating unit 150a. The slave ECU 100b transmits a control signal based on an arbitration result to the slave ECU 205b so as to cause the slave ECU 205b to operate the operating unit 150b).
As per Claim 11, Kato in view of Millsap discloses a motor vehicle comprising (Kato, Para.11, a core ECU 202, a slave ECU 100a, and an operating unit 150a that are provided in a vehicle control apparatus according to an embodiment. FIG. 1): the gateway as claimed in claim 1 or; a system for data processing having the gateway as claimed in claim 1; the host processor, connected to the gateway, that is configured to output the multiple control signals, each comprising the at least one control signal for a particular predetermined slave from the multiple slaves, to the gateway (Kato, Para.20, The core ECU 202 [gateway], the slave ECU 203, the ICB 204, the slave ECU 100a, the slave ECU 100b, the slave ECU 205a, and the slave ECU 205b are electronic control units for controlling vehicle-mounted devices. The core ECU 202, the ICB 204, the slave ECU 100a, the slave ECU 100b, the slave ECU 205a, and the slave ECU 205b may each include a computer provided with a processor, a volatile memory, and a nonvolatile memory.); and the multiple slaves connected to the gateway, the gateway and the slaves being organized in the P2P topology such that the gateway has the independent channel for each of the slaves (Kato, Para.22, The core ECU 202 is connected to the slave ECU 100a via an in-vehicle network 180d. The core ECU 202 and the slave ECU 100a can communicate with each other via the in-vehicle network 180d. The core ECU 202 is connected to the slave ECU 100b via an in-vehicle network 180e. The core ECU 202 and the slave ECU 100b can communicate with each other via the in-vehicle network 180e.).
However Kato does not explicitly disclose particular predetermined slave.
Millsap discloses particular predetermined slave (Millsap, Col.5, Line:34-40, the control input for the driver's heated seat is to an ECU (the driver control panel ECU 14) that is different than the ECU used to activate the seat warmer (the driver's heated seat ECU 19). Thus, the heated seat virtual network 23 is activated whenever the appropriate switch on the driver's control panel is selected.).
The same motivation that was utilized for combining Kato, Millsap as set forth in claim 1 is equally applicable to claim 11.
As per Claim 12, Kato in view of Millsap discloses the method for operating a gateway as claimed in claim 1, the method comprising:
receiving multiple control signals, each comprising at least one control signal for a particular predetermined slave from the multiple slaves, at the gateway from the host processor (Kato, Para.30, The slave ECU 100a transmits a control signal corresponding to an arbitration result to the slave ECU 205a so as to cause the slave ECU 205a to operate the operating unit 150a. The slave ECU 100b transmits a control signal based on an arbitration result to the slave ECU 205b so as to cause the slave ECU 205b to operate the operating unit 150b.);
simultaneously outputting the control signals received from the host processor to the slaves for which the at least one control signal has been received only when all of the slaves for which the at least one control signal has been received are in the operational state (Kato, Para.28, When operation requests from a plurality of systems are accepted, the core ECU 202 performs arbitration for the operation requests from the plurality of systems and transmits an arbitration result to at least one of the slave ECUs 100a and 100b. Specifically, the inter-system arbitration unit 102 of the core ECU 202 performs arbitration for the operation requests from the plurality of systems, Para.16, the human-system arbitration unit 120a generates a control signal for making a request to the operating unit 150a for the determined operation, and outputs the same to the exterior-light control unit 140a. Based on the input control signal, the exterior-light control unit 140a outputs a drive signal for operating the operating unit 150a to the operating unit 150a.).
However Kato does not explicitly disclose particular predetermined slave and determine whether the slaves for which the at least one control signal has been received are in an operational state.
Millsap discloses particular predetermined slave (Millsap, Col.5, Line:34-40, the control input for the driver's heated seat is to an ECU (the driver control panel ECU 14) that is different than the ECU used to activate the seat warmer (the driver's heated seat ECU 19). Thus, the heated seat virtual network 23 is activated whenever the appropriate switch on the driver's control panel is selected.) and determine whether the slaves for which the at least one control signal has been received are in an operational state (Millsap, Col.6, Line:21-28, The network management of the virtual networks 22-24 uses a messaging protocol over the vehicle bus 12 that permits all ECUs within a particular virtual network to be activated and maintained in an operational state until the associated control task is complete. The activation of the ECUs within a virtual network is typically initiated by one of the ECUs in the virtual network, although other triggers and sources can be used.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Kato with the teachings as in Millsap. The motivation for doing so would have been for provides an on-board vehicle network and method for operating the network which permits an ECU to activate the other ECUs used for a particular vehicle control task without having to know in advance what ECUs are utilized in performing the control task. The network comprises a plurality of on-board vehicle electronic control units (ECUs) connected together via at least one network bus, with the network being arranged into a plurality of virtual networks that each comprise a group of the ECUs that together perform a vehicle control task. Thus, the ECUs that together comprise a first one of the virtual networks are operable together to perform a first control task and are each identified using a first code that is associated with the first virtual network. (Millsap, Col.2, Line: 36-50).
As per Claim 13, Kato in view of Millsap discloses a computer program, wherein the computer program comprises commands that, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method as claimed in claim 12 (Kato, Para.44, Programs are installed in the flash memory 2024, the RAM 2014, or the ROM 2026 and executed by the CPU 2012. The information processing described in these programs is read into the computer 2000, resulting in cooperation between a program and the above-mentioned various types of hardware resources. An apparatus or method may be constituted by realizing the operation or processing of information in accordance with the usage of the computer 2000.).
As per Claim 14, Kato in view of Millsap discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein the computer-readable medium comprises the computer program as claimed in claim 13 (Kato, Para.44, A program is provided via a network or a computer-readable storage medium such as a CD-ROM, a DVD-ROM, or a memory card. The RAM 2014, the ROM 2026, or the flash memory 2024 is an example of the computer-readable storage medium. Programs are installed in the flash memory 2024, the RAM 2014, or the ROM 2026 and executed by the CPU 2012.).
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al., hereinafter “Kato” (U.S. Patent Application: 20220315025) in view of Millsap et al., hereinafter “Millsap” (U.S. Patent: 6484082) and further in view of Ricci et al., “hereinafter Ricci” (U.S. Patent Application: 20130145482).
As per Claim 6, Kato in view of Millsap discloses the gateway as claimed in claim 1,
However Kato in view of Millsap do not disclose the first interface is configured to check the data received at the first interface by means of a cyclic redundancy check, and/or the second interface is configured to check the data received at the second interface by means of a cyclic redundancy check.
Ricci discloses the first interface is configured to check the data received at the first interface by means of a cyclic redundancy check, and/or the second interface is configured to check the data received at the second interface by means of a cyclic redundancy check. (Ricci, Para.153, processing modules 290 may take on more processing duties from a vehicle component 310 connected to bus 380. Thus, processing modules 124A-C benefits from redundancy in the case that one of modules malfunctions, Para.120, The operations of processing module 124 will now be described with respect to the high-speed CAN bus interface 240 and low-speed CAN bus interface 250 …processing module 124 receives data transmitted over vehicle bus 180 through high-speed CAN bus interface 240 and/or low-speed CAN bus interface 250.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Kato, Millsap with the teachings as in Ricci. The motivation for doing so would have been for implementing a vehicle control system which includes one or more processing modules. These modules are configured to connect and interface with the various buses in the vehicle, where the various buses are connected with the various components of the vehicle to facilitate information transfer among the vehicle components. Each processing module is further modularized with the ability to add and replace other functional modules now or in the future. These functional modules can themselves act as distinct vehicle components. Each processing module may hand-off processing to other modules depending on its health, processing load, or by third-party control. Thus, the plurality of processing modules help to implement a middleware point of control to the vehicle with redundancy in processing and safety and security awareness in their applications. (Ricci, Para.103, ).
The applicant Argue:
Argument 1:
Applicant argues that the reference Kato in view of Millsap fails to teach or suggest “simultaneously output the control signals received from the host processor to the slaves for which the at least one control signal has been received only when all of the slaves for which the at least one control signal has been received are in the operational state” as recited in claim 1.
In response, Examiner would like to point out that the reference Kato does teach in Para.28, “When operation requests from a plurality of systems are accepted, the core ECU 202 performs arbitration for the operation requests from the plurality of systems and transmits an arbitration result to at least one of the slave ECUs 100a and 100b. Specifically, the inter-system arbitration unit 102 of the core ECU 202 performs arbitration for the operation requests from the plurality of systems” and in Para.16, “the human-system arbitration unit 120a generates a control signal for making a request to the operating unit 150a for the determined operation, and outputs the same to the exterior-light control unit 140a. Based on the input control signal, the exterior-light control unit 140a outputs a drive signal for operating the operating unit 150a to the operating unit 150a.” and in Para.25, “The operating unit 150a and an operating unit 150b perform operations based on an operation request. The operating unit 150a is, for example, a driving apparatus at the exterior light. The operating unit 150b is a driving apparatus for a power window. The manipulation member 170a is, for example, a turn switch for the exterior light. The manipulation member 170a is, for example, a manipulation switch for the power window. With respect to the present embodiment, the driving apparatuses for the exterior light and the power window are exemplified as operating units. However, the operating units may be driving apparatuses for a lighting body such as the exterior light and for a window such as a power window, as well as driving apparatuses for open-close bodies for, for example, a sunroof, a tailgate, and doors, and driving apparatuses for various vehicle-mounted devices such as wipers, door locks, an air conditioner, and a horn.”.
However Kato does not explicitly disclose simultaneously output the control signals and determine whether the slaves for which the at least one control signal has been received are in an operational state.
Millsap discloses simultaneously output the control signals in Col.6, Line:58-65, If, while the seat heating process is being carried out, the driver selects the front right door window switch, the window virtual network 22 is activated with ECU 18 being the master and the other ECUs on that virtual network being the slaves. Thus, ECU 14 would simultaneously be a master for purposes of the seat heating virtual network 23 and a slave for purposes of the window virtual network 22.), and in Col.5, Line:34-40, “the control input for the driver's heated seat is to an ECU (the driver control panel ECU 14) that is different than the ECU used to activate the seat warmer (the driver's heated seat ECU 19). Thus, the heated seat virtual network 23 is activated whenever the appropriate switch on the driver's control panel is selected.” and in Col.6, Line:21-28, “The network management of the virtual networks 22-24 uses a messaging protocol over the vehicle bus 12 that permits all ECUs within a particular virtual network to be activated and maintained in an operational state until the associated control task is complete. The activation of the ECUs within a virtual network is typically initiated by one of the ECUs in the virtual network, although other triggers and sources can be used.”
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Kato with the teachings as in Millsap. The motivation for doing so would have been for provides an on-board vehicle network and method for operating the network which permits an ECU to activate the other ECUs used for a particular vehicle control task without having to know in advance what ECUs are utilized in performing the control task. The network comprises a plurality of on-board vehicle electronic control units (ECUs) connected together via at least one network bus, with the network being arranged into a plurality of virtual networks that each comprise a group of the ECUs that together perform a vehicle control task. Thus, the ECUs that together comprise a first one of the virtual networks are operable together to perform a first control task and are each identified using a first code that is associated with the first virtual network. (Millsap, Col.2, Line: 36-50).
The reference Kato discloses the control signal for the specific slave and the reference Millsap discloses the determination of the operational state of the specific slave.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NORMIN ABEDIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5970. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 10 am to 6 pm.
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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached at 5712727304. 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.
/NORMIN ABEDIN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights