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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 26 December 2025, has been entered and carefully considered.
Claims 1-10 are canceled.
Claim 11 is newly added and currently pending.
The outstanding objection to the drawings is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s cancellation of Claims 5-10.
Response to Arguments
The Office notes that Applicant has stated the newly added Claim 11 is supported in Figure 4 and paragraphs 0015, 0033 and 0034 of the application as originally filed. However, the Office does not find this to be persuasive, for the reasons set forth in the rejection below of Claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 2 July 2025 and 1 August 2025 were filed after the mailing date of the Office action on 25 June 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 11 is 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 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.
Firstly, the claim limitation “wherein bus access is implemented using a round-robin scheme” is not supported by Applicant’s disclosure as originally filed. Looking to the specification, paragraph 0005 describes the PIEEE802.3cg standard where “access is based on what is called a round-robin method.” However, the specification makes no reference to the disclosed system using this standard or a round-robin scheme.
Next, the claimed method of determining a “cycle length of the round-robin scheme…by measuring the duration of an unused cycle in which no data is transmitted” does not find support in Applicant’s disclosure as originally filed. As set forth above, Applicant’s disclosure does not describe utilizing a round-robin scheme. Further, determination of a cycle length does not align with the originally filed disclosure, particularly in light of the following passages:
Paragraph 0015: “…and following calculation of the pure cycle length (TL), which is ascertained by transmitting the beacon time at the time tB, the transmission window of an ECU node (ECU A, ECU B, ECU C) is used to calculate the number of nodes n that are located in the Ethernet on-board network.”
Paragraph 0030: “Following determination of the pure cycle length TL, which may be recognized by the transmission of a so-called beacon, the transmission window of an ECU node (ECU A, ECU B, ECU C) may be used to calculate how many participants are on the bus.”
Paragraph 0033: Using the cycle length TL, it may then be calculated for the first time how many nodes n, that is to say ECUs, are connected to the network or Ethernet on-board network.
None of the above paragraphs indicate that the cycle length is determined by measuring a duration of an unused cycle in which no data is transmitted.
Lastly, calculating the number of nodes connected to the bus by the claimed division operation is not supported by the disclosure as originally filed. In the example described in paragraph 0034, while division of the cycle length (140) by the “transmit_opportunity” (20) could be contemplated as a way to arrive at a determination of 7 nodes, the specification is silent as to the mathematical operations performed to find the number of nodes. While Figure 4 (shown below) appears to show a division operation to determine “Node number”, the cycle length is not clearly shown and the “ZL-beacon” in the numerator is not further described in the specification. Further, paragraph 0028 indicates that Figure 4 shows a calculation of the number of participants on the bus and not necessarily the number of nodes.
PNG
media_image1.png
278
388
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For these reasons, the claimed subject matter highlighted above in Claim 11 is found to be new matter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claim is found to be indefinite for the following reasons:
Claim language “the number of nodes” in line 1 lacks antecedent basis.
The claim language recites “a cycle length”, “a cycle”, and “an unused cycle”; however, it is not clear whether each recitation of “cycle” refers to the same cycle or different cycles that are part of respective determination and measuring processes.
Claim language “the bus” in lines 5 and 7 lacks antecedent basis, as the claim recites “a bus Ethernet network” in the preamble, but not “a bus”.
Claim language “each node on the bus” in lines 4-5 is not commensurate in scope with the preamble phrase reciting “the number of nodes connected to a bus Ethernet network.” Specifically, it is not clear whether a node being “on a bus” is meant to refer to a node being “connected to a bus Ethernet network.”
Lastly, the second clause of the claim recites “calculating the number of nodes connected to the bus by dividing the determined cycle length by a predetermined transmit opportunity time, the predetermined transmit opportunity time being identical for each node.” However, the claim is unclear as to how a number of nodes can be calculated using two quantities which are measured in time (a “cycle length” and a “predetermined transmit opportunity time”). Dividing quantities utilizing the same unit of measure would result in a unit-less result; therefore, the claim does not set forth how to arrive at a measure of nodes from a unit-less result.
Prior art search and examination of the application will proceed based on the scope as best understood by the Office.
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “determining a cycle length of the round-robin scheme, wherein each node on the bus has an opportunity to transmit within a cycle, by measuring the duration of an unused cycle in which no data is transmitted and calculating the number of nodes connected to the bus by dividing the determined cycle length by a predetermined transmit opportunity time, the predetermined transmit opportunity time being identical for each node.” The limitations shown above, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can practically be performed by the human mind. Therefore, these steps fall under the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The preamble of the claim further recites “a method for determining the number of nodes connected to a bus Ethernet network in a motor vehicle, wherein bus access is implemented using a round-robin scheme”. However, this phrase is both an intended result of the method (“determining the number of nodes…”) and a recitation at a high level of generality of a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, the additional elements recited in the preamble amount to no more than a general link to a particular technological environment or field of use. Linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not result in the claim amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, and thereby cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 11 is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bronstein et al (United States Patent 5910954) discloses an arbiter determining which of Ethernet controllers, which are connected together along a bus, is to communicate with Ethernet interface by performing a time multiplexing, or round robin, scan of the bus connecting each Ethernet controller with the interface, one after the other, for a short period of time (column 6, lines 18-24).
Park (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2002/0044565) discloses counting the number of nodes that access a global bus (Figure 4B and paragraphs 0061-0067).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW W. CHRISS whose telephone number is (571)272-1774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm ET.
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, Kevin Bates can be reached at (571) 272-3980. 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.
/ANDREW W CHRISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472