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 statement (IDS) submitted on 04/11/2025 and 04/15/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Priority is being given to 08/29/2018.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 03/19/2025 and preliminary amendments filed on 03/28/2025.
Claims 6-12 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 1-5 are cancelled by preliminary amendment.
Claims 6-12 are added by preliminary amendment.
Claims 6-12 are currently rejected.
This action is made NON-FINAL.
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 6-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,643,089 & 12,304,504. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are a broader version than those claimed in the cited patent regarding handling of signals of a vehicle after being arbitrated.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 6 recites “a calculation unit configured to calculate a second request including identification information of an application mounted on the driving assistance system based on an arbitration result by the arbitration unit;”. Paragraph [0027] discloses “The movement manager device 20 generates a control signal including at least the identifier selected in Step S105 and sends the control signal to the in-vehicle network. Although the control signal may include the identifier, and as an example, the movement manager device 20 generates a signal with the request signal selected between the request signal sent from the first driving assistance device 11 and the request signal sent from the second driving assistance device 12 attached with the identifier of the driving assistance device 10 sending the selected request signal and sends the signal to the in-vehicle network as the control signal.” The disclosed excerpt does not disclose “calculating a second request” because the generating step isn’t “calculating” a signal, rather just generating a signal that denotes the winner of the arbitration versus calculating a new value. Secondly the output of the arbitration process is not a “request” as claimed but is a “control signal” that denotes the winning “request”. To overcome the 112a written description rejection the applicant could amend the claims to recite “the control device generates a control signal that denotes which of the first requests wins the arbitration;”. Claims 7-12 recite similar limitations to claim 6 or are dependent upon claim 6 and are rejected for the same reasons described above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 6-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 6-12 are directed to a system, method, or product, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES)
The examiner has identified independent system/method/product Claim 6 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent claims 7-11. Claim 6 recites the limitations of:
A control device mounted on a vehicle, the control device comprising:
a reception unit configured to receive a first request from a plurality of driving assistance systems;
an arbitration unit configured to arbitrate a plurality of the first requests;
a calculation unit configured to calculate a second request including identification information of an application mounted on the driving assistance system based on an arbitration result by the arbitration unit; and
a distribution unit configured to distribute the second request to at least one of a plurality of actuator systems configured to acquire the first request from the driving assistance system without the control device.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as mental processes. Arbitrating requests and generating a desired control output recites concepts performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a concept performed in the human mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea.)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of: control device, reception unit, arbitration unit, calculation unit, distribution unit and distribution unit in Claim 6 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The computer hardware/software is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional elements of data gathering and transmitting a signal are insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea without a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claims 6-11 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application.)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered separately and as an ordered combination. Thus, claims 6-11 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more.)
Dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claim 7 and thus correspond to Mental Processes and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 6-12 are not patent-eligible.
To overcome the 101 rejection, the examiner suggests amending the claims to recite a control step where an actuator is controlled based on the first request that won the arbitration directly from the CAN without passing though the “control device”/”movement management device”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 6-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng et. al. (US 2019/0361454), herein Zeng in view of Vangelov et. al. (US 2018/0063246), herein Vangelov, and Guthrie et. al. (US 2015/0227464), herein Guthrie.
Regarding claim 6:
Zeng teaches:
A control device (fig. 4, high-level controller 133) mounted on a vehicle (fig. 1, vehicle 10), the control device comprising:
a reception unit configured to receive a first request from a plurality of driving assistance systems (The primitive processor module 143 can execute the particular combination 142A′, 142B′ of the sensorimotor primitive modules such that each generates a vehicle trajectory and speed profile, which are collectively represented in FIG. 5 via arrows 144. [0099]);
an arbitration unit (fig. 4, arbitration unit 170 ) configured to arbitrate a plurality of the first requests (the vehicle trajectory and speed profiles 144 generated by some of the activated/enabled sensorimotor primitive modules for that particular driving scenario may or may not be applied and the arbitration and vehicle control module 170 decides which ones of the vehicle trajectory and speed profiles 144 will be selected to be applied for that particular driving scenario, and the order in which they will be applied [0092]);
a calculation unit (fig. 5, vehicle control module 170B) configured to calculate a second request (The vehicle control module 170B processes the selected one of vehicle trajectory and speed profiles 171 by applying neuromorphic or ordinary differential equation (ODE) control models (described in greater detail below with reference to FIG. 9A) to the selected one(s) of vehicle trajectory and speed profiles 171 to generate the control signals 172 [0101]) [including identification information of an application mounted on the driving assistance system] based on an arbitration result by the arbitration unit (fig. 5, selected one(s) of vehicle trajectory and speed profiles 171); and
a distribution unit configured to distribute the second request to at least one of a plurality of actuator systems (The vehicle control system 100 includes a sensor system 128 that is configured to provide sensor data 129, a high-level controller 133, and an actuator system 190 that receives control signals 172 generated by the high-level controller 133 [0073]) [configured to acquire the first request from the driving assistance system without the control device].
Zeng does not explicitly teach, however Vangelov teaches:
a second request including identification information of an application mounted on the driving assistance system (a computer-implemented method includes routing a message to an identified target ECU via a synchronous data link control module, responsive to receipt of a 29-bit message, including a 10-bit target identifier identifying a target electronic control unit (ECU) and 10-bit source identifier identifying a message source, following verification by the ECU of both the identified source as being permitted to exchange messages with the ECU and 29-bit request handling capability [0006])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zeng to include the teachings as taught by Vangelov with a reasonable expectation of success. Vangelov teaches the benefit of “Source identification allows for multiple sources talking to multiple targets all independently without a conflict of information flow on the network [Vangelov, 0049]”.
Guthrie also teaches:
A control device (fig. 1, arbitration control unit 128) [mounted on a vehicle], the control device comprising:
an arbitration unit (fig. 1, arbitration control unit 128) configured to arbitrate a plurality of the first requests (Arbitrated bus 112 communicates bus commands between processor 100 components. Arbitrated bus 112 is arbitrated such that one unit (e.g., memory controller 114, L2 cache 108 etc.) coupled to the bus is allowed to use the bus at any particular point in time. [0018]);
a calculation unit configured to calculate a second request [including identification information of an application mounted on the driving assistance system] based on an arbitration result by the arbitration unit (commands typically must make their way to a bus arbitration control unit 128 to be arbitrated onto bus 112. Further the arbitration process performed by logic in bus arbitration control unit 128 can take significant time in making an arbitration decision and holding commands in queues while said decision is made. Finally, the commands must be broadcast back to chiplets 102 and memory controllers 114 over arbitrated bus 112 [0018]); and
Zeng in view of Vangelov does not explicitly teach, however Guthrie teaches:
a distribution unit configured to distribute the second request to at least one of a plurality of actuator systems (fig. 1, path from 128 to 114; commands typically must make their way to a bus arbitration control unit 128 to be arbitrated onto bus 112. Further the arbitration process performed by logic in bus arbitration control unit 128 can take significant time in making an arbitration decision and holding commands in queues while said decision is made. Finally, the commands must be broadcast back to chiplets 102 and memory controllers 114 over arbitrated bus 112 [0018]) configured to acquire the first request from the driving assistance system without the control device (fig. 1, path from 116A, 166B, or 166C via fast path bus 110; A command that goes on the FP bus is referred to as an FP command. FP allows critical memory accesses to bypass arbitration logic and queuing structures to reduce latency [0003]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zeng and Vangelov to include the teachings as taught by Guthrie with a reasonable expectation of success. Guthrie teaches the benefit of “A command that goes on the FP bus is referred to as an FP command. FP allows critical memory accesses to bypass arbitration logic and queuing structures to reduce latency [Guthrie, 0003]”.
Regarding claim 7:
Zeng teaches:
A manager (fig. 4, high-level controller 133) mounted on a vehicle (fig. 1, vehicle 10), the manager comprising:
a reception unit configured to receive a kinematic plan from a plurality of advanced driver assistance system applications (The primitive processor module 143 can execute the particular combination 142A′, 142B′ of the sensorimotor primitive modules such that each generates a vehicle trajectory and speed profile, which are collectively represented in FIG. 5 via arrows 144. [0099]);
an arbitration unit (fig. 4, arbitration unit 170 ) configured to arbitrate a plurality of the kinematic plans (the vehicle trajectory and speed profiles 144 generated by some of the activated/enabled sensorimotor primitive modules for that particular driving scenario may or may not be applied and the arbitration and vehicle control module 170 decides which ones of the vehicle trajectory and speed profiles 144 will be selected to be applied for that particular driving scenario, and the order in which they will be applied [0092]);
a calculation unit (fig. 5, vehicle control module 170B) configured to calculate a motion request (The vehicle control module 170B processes the selected one of vehicle trajectory and speed profiles 171 by applying neuromorphic or ordinary differential equation (ODE) control models (described in greater detail below with reference to FIG. 9A) to the selected one(s) of vehicle trajectory and speed profiles 171 to generate the control signals 172 [0101]) [including identification information of the advanced driver assistance system application] based on an arbitration result by the arbitration unit (fig. 5, selected one(s) of vehicle trajectory and speed profiles 171); and
a distribution unit configured to distribute the motion request to at least one of a plurality of actuator systems (The vehicle control system 100 includes a sensor system 128 that is configured to provide sensor data 129, a high-level controller 133, and an actuator system 190 that receives control signals 172 generated by the high-level controller 133 [0073]) [configured to acquire the kinematic plan from the advanced driver assistance system application without the manager].
Zeng does not explicitly teach, however Vangelov teaches:
a motion request including identification information of the advanced driver assistance system application (a computer-implemented method includes routing a message to an identified target ECU via a synchronous data link control module, responsive to receipt of a 29-bit message, including a 10-bit target identifier identifying a target electronic control unit (ECU) and 10-bit source identifier identifying a message source, following verification by the ECU of both the identified source as being permitted to exchange messages with the ECU and 29-bit request handling capability [0006])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zeng to include the teachings as taught by Vangelov with a reasonable expectation of success. Vangelov teaches the benefit of “Source identification allows for multiple sources talking to multiple targets all independently without a conflict of information flow on the network [Vangelov, 0049]”.
Guthrie also teaches:
A manager (fig. 1, arbitration control unit 128) [mounted on a vehicle], the control device comprising:
an arbitration unit (fig. 1, arbitration control unit 128) configured to arbitrate a plurality of the kinematic plans (Arbitrated bus 112 communicates bus commands between processor 100 components. Arbitrated bus 112 is arbitrated such that one unit (e.g., memory controller 114, L2 cache 108 etc.) coupled to the bus is allowed to use the bus at any particular point in time. [0018]);
a calculation unit configured to calculate a motion request [including identification information of the advanced driver assistance system application] based on an arbitration result by the arbitration unit (commands typically must make their way to a bus arbitration control unit 128 to be arbitrated onto bus 112. Further the arbitration process performed by logic in bus arbitration control unit 128 can take significant time in making an arbitration decision and holding commands in queues while said decision is made. Finally, the commands must be broadcast back to chiplets 102 and memory controllers 114 over arbitrated bus 112 [0018]); and
Zeng in view of Vangelov does not explicitly teach, however Guthrie teaches:
a distribution unit configured to distribute the motion request to at least one of a plurality of actuator systems (fig. 1, path from 128 to 114; commands typically must make their way to a bus arbitration control unit 128 to be arbitrated onto bus 112. Further the arbitration process performed by logic in bus arbitration control unit 128 can take significant time in making an arbitration decision and holding commands in queues while said decision is made. Finally, the commands must be broadcast back to chiplets 102 and memory controllers 114 over arbitrated bus 112 [0018]) configured to acquire the kinematic plan from the driving assistance system without the manager (fig. 1, path from 116A, 166B, or 166C via fast path bus 110; A command that goes on the FP bus is referred to as an FP command. FP allows critical memory accesses to bypass arbitration logic and queuing structures to reduce latency [0003]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zeng and Vangelov to include the teachings as taught by Guthrie with a reasonable expectation of success. Guthrie teaches the benefit of “A command that goes on the FP bus is referred to as an FP command. FP allows critical memory accesses to bypass arbitration logic and queuing structures to reduce latency [Guthrie, 0003]”.
Regarding claim 8:
Zeng teaches:
A manager mounted (fig. 4, high-level controller 133) mounted on a vehicle (fig. 1, vehicle 10), the control device comprising:
a reception unit configured to receive a first request from a plurality of driving assistance system applications (The primitive processor module 143 can execute the particular combination 142A′, 142B′ of the sensorimotor primitive modules such that each generates a vehicle trajectory and speed profile, which are collectively represented in FIG. 5 via arrows 144. [0099]);
an arbitration unit (fig. 4, arbitration unit 170 ) configured to arbitrate a plurality of the first requests (the vehicle trajectory and speed profiles 144 generated by some of the activated/enabled sensorimotor primitive modules for that particular driving scenario may or may not be applied and the arbitration and vehicle control module 170 decides which ones of the vehicle trajectory and speed profiles 144 will be selected to be applied for that particular driving scenario, and the order in which they will be applied [0092]);
a calculation unit (fig. 5, vehicle control module 170B) configured to calculate a second request (The vehicle control module 170B processes the selected one of vehicle trajectory and speed profiles 171 by applying neuromorphic or ordinary differential equation (ODE) control models (described in greater detail below with reference to FIG. 9A) to the selected one(s) of vehicle trajectory and speed profiles 171 to generate the control signals 172 [0101]) [including identification information of the advanced driver assistance system application] based on an arbitration result by the arbitration unit (fig. 5, selected one(s) of vehicle trajectory and speed profiles 171); and
a distribution unit configured to distribute the second request to at least one of a plurality of actuator systems (The vehicle control system 100 includes a sensor system 128 that is configured to provide sensor data 129, a high-level controller 133, and an actuator system 190 that receives control signals 172 generated by the high-level controller 133 [0073]) [configured to acquire the first request from the driving assistance system application without the control device].
Zeng does not explicitly teach, however Vangelov teaches:
a second request including identification information of the advanced driver assistance system application (a computer-implemented method includes routing a message to an identified target ECU via a synchronous data link control module, responsive to receipt of a 29-bit message, including a 10-bit target identifier identifying a target electronic control unit (ECU) and 10-bit source identifier identifying a message source, following verification by the ECU of both the identified source as being permitted to exchange messages with the ECU and 29-bit request handling capability [0006])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zeng to include the teachings as taught by Vangelov with a reasonable expectation of success. Vangelov teaches the benefit of “Source identification allows for multiple sources talking to multiple targets all independently without a conflict of information flow on the network [Vangelov, 0049]”.
Guthrie also teaches:
A control device (fig. 1, arbitration control unit 128) [mounted on a vehicle], the control device comprising:
an arbitration unit (fig. 1, arbitration control unit 128) configured to arbitrate a plurality of the first requests (Arbitrated bus 112 communicates bus commands between processor 100 components. Arbitrated bus 112 is arbitrated such that one unit (e.g., memory controller 114, L2 cache 108 etc.) coupled to the bus is allowed to use the bus at any particular point in time. [0018]);
a calculation unit configured to calculate a second request [including identification information of the advanced driver assistance system application] based on an arbitration result by the arbitration unit (commands typically must make their way to a bus arbitration control unit 128 to be arbitrated onto bus 112. Further the arbitration process performed by logic in bus arbitration control unit 128 can take significant time in making an arbitration decision and holding commands in queues while said decision is made. Finally, the commands must be broadcast back to chiplets 102 and memory controllers 114 over arbitrated bus 112 [0018]); and
Zeng in view of Vangelov does not explicitly teach, however Guthrie teaches:
a distribution unit configured to distribute the second request to at least one of a plurality of actuator systems (fig. 1, path from 128 to 114; commands typically must make their way to a bus arbitration control unit 128 to be arbitrated onto bus 112. Further the arbitration process performed by logic in bus arbitration control unit 128 can take significant time in making an arbitration decision and holding commands in queues while said decision is made. Finally, the commands must be broadcast back to chiplets 102 and memory controllers 114 over arbitrated bus 112 [0018]) configured to acquire the first request from the driving assistance system without the manager (fig. 1, path from 116A, 166B, or 166C via fast path bus 110; A command that goes on the FP bus is referred to as an FP command. FP allows critical memory accesses to bypass arbitration logic and queuing structures to reduce latency [0003]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zeng and Vangelov to include the teachings as taught by Guthrie with a reasonable expectation of success. Guthrie teaches the benefit of “A command that goes on the FP bus is referred to as an FP command. FP allows critical memory accesses to bypass arbitration logic and queuing structures to reduce latency [Guthrie, 0003]”.
Regarding claim 9:
Zeng teaches:
A method executed by a computer (autonomous vehicle control system systems and associated methods for controlling autonomous vehicles) of a manager (fig. 4, high-level controller 133) mounted on a vehicle (fig. 1, vehicle 10), the manager comprising:
receiving a kinematic plan from a plurality of advanced driver assistance system applications (The primitive processor module 143 can execute the particular combination 142A′, 142B′ of the sensorimotor primitive modules such that each generates a vehicle trajectory and speed profile, which are collectively represented in FIG. 5 via arrows 144. [0099]);
performing an arbitration of a plurality of the kinematic plans (the vehicle trajectory and speed profiles 144 generated by some of the activated/enabled sensorimotor primitive modules for that particular driving scenario may or may not be applied and the arbitration and vehicle control module 170 decides which ones of the vehicle trajectory and speed profiles 144 will be selected to be applied for that particular driving scenario, and the order in which they will be applied [0092]);
calculating a motion request (The vehicle control module 170B processes the selected one of vehicle trajectory and speed profiles 171 by applying neuromorphic or ordinary differential equation (ODE) control models (described in greater detail below with reference to FIG. 9A) to the selected one(s) of vehicle trajectory and speed profiles 171 to generate the control signals 172 [0101]) [including identification information of the advanced driver assistance system application] based on an arbitration result by the arbitration unit (fig. 5, selected one(s) of vehicle trajectory and speed profiles 171); and
distributing the motion request to at least one of a plurality of actuator systems (The vehicle control system 100 includes a sensor system 128 that is configured to provide sensor data 129, a high-level controller 133, and an actuator system 190 that receives control signals 172 generated by the high-level controller 133 [0073]) [configured to acquire the kinematic plan from the advanced driver assistance system application without the manager].
Zeng does not explicitly teach, however Vangelov teaches:
a motion request including identification information of the advanced driver assistance system application (a computer-implemented method includes routing a message to an identified target ECU via a synchronous data link control module, responsive to receipt of a 29-bit message, including a 10-bit target identifier identifying a target electronic control unit (ECU) and 10-bit source identifier identifying a message source, following verification by the ECU of both the identified source as being permitted to exchange messages with the ECU and 29-bit request handling capability [0006])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zeng to include the teachings as taught by Vangelov with a reasonable expectation of success. Vangelov teaches the benefit of “Source identification allows for multiple sources talking to multiple targets all independently without a conflict of information flow on the network [Vangelov, 0049]”.
Guthrie also teaches:
performing an arbitration of a plurality of the kinematic plans (Arbitrated bus 112 communicates bus commands between processor 100 components. Arbitrated bus 112 is arbitrated such that one unit (e.g., memory controller 114, L2 cache 108 etc.) coupled to the bus is allowed to use the bus at any particular point in time. [0018]);
calculating a motion request [including identification information of the advanced driver assistance system application] based on an arbitration result by the arbitration unit (commands typically must make their way to a bus arbitration control unit 128 to be arbitrated onto bus 112. Further the arbitration process performed by logic in bus arbitration control unit 128 can take significant time in making an arbitration decision and holding commands in queues while said decision is made. Finally, the commands must be broadcast back to chiplets 102 and memory controllers 114 over arbitrated bus 112 [0018]); and
Zeng in view of Vangelov does not explicitly teach, however Guthrie teaches:
distributing the motion request to at least one of a plurality of actuator systems (fig. 1, path from 128 to 114; commands typically must make their way to a bus arbitration control unit 128 to be arbitrated onto bus 112. Further the arbitration process performed by logic in bus arbitration control unit 128 can take significant time in making an arbitration decision and holding commands in queues while said decision is made. Finally, the commands must be broadcast back to chiplets 102 and memory controllers 114 over arbitrated bus 112 [0018]) configured to acquire the kinematic plan from the driving assistance system without the manager (fig. 1, path from 116A, 166B, or 166C via fast path bus 110; A command that goes on the FP bus is referred to as an FP command. FP allows critical memory accesses to bypass arbitration logic and queuing structures to reduce latency [0003]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zeng and Vangelov to include the teachings as taught by Guthrie with a reasonable expectation of success. Guthrie teaches the benefit of “A command that goes on the FP bus is referred to as an FP command. FP allows critical memory accesses to bypass arbitration logic and queuing structures to reduce latency [Guthrie, 0003]”.
Regarding claim 10:
Zeng teaches:
A non-transitory storage medium storing instructions (memory that executes one or more software or firmware programs, a combinational logic circuit, and/or other suitable components that provide the described functionality [0041]) that are executable by a computer (autonomous vehicle control system systems and associated methods for controlling autonomous vehicles) of a manager (fig. 4, high-level controller 133) mounted on a vehicle (fig. 1, vehicle 10), the manager comprising:
receiving a kinematic plan from a plurality of advanced driver assistance system applications (The primitive processor module 143 can execute the particular combination 142A′, 142B′ of the sensorimotor primitive modules such that each generates a vehicle trajectory and speed profile, which are collectively represented in FIG. 5 via arrows 144. [0099]);
performing an arbitration of a plurality of the kinematic plans (the vehicle trajectory and speed profiles 144 generated by some of the activated/enabled sensorimotor primitive modules for that particular driving scenario may or may not be applied and the arbitration and vehicle control module 170 decides which ones of the vehicle trajectory and speed profiles 144 will be selected to be applied for that particular driving scenario, and the order in which they will be applied [0092]);
calculating a motion request (The vehicle control module 170B processes the selected one of vehicle trajectory and speed profiles 171 by applying neuromorphic or ordinary differential equation (ODE) control models (described in greater detail below with reference to FIG. 9A) to the selected one(s) of vehicle trajectory and speed profiles 171 to generate the control signals 172 [0101]) [including identification information of the advanced driver assistance system application] based on an arbitration result by the arbitration unit (fig. 5, selected one(s) of vehicle trajectory and speed profiles 171); and
distributing the motion request to at least one of a plurality of actuator systems (The vehicle control system 100 includes a sensor system 128 that is configured to provide sensor data 129, a high-level controller 133, and an actuator system 190 that receives control signals 172 generated by the high-level controller 133 [0073]) [configured to acquire the kinematic plan from the advanced driver assistance system application without the manager].
Zeng does not explicitly teach, however Vangelov teaches:
a motion request including identification information of the advanced driver assistance system application (a computer-implemented method includes routing a message to an identified target ECU via a synchronous data link control module, responsive to receipt of a 29-bit message, including a 10-bit target identifier identifying a target electronic control unit (ECU) and 10-bit source identifier identifying a message source, following verification by the ECU of both the identified source as being permitted to exchange messages with the ECU and 29-bit request handling capability [0006])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zeng to include the teachings as taught by Vangelov with a reasonable expectation of success. Vangelov teaches the benefit of “Source identification allows for multiple sources talking to multiple targets all independently without a conflict of information flow on the network [Vangelov, 0049]”.
Guthrie also teaches:
performing an arbitration of a plurality of the kinematic plans (Arbitrated bus 112 communicates bus commands between processor 100 components. Arbitrated bus 112 is arbitrated such that one unit (e.g., memory controller 114, L2 cache 108 etc.) coupled to the bus is allowed to use the bus at any particular point in time. [0018]);
calculating a motion request [including identification information of the advanced driver assistance system application] based on an arbitration result by the arbitration unit (commands typically must make their way to a bus arbitration control unit 128 to be arbitrated onto bus 112. Further the arbitration process performed by logic in bus arbitration control unit 128 can take significant time in making an arbitration decision and holding commands in queues while said decision is made. Finally, the commands must be broadcast back to chiplets 102 and memory controllers 114 over arbitrated bus 112 [0018]); and
Zeng in view of Vangelov does not explicitly teach, however Guthrie teaches:
distributing the motion request to at least one of a plurality of actuator systems (fig. 1, path from 128 to 114; commands typically must make their way to a bus arbitration control unit 128 to be arbitrated onto bus 112. Further the arbitration process performed by logic in bus arbitration control unit 128 can take significant time in making an arbitration decision and holding commands in queues while said decision is made. Finally, the commands must be broadcast back to chiplets 102 and memory controllers 114 over arbitrated bus 112 [0018]) configured to acquire the kinematic plan from the driving assistance system without the manager (fig. 1, path from 116A, 166B, or 166C via fast path bus 110; A command that goes on the FP bus is referred to as an FP command. FP allows critical memory accesses to bypass arbitration logic and queuing structures to reduce latency [0003]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zeng and Vangelov to include the teachings as taught by Guthrie with a reasonable expectation of success. Guthrie teaches the benefit of “A command that goes on the FP bus is referred to as an FP command. FP allows critical memory accesses to bypass arbitration logic and queuing structures to reduce latency [Guthrie, 0003]”.
Regarding claim 11:
Zeng teaches:
An actuator system (fig. 5, actuator system 190) mounted on a vehicle (fig. 1, vehicle 10), the actuator system comprising:
a manager (fig. 4, high-level controller 133) that includes a reception unit configured to receive a kinematic plan from a plurality of advanced driver assistance system applications (The primitive processor module 143 can execute the particular combination 142A′, 142B′ of the sensorimotor primitive modules such that each generates a vehicle trajectory and speed profile, which are collectively represented in FIG. 5 via arrows 144. [0099]),
an arbitration unit (fig. 4, arbitration unit 170 ) configured to arbitrate a plurality of the kinematic plans (the vehicle trajectory and speed profiles 144 generated by some of the activated/enabled sensorimotor primitive modules for that particular driving scenario may or may not be applied and the arbitration and vehicle control module 170 decides which ones of the vehicle trajectory and speed profiles 144 will be selected to be applied for that particular driving scenario, and the order in which they will be applied [0092]);
a calculation unit (fig. 5, vehicle control module 170B) configured to calculate a motion request (The vehicle control module 170B processes the selected one of vehicle trajectory and speed profiles 171 by applying neuromorphic or ordinary differential equation (ODE) control models (described in greater detail below with reference to FIG. 9A) to the selected one(s) of vehicle trajectory and speed profiles 171 to generate the control signals 172 [0101]) [including identification information of the advanced driver assistance system application] based on an arbitration result by the arbitration unit (fig. 5, selected one(s) of vehicle trajectory and speed profiles 171); and
a distribution unit configured to distribute the motion request to at least one of a plurality of actuator systems (The vehicle control system 100 includes a sensor system 128 that is configured to provide sensor data 129, a high-level controller 133, and an actuator system 190 that receives control signals 172 generated by the high-level controller 133 [0073]);
a communication unit configured to receive the identification information of the advanced driver assistance system application from the manager (The vehicle control system 100 includes a sensor system 128 that is configured to provide sensor data 129, a high-level controller 133, and an actuator system 190 that receives control signals 172 generated by the high-level controller 133 [0073]) [wherein the communication unit is configured to acquire the kinematic plan from the advanced driver assistance system application without the manager].
Zeng does not explicitly teach, however Vangelov teaches:
a motion request including identification information of the advanced driver assistance system application (a computer-implemented method includes routing a message to an identified target ECU via a synchronous data link control module, responsive to receipt of a 29-bit message, including a 10-bit target identifier identifying a target electronic control unit (ECU) and 10-bit source identifier identifying a message source, following verification by the ECU of both the identified source as being permitted to exchange messages with the ECU and 29-bit request handling capability [0006])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zeng to include the teachings as taught by Vangelov with a reasonable expectation of success. Vangelov teaches the benefit of “Source identification allows for multiple sources talking to multiple targets all independently without a conflict of information flow on the network [Vangelov, 0049]”.
Guthrie also teaches:
an arbitration unit (fig. 1, arbitration control unit 128) configured to arbitrate a plurality of the kinematic plans (Arbitrated bus 112 communicates bus commands between processor 100 components. Arbitrated bus 112 is arbitrated such that one unit (e.g., memory controller 114, L2 cache 108 etc.) coupled to the bus is allowed to use the bus at any particular point in time. [0018]);
a calculation unit configured to calculate a motion request [including identification information of the advanced driver assistance system application] based on an arbitration result by the arbitration unit (commands typically must make their way to a bus arbitration control unit 128 to be arbitrated onto bus 112. Further the arbitration process performed by logic in bus arbitration control unit 128 can take significant time in making an arbitration decision and holding commands in queues while said decision is made. Finally, the commands must be broadcast back to chiplets 102 and memory controllers 114 over arbitrated bus 112 [0018]);
a distribution unit configured to distribute the motion request to at least one of a plurality of actuator systems (fig. 1, path from 128 to 114; commands typically must make their way to a bus arbitration control unit 128 to be arbitrated onto bus 112. Further the arbitration process performed by logic in bus arbitration control unit 128 can take significant time in making an arbitration decision and holding commands in queues while said decision is made. Finally, the commands must be broadcast back to chiplets 102 and memory controllers 114 over arbitrated bus 112 [0018]);
Zeng in view of Vangelov does not explicitly teach, however Guthrie teaches:
a communication unit configured to receive the identification information of the advanced driver assistance system application from the manager (fig. 1, path from 128 to 114; commands typically must make their way to a bus arbitration control unit 128 to be arbitrated onto bus 112. Further the arbitration process performed by logic in bus arbitration control unit 128 can take significant time in making an arbitration decision and holding commands in queues while said decision is made. Finally, the commands must be broadcast back to chiplets 102 and memory controllers 114 over arbitrated bus 112 [0018]) wherein the communication unit is configured to acquire the kinematic plan from the advanced driver assistance system application without the manager (fig. 1, path from 116A, 166B, or 166C via fast path bus 110; A command that goes on the FP bus is referred to as an FP command. FP allows critical memory accesses to bypass arbitration logic and queuing structures to reduce latency [0003]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zeng and Vangelov to include the teachings as taught by Guthrie with a reasonable expectation of success. Guthrie teaches the benefit of “A command that goes on the FP bus is referred to as an FP command. FP allows critical memory accesses to bypass arbitration logic and queuing structures to reduce latency [Guthrie, 0003]”.
Regarding claim 12:
Zeng in view of Vangelov and Guthrie teaches all the limitations of claim 7, upon which this claim is dependent.
Zeng further teaches:
A vehicle (fig. 1, vehicle 10) mounting the manager (fig. 4, high-level controller 133) according to claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Airaud (US 2014/0181478) discloses Within a processing pipeline 14, issue control circuitry 12 serves to arbitrate write port availability when floating point multiplication instructions are issued into a floating point pipeline 14. If not operating in a flush-to-zero mode, then depending upon the output operands generated denormal handling may or may not be required. A pessimistic assumption is made upon issue that denormal handling will be required and accordingly the write port reserved is a first predetermined number of processing cycles after the start cycle to take account of use of the denormal handling pipeline stage 20. Partway along the processing pipeline 14, state becomes available which indicates whether or not denormal handling is actually required. If denormal handling is not required and a write port is available one processing cycle earlier, then bypass circuitry 22 serves to bypass the denormal handling pipeline stage 20 such that the output operand will be written to the register bank 16 one processing cycle earlier. Write port usage is tracked by a write port usage scoreboard 26 which is both read and updated by the bypass circuitry 22 when re-arbitrating write port availability partway through a floating point multiplication instruction passing along the pipeline 14.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott R Jagolinzer whose telephone number is (571)272-4180. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8AM - 4PM Eastern.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571)272-4190. 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.
Scott R. Jagolinzer
Examiner
Art Unit 3665
/S.R.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights