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 .
Status of Claims
This is the first Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and addressed below.
Claim Objections
Claims 18-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18 recites “wherein the west ECU positioned on the second side…” on line 6. The examiner recommends amending this portion of claim 18 to instead recite “wherein the west ECU is positioned on the second side…”.
Claim 19 recites “The vehicle of claim 18, further comprise a south ECU…” on line 1. The examiner recommends amending this portion of claim 19 to instead recite “The vehicle of claim 18, further comprising
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 6, 13, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zahid et al. (US 2025/0296582), hereinafter referred to as Zahid, in view of Nabatame et al. (US 2025/0111683), hereinafter referred to as Nabatame. Zahid and Nabatame are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control systems. The examiner notes that Nabatame was effectively filed 28 September 2023, in view of its Foreign Application Priority Data.
Regarding claim 1, Zahid teaches:
A vehicle comprising: an east electronic control unit (ECU), wherein the east ECU operates first components of a first side of a longitudinal axis of the vehicle ("In some embodiments, a vehicle architecture may be divided into zones, and each zone may be assigned a different subset of electronic control units (ECUs) within the vehicle… In the example embodiments, the ECUs of a vehicle may be split into subsets. Each subset may be assigned to a different “zone” of the vehicle based on the functionality controlled by the ECU." – see at least Zahid: paragraph 0060) (The examiner notes that the zones within the vehicle as taught by Zahid may include at least a front, a rear, a left side, and a right side ("The zones within the vehicle may represent different exterior locations on the vehicle, such as a front, a rear, a left side, a right side, etc. In this example, the vehicle may create a hierarchy among the zones during operation." – see at least Zahid: paragraph 0066), wherein the subset of ECUs assigned to the zone associated with the right side of the vehicle corresponds to the claimed east ECU),
a west ECU, wherein the west ECU operates second components of the second side of the longitudinal axis of the vehicle ("The zones within the vehicle may represent different exterior locations on the vehicle, such as a front, a rear, a left side, a right side, etc. In this example, the vehicle may create a hierarchy among the zones during operation." – see at least Zahid: paragraph 0066) (The examiner notes that the subset of ECUs assigned to the zone associated with the left side of the vehicle as taught by Zahid corresponds to the claimed west ECU);
and a south ECU positioned at the rear of the vehicle ("The zones within the vehicle may represent different exterior locations on the vehicle, such as a front, a rear, a left side, a right side, etc. In this example, the vehicle may create a hierarchy among the zones during operation." – see at least Zahid: paragraph 0066) (The examiner notes that the subset of ECUs assigned to the zone associated with the rear of the vehicle as taught by Zahid corresponds to the claimed south ECU).
Zahid does not explicitly disclose, but Nabatame teaches:
wherein the longitudinal axis is defined as an imaginary line running from a front of the vehicle to a rear of the vehicle along its center, dividing the vehicle into the first side and a second side ("The body, i.e., the vehicle body, V1 has a first center line LC1 defined as a virtual line that passes through a center point VC of the vehicle V and extends in the front-rear direction, i.e., the longitudinal direction, of the system-installed vehicle V." – see at least Nabatame: paragraph 0122).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zahid with these above aforementioned teachings from Nabatame such that the longitudinal axis is defined as an imaginary line running from a front of the vehicle to a rear of the vehicle along its center, dividing the vehicle into the first side and a second side. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Nabatame’s use of a virtual center line to define a longitudinal axis with Zahid’s zonal architecture system for a vehicle in order to define the positions of vehicle components relative to the longitudinal axis (“The first and third front sonars SF1 and SF3, which are mounted to the left side of the front bumper V12 relative to the first center line LC1, are arranged at different positions in the vehicle width direction, i.e., the horizontal direction.” – see at least Nabatame: paragraph 0161). Doing so would provide the benefit of defining a clear dividing line between the left and right portion of a vehicle (and similarly, a dividing line between a front and rear portion of a vehicle may be defined) (“The body V1 has a front-end portion, a rear-end portion, a left-side portion, a right-side portion, a top portion, and four corners that include a front-left corner, a front-right corner, a rear-left corner, and a rear-right corner.” – see at least Nabatame: paragraph 0126 and Fig. 1).
The examiner notes that the primary reference by Zahid already teaches a plurality of vehicle zones including at least a left side and a right side. As such, the reference by Nabatame is merely applied to teach a particular means of dividing a vehicle into a left side and a right side by defining a longitudinal center line (i.e., a longitudinal axis), in a manner which may be readily applied to Zahid by one of ordinary skill in the art based at least on the teachings and motivations set forth above.
Regarding claim 6, Zahid in view of Nabatame teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Zahid further teaches:
wherein the east ECU comprises a secure element circuit block that performs cryptographic calculations and authentication ("In some embodiments, a computer may include a security processor. In particular, the security processor may perform authorization, authentication, cryptography (e.g., encryption), and the like, for data transmissions that are sent between ECUs and other devices on a CAN bus of a vehicle, and also data messages that are transmitted between different vehicles." – see at least Zahid: paragraph 0170)
associated with unlocking a door of the vehicle ("An ECU is an embedded system in automotive electronics controlling one or more of the electrical systems or subsystems in a vehicle. ECUs may include but are not limited to the management of a vehicle's engine, brake system, gearbox system, door locks, dashboard, airbag system, infotainment system, electronic differential, and active suspension. ECUs are connected to the vehicle's Controller Area Network (CAN) bus 416D." – see at least Zahid: paragraph 0151) (The examiner notes that the door lock control functionality may be applied to any ECU among the plurality of ECUs taught by Zahid based on the particular configuration of a given vehicle (e.g., an east ECU or right-side ECU may be assigned to unlock a door on the right side of the vehicle)).
Regarding claim 13, Zahid in view of Nabatame teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Zahid further teaches:
wherein the south ECU comprises a powertrain circuit block that is configured to control a system that generates power to move the vehicle ("ECUs may include but are not limited to the management of a vehicle's engine, brake system, gearbox system, door locks, dashboard, airbag system, infotainment system, electronic differential, and active suspension." – see at least Zahid: paragraph 0151) (The examiner notes that the vehicle's engine as taught by Zahid corresponds to a system that generates power to move the vehicle. The examiner further notes that any ECU (e.g., a south ECU or rear ECU) may be assigned to control a power-generating system based on the particular configuration of a given vehicle, wherein Zahid further teaches that the same zonal architecture system may be applied to a variety of different vehicle types ("The instant solution can be used in conjunction with one or more types of vehicles: battery electric vehicles, hybrid vehicles, fuel cell vehicles, internal combustion engine vehicles and/or vehicles utilizing renewable sources." – see at least Zahid: paragraph 0099)).
Regarding claim 16, Zahid in view of Nabatame teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Zahid further teaches:
wherein the south ECU comprises a chassis circuit block is configured to operate dampers or ride height ("ECUs may include but are not limited to the management of a vehicle's engine, brake system, gearbox system, door locks, dashboard, airbag system, infotainment system, electronic differential, and active suspension." – see at least Zahid: paragraph 0151) (The examiner notes that the ECU for managing the vehicle's active suspension as taught by Zahid corresponds the claimed chassis circuit block, because an active suspension system is conventionally understood to control a ride height as claimed. The examiner further notes that any ECU (e.g., a south ECU or rear ECU) may be assigned to control a suspension system based on the particular configuration of a given vehicle and in view of the zonal architecture system taught by Zahid).
Regarding claim 17, Zahid in view of Nabatame teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Zahid further teaches:
wherein the south ECU operates third components in the rear of the vehicle ("In some embodiments, a vehicle architecture may be divided into zones, and each zone may be assigned a different subset of electronic control units (ECUs) within the vehicle… In the example embodiments, the ECUs of a vehicle may be split into subsets. Each subset may be assigned to a different “zone” of the vehicle based on the functionality controlled by the ECU." – see at least Zahid: paragraph 0060; and “The zones within the vehicle may represent different exterior locations on the vehicle, such as a front, a rear, a left side, a right side, etc. In this example, the vehicle may create a hierarchy among the zones during operation.” – see at least Zahid: paragraph 0066).
Regarding claim 18, Zahid in view of Nabatame teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Zahid further teaches:
A vehicle comprising: an east electronic control unit (ECU), wherein the east ECU is positioned on a first side of a longitudinal axis of the vehicle ("For example, FIG. 7A illustrates a process 700A of a zone 715 of a vehicle performing a turn maneuver in response to a control signal from a central ECU 710. Here, the zone 715 is assigned a subset of ECUs of the vehicle independently from other ECUs within the vehicle including a zone 716, a zone 717, and a zone 718. In this example, the subset of ECUs within the zone 715 communicate with the central ECU 710 via a gateway 711." – see at least Zahid: paragraph 0226) (The examiner notes that the zones within the vehicle as taught by Zahid may include at least a front, a rear, a left side, and a right side ("The zones within the vehicle may represent different exterior locations on the vehicle, such as a front, a rear, a left side, a right side, etc. In this example, the vehicle may create a hierarchy among the zones during operation." – see at least Zahid: paragraph 0066), wherein the subset of ECUs assigned to the zone associated with the right side of the vehicle corresponds to the claimed east ECU. In view of the above citation, Zahid is considered to include the embodiment wherein each of the subsets of ECUs assigned to a particular zone is positioned within the respective zone for which it is assigned),
and a west ECU, wherein the west ECU is positioned on the second side of the longitudinal axis of the vehicle ("The zones within the vehicle may represent different exterior locations on the vehicle, such as a front, a rear, a left side, a right side, etc. In this example, the vehicle may create a hierarchy among the zones during operation." – see at least Zahid: paragraph 0066) (The examiner notes that the subset of ECUs assigned to the zone associated with the left side of the vehicle as taught by Zahid corresponds to the claimed west ECU. As set forth above, Zahid is considered to include the embodiment wherein each of the subsets of ECUs assigned to a particular zone is positioned within the respective zone for which it is assigned).
Zahid does not explicitly disclose, but Nabatame teaches:
wherein the longitudinal axis is defined as an imaginary line running from a front of the vehicle to a rear of the vehicle along its center, dividing the vehicle into the first side and a second side ("The body, i.e., the vehicle body, V1 has a first center line LC1 defined as a virtual line that passes through a center point VC of the vehicle V and extends in the front-rear direction, i.e., the longitudinal direction, of the system-installed vehicle V." – see at least Nabatame: paragraph 0122).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zahid with these above aforementioned teachings from Nabatame such that the longitudinal axis is defined as an imaginary line running from a front of the vehicle to a rear of the vehicle along its center, dividing the vehicle into the first side and a second side. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Nabatame’s use of a virtual center line to define a longitudinal axis with Zahid’s zonal architecture system for a vehicle in order to define the positions of vehicle components relative to the longitudinal axis (“The first and third front sonars SF1 and SF3, which are mounted to the left side of the front bumper V12 relative to the first center line LC1, are arranged at different positions in the vehicle width direction, i.e., the horizontal direction.” – see at least Nabatame: paragraph 0161). Doing so would provide the benefit of defining a clear dividing line between the left and right portion of a vehicle (and similarly, a dividing line between a front and rear portion of a vehicle may be defined) (“The body V1 has a front-end portion, a rear-end portion, a left-side portion, a right-side portion, a top portion, and four corners that include a front-left corner, a front-right corner, a rear-left corner, and a rear-right corner.” – see at least Nabatame: paragraph 0126 and Fig. 1).
The examiner notes that the primary reference by Zahid already teaches a plurality of vehicle zones including at least a left side and a right side. As such, the reference by Nabatame is merely applied to teach a particular means of dividing a vehicle into a left side and a right side by defining a longitudinal center line (i.e., a longitudinal axis), in a manner which may be readily applied to Zahid by one of ordinary skill in the art based at least on the teachings and motivations set forth above.
Regarding claim 19, this claim is substantially similar to claim 17 and is, therefore, rejected in the same manner as claim 17 as has been set forth above.
Claims 2-3, 9, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zahid in view of Nabatame, further in view of Tao (US 2023/0402926), hereinafter referred to as Tao. Tao is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control systems.
Regarding claim 2, Zahid in view of Nabatame teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Zahid does not explicitly disclose, but Tao teaches:
wherein the east ECU comprises a low voltage direct current to direct current (DCDC) support circuit block ("A direct current/direct current (DC/DC) converter is used to perform DC/DC conversion on a direct current output by a low-voltage battery to convert a direct current at a low-voltage side into a direct current at a high-voltage side, thereby supplying power to the motor drive controller." – see at least Tao: paragraph 0004),
wherein the DCDC support circuit block comprises one or more functions associated with low voltage DCDC switching or voltage monitor wakes ("Specifically, the power supply topology includes two DC/DC converters, where one DC/DC converter is used to supply power to a switching transistor in an upper bridge arm drive circuit in the motor drive controller, and the other DC/DC converter is used to supply power to a switching transistor in a lower bridge arm drive circuit in the motor drive controller." – see at least Tao: paragraph 0004).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zahid with these above aforementioned teachings from Tao such that the east ECU comprises a low voltage direct current to direct current (DCDC) support circuit block, wherein the DCDC support circuit block comprises one or more functions associated with low voltage DCDC switching or voltage monitor wakes. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Tao’s use of a DC/DC converter with Zahid’s zonal architecture system for a vehicle in order to form DC/DC circuits (“In Example 1, as shown in FIG. 6, a motor drive controller includes three DC/DC circuits (10/11/14)” – see at least Tao: paragraph 0071). Doing so would provide the benefit of using the DC/DC circuits to supply power throughout a vehicle as needed (“The three DC/DC circuits are: a high-voltage flyback isolation power supply 10, which performs DC/DC conversion on a direct current output by a high-voltage power battery (not shown in FIG. 6), so as to supply power to the control circuit 3 at a low-voltage side and the lower bridge arm drive circuit 9 at a high-voltage side; a low-voltage flyback isolation power supply 11, which performs DC/DC conversion on a direct current (for example, 5 V or 12 V) output by a low-voltage battery, so as to supply power to the lower bridge arm drive circuit 9 at the high-voltage side and a forward power supply 14; and the forward power supply 14, which performs DC/DC conversion on a direct current output by a low-voltage flyback isolation power supply 11, so as to supply power to the upper bridge arm drive circuit 8.” – see at least Tao: paragraph 0072).
The examiner notes that the use of DC/DC converters for low voltage DC/DC switching is considered conventional technology that is known in the art (see at least Tao: paragraph 0004). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would be readily capable of applying this conventional functionality using any ECU among the plurality of ECUs taught by Zahid (e.g., an east ECU or right-side ECU) based on the particular configuration of a given vehicle.
Regarding claim 3, Zahid in view of Nabatame and Tao teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Zahid does not explicitly disclose, but Tao teaches:
wherein the east ECU comprises a power supplies circuit block that is connected with power input circuit block, wherein the power supplies circuit block and power input circuit block share low voltage battery ORing power ("In Example 1, the control circuit 3 has two power supplies, the low-voltage battery 2 and the high-voltage flyback isolation power supply 10 (a power supply is selected by using the ORING circuits 6/7), so as to implement power supply backup. The lower bridge arm drive circuit 9 has two power supplies, such as the high-voltage flyback isolation power supply 10 and the low-voltage flyback isolation power supply 11 (a power supply is selected by using the ORING circuits 12/13), so as to implement power supply backup." – see at least Tao: paragraph 0073).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zahid with these above aforementioned teachings from Tao such that the east ECU comprises a power supplies circuit block that is connected with power input circuit block, wherein the power supplies circuit block and power input circuit block share low voltage battery ORing power. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Tao’s use of a ORing circuits with Zahid’s zonal architecture system for a vehicle in order to select a power supply by using the ORing circuits (“In Example 2, the control circuit 3 has two power supplies, the low-voltage battery 2 and the high-voltage flyback isolation power supply 10 (a power supply is selected by using the ORING circuits 6/7), so as to implement power supply backup.” – see at least Tao: paragraph 00716). Doing so would provide the benefit of using the ORing circuits to implement a power supply backup system (“According to the foregoing solution, backup of power supply to the control circuit may be implemented by controlling the third switching transistor and the fourth switching transistor to be turned on and off, or by controlling the fifth switching transistor and the sixth switching transistor to be turned on and off.” – see at least Tao: paragraph 0019).
The examiner notes that the use of ORing circuits to manage a power supply is considered conventional technology that is known in the art (see at least Tao: paragraph 0071). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would be readily capable of applying this conventional functionality using any ECU among the plurality of ECUs taught by Zahid (e.g., an east ECU or right-side ECU) based on the particular configuration of a given vehicle.
Regarding claim 9, Zahid in view of Nabatame and Tao teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Zahid does not explicitly disclose, but Tao teaches:
wherein the west ECU comprises a power supplies circuit block that is connected with power input circuit block, wherein the power supplies circuit block and power input circuit block share low voltage battery ORing power ("In Example 1, the control circuit 3 has two power supplies, the low-voltage battery 2 and the high-voltage flyback isolation power supply 10 (a power supply is selected by using the ORING circuits 6/7), so as to implement power supply backup. The lower bridge arm drive circuit 9 has two power supplies, such as the high-voltage flyback isolation power supply 10 and the low-voltage flyback isolation power supply 11 (a power supply is selected by using the ORING circuits 12/13), so as to implement power supply backup." – see at least Tao: paragraph 0073).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zahid with these above aforementioned teachings from Tao such that the west ECU comprises a power supplies circuit block that is connected with power input circuit block, wherein the power supplies circuit block and power input circuit block share low voltage battery ORing power. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Tao’s use of a ORing circuits with Zahid’s zonal architecture system for a vehicle in order to select a power supply by using the ORing circuits (“In Example 2, the control circuit 3 has two power supplies, the low-voltage battery 2 and the high-voltage flyback isolation power supply 10 (a power supply is selected by using the ORING circuits 6/7), so as to implement power supply backup.” – see at least Tao: paragraph 00716). Doing so would provide the benefit of using the ORing circuits to implement a power supply backup system (“According to the foregoing solution, backup of power supply to the control circuit may be implemented by controlling the third switching transistor and the fourth switching transistor to be turned on and off, or by controlling the fifth switching transistor and the sixth switching transistor to be turned on and off.” – see at least Tao: paragraph 0019).
The examiner notes that the use of ORing circuits to manage a power supply is considered conventional technology that is known in the art (see at least Tao: paragraph 0071). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would be readily capable of applying this conventional functionality using any ECU among the plurality of ECUs taught by Zahid (e.g., a west ECU or left-side ECU) based on the particular configuration of a given vehicle.
Regarding claim 20, this claim is substantially similar to claim 2 and is, therefore, rejected in the same manner as claim 2 as has been set forth above.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zahid in view of Nabatame, further in view of Menden et al. (US 2025/0007430), hereinafter referred to as Menden. Menden is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control systems using zonal architecture. The examiner notes that Menden was effectively filed 30 June 2023, in view of its Foreign Application Priority Data.
Regarding claim 4, Zahid in view of Nabatame teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Zahid does not explicitly disclose, but Menden teaches:
wherein the east ECU comprises a power supplies circuit block that is used to power a microcontroller unit during a standby mode ("In a particular configuration, the motor control device 100 may comprise an “enable” input (labeled “EN” in FIG. 1) in order to activate or not the motor control device 100 according to the value of the signal applied on this input. This input may be used to handle wake-up and standby modes of the motor control device 100." – see at least Menden: paragraph 0066).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zahid with these above aforementioned teachings from Menden such that the east ECU comprises a power supplies circuit block that is used to power a microcontroller unit during a standby mode. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Menden’s use of a control electronic circuit coupled to a motor driver electronic circuit with Zahid’s zonal architecture system for a vehicle in order to manage a plurality of functions associated with the motor control device (“The control electronic circuit 106 may comprise control logic elements 116 forming a state machine dedicated to the management of the different functions fulfilled by the motor control device 100.” – see at least Menden: paragraph 0052). Doing so would provide the benefit of implementing a variety of functions including watchdog and/or standby modes (“In a particular embodiment, the control electronic circuit comprises control logic elements forming a state machine configured to implement at least one of the following functions:… watchdog and standby modes.” – see at least Menden: paragraph 0017).
The examiner notes that Menden teaches a vehicle having a zonal architecture system similar to both the primary reference by Zahid and the instant invention (“In a particular embodiment, the several main ECUs, the at least one gateway and the several motor assemblies are arranged and electrically coupled according to a domain or zonal architecture.” – see at least Menden: paragraph 0028). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would be readily capable of applying the functionality of the control electronic circuit taught by Menden using any ECU among the plurality of ECUs taught by Zahid (e.g., an east ECU or right-side ECU) based on the particular configuration of a given vehicle.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zahid in view of Nabatame, further in view of Lee et al. (US 2020/0028219), hereinafter referred to as Lee. Lee is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control systems.
Regarding claim 5, Zahid in view of Nabatame teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Zahid does not explicitly disclose, but Lee teaches:
wherein the east ECU comprises a power supplies circuit block that has an alternate voltage reference with a microcontroller unit that is redundant to a primary voltage reference ("In order to ensure that the fault does not lie in the reference voltage generator, the three reference-point DC voltages are redundantly generated by a first and a second reference voltage generator." – see at least Lee: paragraph 0006).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zahid with these above aforementioned teachings from Lee such that the east ECU comprises a power supplies circuit block that has an alternate voltage reference with a microcontroller unit that is redundant to a primary voltage reference. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Lee’s use of reference-point DC voltages with Zahid’s zonal architecture system for a vehicle in order to implement a redundant reference voltage generator alongside a main reference voltage generator (“For example, in some scenarios two reference voltage generators can be used. These reference voltage generators will include a main reference voltage generator (BG_M) 636M and a redundant reference voltage generator (BG_R) 636R.” – see at least Lee: paragraph 0056). Doing so would provide the benefit of having redundant and independent safety mechanisms within the vehicle (“For redundancy purposes, main and redundant ADCs are provided in an FTBS 300 described herein. The redundant ADCs complement each other to collect the necessary information to manage the system, and provide an additional independent safety mechanism.” – see at least Lee: paragraph 0059).
The examiner notes that the use of redundant circuits to improve functional safety of an electronic system is considered conventional technology that is known in the art (see at least Lee: paragraph 0023). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would be readily capable of applying this conventional functionality using any ECU among the plurality of ECUs taught by Zahid (e.g., an east ECU or right-side ECU) based on the particular configuration of a given vehicle.
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zahid in view of Nabatame, further in view of Kuribayashi (US 2018/0043748), hereinafter referred to as Kuribayashi. Kuribayashi is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control systems.
Regarding claim 7, Zahid in view of Nabatame teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Zahid does not explicitly disclose, but Kuribayashi teaches:
wherein the east ECU comprises a stepper motor driver circuit block that is used to control an electrical motor that rotates in a series of angular steps ("The air conditioner ECU 10 is based on a stepper motor system as a communication system. In the communication message of the stepper motor system, the number of steps of the stepper motor is used." – see at least Kuribayashi: paragraph 0056).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zahid with these above aforementioned teachings from Kuribayashi such that the east ECU comprises a stepper motor driver circuit block that is used to control an electrical motor that rotates in a series of angular steps. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Kuribayashi’s use of a stepper motor with Zahid’s zonal architecture system for a vehicle in order to drive components of an air conditional system in a vehicle (“The respective air mixing doors 15 and 16 are driven by actuators such as stepper motors 17 and 18, respectively, and change blowing temperatures of the conditioned air blown from the respective blowing ports 20 to 23 and 30 to 33 on the driver's seat side and the passenger's seat side toward the respective air conditioning spaces in the vehicle interior.” – see at least Kuribayashi: paragraph 0034). Doing so would provide the benefit of driving a stepper motor system according to instructions transmitted from an air conditioner ECU (“In the case of the stepper motor system, because the position information of 16 bits is transmitted from the air conditioner ECU 10, the position information is converted into DC motor potentiometer position information of 8 bits inside the sub ECU 80 to control the position of the DC motor. As a result, an instruction of the number of driving steps for the stepper motor is transmitted, and the DC motor can be driven to a position corresponding to the number of steps transmitted.” – see at least Kuribayashi: paragraph 0059).
The examiner notes that the use of stepper motors to control vehicle components is considered conventional technology that is known in the art (see at least Kuribayashi: paragraph 0005). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would be readily capable of applying this conventional functionality using any ECU among the plurality of ECUs taught by Zahid based on the particular configuration of a given vehicle (e.g., an east ECU or right-side ECU to control an air conditioner system on the right side of a vehicle).
Regarding claim 10, Zahid in view of Nabatame and Kuribayashi teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Zahid does not explicitly disclose, but Kuribayashi teaches:
wherein the west ECU comprises a stepper motor driver circuit block that is used to control an electrical motor that rotates in a series of angular steps ("The air conditioner ECU 10 is based on a stepper motor system as a communication system. In the communication message of the stepper motor system, the number of steps of the stepper motor is used." – see at least Kuribayashi: paragraph 0056).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zahid with these above aforementioned teachings from Kuribayashi such that the west ECU comprises a stepper motor driver circuit block that is used to control an electrical motor that rotates in a series of angular steps. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Kuribayashi’s use of a stepper motor with Zahid’s zonal architecture system for a vehicle in order to drive components of an air conditional system in a vehicle (“The respective air mixing doors 15 and 16 are driven by actuators such as stepper motors 17 and 18, respectively, and change blowing temperatures of the conditioned air blown from the respective blowing ports 20 to 23 and 30 to 33 on the driver's seat side and the passenger's seat side toward the respective air conditioning spaces in the vehicle interior.” – see at least Kuribayashi: paragraph 0034). Doing so would provide the benefit of driving a stepper motor system according to instructions transmitted from an air conditioner ECU (“In the case of the stepper motor system, because the position information of 16 bits is transmitted from the air conditioner ECU 10, the position information is converted into DC motor potentiometer position information of 8 bits inside the sub ECU 80 to control the position of the DC motor. As a result, an instruction of the number of driving steps for the stepper motor is transmitted, and the DC motor can be driven to a position corresponding to the number of steps transmitted.” – see at least Kuribayashi: paragraph 0059).
The examiner notes that the use of stepper motors to control vehicle components is considered conventional technology that is known in the art (see at least Kuribayashi: paragraph 0005). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would be readily capable of applying this conventional functionality using any ECU among the plurality of ECUs taught by Zahid based on the particular configuration of a given vehicle (e.g., a west ECU or left-side ECU to control an air conditioner system on the left side of a vehicle).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zahid in view of Nabatame, further in view of Occhipinti et al. (US 2025/0330303), hereinafter referred to as Occhipinti. Occhipinti is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control systems using zonal architecture. The examiner notes that Occhipinti was effectively filed 22 April 2024, in view of its Foreign Application Priority Data.
Regarding claim 8, Zahid in view of Nabatame teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Zahid does not explicitly disclose, but Occhipinti teaches:
wherein the east ECU comprises an electrochromic tint driver circuit block that is configured to control tint on mirrors ("By way of example, a door control unit (DCU) is an ECU usually located inside a door of the vehicle, which includes the electronics needed to control the electrical loads typically located in the door (e.g., locks, window lift motor, mirror motor, mirror heater, electrochromic mirror glass, and the like). " – see at least Occhipinti: paragraph 0008).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zahid with these above aforementioned teachings from Occhipinti such that the east ECU comprises an electrochromic tint driver circuit block that is configured to control tint on mirrors. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Occhipinti’s method of controlling an electrochromic mirror with Zahid’s zonal architecture system for a vehicle in order to use an assigned ECU to control an electrochromic glass of a side mirror (“The analog actuators 54 are coupled to respective loads L that, as exemplified in FIG. 6, may include:… an electrochromic glass of the side mirror” – see at least Occhipinti: 0069). Doing so would provide the benefit of using a particular ECU to control actuators in a respective zone of the vehicle (e.g., an electro-chromatic device on a door of the vehicle) (“FIG. 5 is a block diagram exemplary of components of a smart node device 50 (e.g., an ECU 30 or, more specifically, a door zone smart node 46) according to one or more embodiments. In particular, the smart node device 50 may be a door control unit (DCU) that includes a door zone device 52. The door zone device 52 includes a set of analog actuators 54 for driving respective loads, such as: one or more half-bridge circuits 541, one or more high-side drivers 542, one or more heater devices 543, one or more electro-chromatic devices 544, and one or more full-bridge circuits 545.” – see at least Occhipinti: paragraph 0068).
The examiner notes that Occhipinti teaches a vehicle having a zonal architecture system similar to both the primary reference by Zahid and the instant invention (“As exemplified in FIG. 3, a zone-oriented E/E network of a vehicle V also includes a plurality of electronic control units (ECUs) positioned at different locations of the vehicle. The various ECUs are physically grouped in different groups (or clouds) of ECUs, and the ECUs pertaining to the same group are physically located in the same region or zone of the vehicle V.” – see at least Occhipinti: paragraph 0008). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would be readily capable of applying the functionality of controlling the electrochromic glass of a side mirror as taught by Occhipinti using any ECU among the plurality of ECUs taught by Zahid based on the particular configuration of a given vehicle (e.g., an east ECU or right-side ECU to control the electrochromic glass of a right-side mirror).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zahid in view of Nabatame, further in view of Nishitani et al. (US 2012/0001547), hereinafter referred to as Nishitani. Nishitani is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control systems.
Regarding claim 11, Zahid in view of Nabatame teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Zahid does not explicitly disclose, but Nishitani teaches:
wherein the west ECU comprises constant current drivers circuit block that is configured to provide a consistent amount of electrical current to one or more components of the second components ("The headlamp ECU 1 works as a headlamp diagnosis circuit to sample the digital current value, as derived by the current detector 6, cyclically when a constant current is flowing through the light source 30, so that the light source 30 is kept on." – see at least Nishitani: paragraph 0063),
wherein the one or more components of the second components comprises light emitting diodes (“Specifically, the light source 30 is equipped with multi-chip LED modules 31a and 32a.” – see at least Nishitani: paragraph 0059).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zahid with these above aforementioned teachings from Nishitani such that the west ECU comprises constant current drivers circuit block that is configured to provide a consistent amount of electrical current to one or more components of the second components, wherein the one or more components of the second components comprises light emitting diodes. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Nishitani’s use of a constant current flow with Zahid’s zonal architecture system for a vehicle in order to implement an ECU as a headlamp ECU (“The headlamp ECU 1 works as a headlamp diagnosis circuit. Specifically, the headlamp ECU 1 samples the forward voltage Vf1 of the multi-chip LED module 31 and the forward voltage Vf2 of the multi-chip LED module 32 cyclically through the Vf detector 5 when a constant current is flowing through the light source 30, so that the light source 30 is kept on.” – see at least Nishitani: paragraph 0054). Doing so would provide the benefit of implementing an ECU configure to control aspects of an LED light source of a vehicle (“The ROM of the headlamp ECU 1 stores therein programs to process received signals, control the operations of the switching regulator 2 and the light source 30, and execute tasks when the light source 30 is found to be malfunctioning.” – see at least Nishitani: paragraph 0054).
The examiner notes that the use of a constant current flow to power an LED light source is considered conventional technology that is known in the art (see at least Nishitani: paragraph 0063). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would be readily capable of applying this conventional functionality using any ECU among the plurality of ECUs taught by Zahid based on the particular configuration of a given vehicle (e.g., a west ECU or left-side ECU to control an LED light source on the left side of a vehicle).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zahid in view of Nabatame, further in view of Ahn et al. (US 2020/0159081), hereinafter referred to as Ahn. Ahn is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control systems.
Regarding claim 12, Zahid in view of Nabatame teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Zahid does not explicitly disclose, but Ahn teaches:
wherein the south ECU comprises a polymer-dispersed liquid crystal (PDLC) circuit block that is configured to operate PDLC glass to switch from opaque to transparent ("The controller may be configured to: drive at least one power sources of the windshield and the window; and control transparency of the hetero electrochromic film according to a vehicle driving mode.... In response to the vehicle driving mode being the autonomous driving mode, the controller may be configured to: cut off a power source of the SPD film of the hetero electrochromic film to drive the SPD film to have an opaque black color; and cut off a power source of the PDLC film to drive the PDLC film to have an opaque white color. In response to the vehicle driving mode being the manual driving mode, the controller may be configured to: supply power to the SPD film of the hetero electrochromic film to drive the SPD film to be transparent; and supply power to the PDLC film to control the PDLC film to be transparent." – see at least Ahn: paragraphs 0016-0019).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zahid with these above aforementioned teachings from Ahn such that the south ECU comprises a polymer-dispersed liquid crystal (PDLC) circuit block that is configured to operate PDLC glass to switch from opaque to transparent. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Ahn’s use of PDLC film with Zahid’s zonal architecture system for a vehicle in order to control the transparency of a window of the vehicle (“In the SPD film and the PDLC film may be separately disposed onto the windshield and the window; and wherein the controller is, in response to the vehicle being in the manual driving mode, configured to: control the transparency of at least one partial region of the windshield and the window; and display a driving information window onto the at least one partial region using the projector.” – see at least Ahn: paragraph 0020). Doing so would provide the benefit of allowing the transparency of a vehicle window to be varied based on the current driving situation (“In one embodiment of the present invention, the PDLC film 112 and the SPD film 111 may be simultaneously applied to provide various driving situations such as an autonomous driving mode or a manual driving mode, various driving modes for a driver or passenger, and image content.” – see at least Ahn: paragraph 0041).
The examiner notes that the use of PDLC film to control transparency is considered conventional technology that is known in the art (see at least Ahn: paragraphs 0011-0013). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would be readily capable of applying this conventional functionality using any ECU among the plurality of ECUs taught by Zahid based on the particular configuration of a given vehicle (e.g., a south ECU or rear ECU to control the transparency of a rear window of a vehicle).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zahid in view of Nabatame, further in view of Ross et al. (US 2001/0054841), hereinafter referred to as Ross. Ross is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control systems.
Regarding claim 14, Zahid in view of Nabatame teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Zahid does not explicitly disclose, but Ross teaches:
wherein the south ECU comprises a trailer tow circuit block that is configured to operate a trailer door wake component ("In the system of FIG. 1 there is included trailer diagnostic and information means including a further electronic control unit (ECU) 27 adapted to receive, from sensors (not shown) connected to inputs 31, indications of the locked or interlocked status of trailer body rear door locks, trailer body temperature, trailer reversing obstacle detection, tire pressure monitoring and information for determining imminence of servicing requirements based upon trailer use." – see at least Ross: paragraph 0013).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zahid with these above aforementioned teachings from Ross such that the south ECU comprises a trailer tow circuit block that is configured to operate a trailer door wake component. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Ross’s use of an ECU for trailer diagnostics and control with Zahid’s zonal architecture system for a vehicle in order to monitor information related to the status of a trailer ("In the system of FIG. 1 there is included trailer diagnostic and information means including a further electronic control unit (ECU) 27 adapted to receive, from sensors (not shown) connected to inputs 31, indications of the locked or interlocked status of trailer body rear door locks, trailer body temperature, trailer reversing obstacle detection, tire pressure monitoring and information for determining imminence of servicing requirements based upon trailer use." – see at least Ross: paragraph 0013). Doing so would provide the benefit of allowing the respective ECU to communicate relevant information regarding an attached trailer (“The ECU 27 can communicate such information visibly or audibly to the tractor vehicle driver or to one or more remote information control stations via radio or satellite links.” – see at least Ross: paragraph 0013).
The examiner notes that the use of an ECU to control and manage aspects of a trailer vehicle is considered conventional technology that is known in the art (see at least Ross: paragraph 0019). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would be readily capable of applying this conventional functionality using any ECU among the plurality of ECUs taught by Zahid based on the particular configuration of a given vehicle (e.g., a south ECU or rear ECU to control and manage a trailer connected to the rear of a vehicle).
Regarding claim 15, Zahid in view of Nabatame and Ross teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Zahid does not explicitly disclose, but Ross teaches:
wherein the south ECU comprises a trailer tow circuit block that is configured to control one or more features of a trailer tow ("In the system of FIG. 1 there is included trailer diagnostic and information means including a further electronic control unit (ECU) 27 adapted to receive, from sensors (not shown) connected to inputs 31, indications of the locked or interlocked status of trailer body rear door locks, trailer body temperature, trailer reversing obstacle detection, tire pressure monitoring and information for determining imminence of servicing requirements based upon trailer use." – see at least Ross: paragraph 0013).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zahid with these above aforementioned teachings from Ross such that the south ECU comprises a trailer tow circuit block that is configured to control one or more features of a trailer tow. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Ross’s use of an ECU for trailer diagnostics and control with Zahid’s zonal architecture system for a vehicle in order to monitor information related to the status of a trailer ("In the system of FIG. 1 there is included trailer diagnostic and information means including a further electronic control unit (ECU) 27 adapted to receive, from sensors (not shown) connected to inputs 31, indications of the locked or interlocked status of trailer body rear door locks, trailer body temperature, trailer reversing obstacle detection, tire pressure monitoring and information for determining imminence of servicing requirements based upon trailer use." – see at least Ross: paragraph 0013). Doing so would provide the benefit of allowing the respective ECU to communicate relevant information regarding an attached trailer (“The ECU 27 can communicate such information visibly or audibly to the tractor vehicle driver or to one or more remote information control stations via radio or satellite links.” – see at least Ross: paragraph 0013).
The examiner notes that the use of an ECU to control and manage aspects of a trailer vehicle is considered conventional technology that is known in the art (see at least Ross: paragraph 0019). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would be readily capable of applying this conventional functionality using any ECU among the plurality of ECUs taught by Zahid based on the particular configuration of a given vehicle (e.g., a south ECU or rear ECU to control and manage a trailer connected to the rear of a vehicle).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 17-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 6-7, and 15-17 of copending Application No. 19/170,359 (reference application). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
As per claim 1 of the instant application, each of the limitations are taught by the claims of the reference application. While the particular syntax and wording are not identical between the instant application and the reference application, the concepts and limitations are considered to be substantially similar and, at most, obvious variations of each other. In particular, the reference application teaches:
A vehicle comprising: an east electronic control unit (ECU), wherein the east ECU operates first components of a first side of a longitudinal axis of the vehicle (“A vehicle comprising: a first electronic control unit (ECU), wherein the first ECU communicates with first components of a first side of a longitudinal axis of the vehicle dividing the vehicle into the first side and a second side” – see at least claim 1 of the reference application),
wherein the longitudinal axis is defined as an imaginary line running from a front of the vehicle to a rear of the vehicle along its center, dividing the vehicle into the first side and a second side (“wherein the longitudinal axis is defined as an imaginary line running from a front of the vehicle to a rear of the vehicle along a center of the vehicle” – see at least claim 6 of the reference application);
a west ECU, wherein the west ECU operates second components of the second side of the longitudinal axis of the vehicle (“and a second ECU, wherein the second ECU communicates with second components of the second side of the longitudinal axis of the vehicle” – see at least claim 1 of the reference application);
and a south ECU positioned at the rear of the vehicle (“further comprising a third ECU, wherein the third ECU communicates with third components in a rear of a horizontal axis of the vehicle dividing the vehicle into a front and the rear” – see at least claim 2 of the reference application).
As per claim 17, the reference application teaches:
wherein the south ECU operates third components in the rear of the vehicle (“further comprising a third ECU, wherein the third ECU communicates with third components in a rear of a horizontal axis of the vehicle dividing the vehicle into a front and the rear” – see at least claim 2 of the reference application).
As per claim 18, the reference application teaches:
A vehicle comprising: an east electronic control unit (ECU), wherein the east ECU is positioned on a first side of a longitudinal axis of the vehicle (“wherein the first ECU is geographically positioned on the first side of the vehicle” – see at least claim 7 of the reference application),
wherein the longitudinal axis is defined as an imaginary line running from a front of the vehicle to a rear of the vehicle along its center, dividing the vehicle into the first side and a second side (“wherein the longitudinal axis is defined as an imaginary line running from a front of the vehicle to a rear of the vehicle along a center of the vehicle” – see at least claim 6 of the reference application);
and a west ECU, wherein the west ECU is positioned on the second side of the longitudinal axis of the vehicle (“and the second ECU is geographically positioned on the second side of the vehicle, wherein the first side and the second side are different” – see at least claim 7 of the reference application).
As per claim 19, the reference application teaches:
further comprising a south ECU that operates third components at the rear of the vehicle (“further comprising a third ECU, wherein the third ECU communicates with third components in a rear of a horizontal axis of the vehicle dividing the vehicle into a front and the rear” – see at least claim 2 of the reference application).
As such, each of claims 1 and 17-19 of the instant application are considered obvious over claims 1-2, 6-7, and 15-17 of the reference application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Staudt et al. (US 2023/0264641) teaches in at least paragraphs 0004 and 0018-0022, a vehicle power system including a zonal architecture in which zonal ECUs act as a zone controller, wherein functional blocks within the physical section of the vehicle associated with the respective zone may be rapidly woken up.
Fuchs et al. (US 2025/0074342) teaches in at least Fig.1 and in at least paragraphs 0001-0008, 0018, and 0027 a vehicle with a zone architecture including a front region zone, a right-hand cabin zone, a left-hand cabin zone, and a rear region zone, wherein each zone comprises a plurality of zone controllers.
Bauer et al. (US 2023/0286451) teaches in at least paragraphs 0045-0047 a vehicle interface system including a computing system for performing processing within the vehicle platform, wherein ECUs of the computing system are distributed throughout the vehicle in a zonal architecture and controls processing for various systems are grouped by location and/or physical arrangement.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINICK ANTHONY MULDER whose telephone number is (571)272-3610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, RAMYA P BURGESS can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/D.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/MATTHIAS S WEISFELD/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights