Vehicle User Management API with HAL for Multi-OS Synchronization

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing vehicle head unit operating systems require time-consuming and expensive manual configuration of command sets for various vehicle systems, and are prone to errors due to hard-coded translations for different control bus protocols, limiting interoperability and upgrade flexibility.

Innovation Solution

Implementing a vehicle head unit with a first operating system that provides an application programming interface (API) and a hardware abstraction layer (HAL) to translate messages across different control bus protocols, allowing for uniform message sets and improved user management services without hard coding.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If manufacturers statically code command sets to conform to particular control bus protocols, then the head unit can control vehicle systems reliably, but the development time and cost increase significantly

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecontrol reliabilityVSAvoiddevelopment time
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The command set is segmented into a standardized internal representation layer and a protocol-specific translation layer. The head unit generates standardized commands that are then translated by protocol adapters to specific control bus protocols (CAN, LIN, FlexRay, etc.), separating the control logic from protocol-specific implementations.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

A standardized command set acts as an intermediary between the head unit's control logic and the diverse control bus protocols. This intermediate layer translates generic control intentions into protocol-specific messages, eliminating the need to hardcode each protocol directly in the control logic.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

2Manufacturing precision

If manufacturers manually configure command sets for each vehicle system, then the control precision is improved, but the manufacturing cost and time increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecontrol precisionVSAvoidmanufacturing cost
Core Design Contradiction:
Manufacturing precisionVSEase of manufacture

Solution Approach 1:

The head unit implements a universal command set that can control multiple vehicle systems across different protocols through a single standardized interface. This multi-functional approach allows the same command structure to work with various ECUs and control bus types, reducing the need for system-specific configurations.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

Solution Approach 2:

Instead of manually configuring unique command sets for each system, the patent uses template-based command definitions that can be copied and adapted for different vehicle systems. The standardized command structure serves as a reusable template that maintains control precision while reducing configuration effort.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #26Copying

3Reliability

If the operating system is hard-coded to support specific control bus protocols, then protocol compatibility is ensured, but the adaptability to new protocols decreases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveprotocol compatibilityVSAvoidprotocol adaptability
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The system transitions from static, hard-coded protocol support to dynamic protocol adaptation. Protocol adapters can be loaded or configured at runtime based on the target vehicle system, allowing the head unit to adapt to new or changing protocols without modifying the core operating system.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The standardized command set serves as a protocol-agnostic intermediary that decouples the operating system from specific control bus protocols. This intermediate layer enables protocol compatibility through translation rather than hard-coding, allowing easy adaptation to new protocols by adding or modifying adapters.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

4Manufacturing precision

If command sets are customized for each vehicle model and trim level, then the operational accuracy is improved, but the complexity of system configuration increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveoperational accuracyVSAvoidsystem complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Manufacturing precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies local quality by allowing protocol-specific adaptations only where necessary, while maintaining a uniform standardized command set for the majority of control operations. Each vehicle system can have localized protocol translations without affecting the overall command structure or other systems.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

Solution Approach 2:

The system uses parameter-based configuration where vehicle model and trim level specificities are handled through configurable parameters rather than structural changes to the command set. The standardized command structure remains unchanged, with only protocol translation parameters adapting to different vehicle configurations.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

Data Source

PatentEP3882765B1Integration of vehicle manufacturer user management system with automotive operating system
Publication Date: 2026.01.07 GOOGLE LLC
  • EP3882765B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP3882765B1 patent drawingFigure 2
  • EP3882765B1 patent drawingFigure 3

AI summary

Devices and methods are disclosed relating to user management services for a vehicle. One of more processors of a device may execute a first operating system to provide user management services to the vehicle. The first operating system may present an interface to a second operating system by which the second operating system may invoke user management operations. The first operating system may generate a first message relating to user management. The interface may provide the first message to the second operating system. The interface may receive a second message from the second operating system. The second message may be related to synchronizing user management between the first operating system and the second operating system.