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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 18 May 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 18 May 2026, has been entered and carefully considered.
Claims 1-10 are canceled.
Claim 11 is amended.
Claims 12 and 13 are newly added.
Claims 11-13 are currently pending.
The outstanding rejection of Claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to said claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 May 2026 regarding the rejection of Claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. While the issues noted in the previous Office action are resolved, the newly added claim language raises issues of new matter for the reasons detailed below.
Applicant's arguments filed 18 May 2026 regarding the rejection of Claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. While the amendments do resolve the issues identified in the previous Office action, the newly added claim language raises issues of indefiniteness for the reasons detailed below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 15 January 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is 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.
Claims 11-13 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 claims contain 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.
Regarding Claim 11, the amended claim language recites “wherein the predetermined transmit opportunity time is identical for each node and represents a uniform transmit opportunity duration allocated to each node per cycle.” However, this is not supported by Applicant’s specification. Paragraph 0033 states the following: “The Transmit Opportunity is configured identically for all nodes and may be read locally from the application software by the ECU node (network stack).” As seen from this passage, while the “Transmit Opportunity” is broadly recited as being configured identically, the specification does not indicate that a “predetermined transmit opportunity time” is identical for each node. Further, the specification is silent as to the feature that the “predetermined transmit opportunity time represents a uniform transmit opportunity duration.” Further with respect to the claimed “transmit opportunity time”, the specification solely describes the transmit opportunity in terms of bits (see paragraph 0034) but not in terms of time. As such, this limitation defining the “transmit opportunity time” constitutes new matter.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected by virtue of dependency on Claim 11.
Further regarding Claim 12, the newly added claim language “the head node transmits exactly one beacon frame during each cycle to define the start of that cycle” is new matter because the specification does not indicate the format of the beacon or the transmission of any frame in the network. Therefore, the claim language reciting a “beacon frame” is not supported by Applicant’s disclosure, as originally filed, and constitutes new matter.
Further regarding Claim 13, the newly added claim language “when a payload data transmission by any other node is detected during the elapsed time before the second beacon signal, restarting the measuring step” is new matter. As depicted in Figure 3, which the Office notes is not further described in the specification aside from the brief summary in paragraph 0028, a determination that data was transmitted between Z0 and Z1 will return to a step of “search(ing) for the starting time of cycle +1 “Z1”). However, the specification does not indicate that detection of payload data leads to a restart of measurement (of the elapsed time). Therefore, the claim language reciting “restarting the measuring step” is not supported by Applicant’s disclosure, as originally filed, and constitutes 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.
Claims 11-13 are 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.
Regarding Claim 11, this claim is found to be indefinite for the following reasons:
The claim language recites “one transmit opportunity per cycle and a head node transmits a beacon at a start of each cycle.” However, the claim language is not clear as to how many cycles are present, such that it is not clear whether “per cycle” and “each cycle” are referring to a unclaimed plurality of cycles.
Claim language “the round-robin cycle” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim language “the determined cycle length” lacks antecedent basis. The “cycle length” is “identif(ied)” as part of the “measuring” step, but the claim does not “determine” a cycle length. Further, it is not clear whether “the round-robin cycle” refers to earlier recitations of “per cycle” or “each cycle.”
Claim language “”wherein the predetermined transmit opportunity time…represents a uniform transmit opportunity duration allocated to each node per cycle” unclear as to how the “transmit opportunity time” is “represented” as a uniform transmit opportunity duration. The claim language does not further limit this concept, while represent(ation) and “uniform transmit opportunity duration” are also not further described in Applicant’s specification so as to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to be apprised of the claim’s scope.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected by virtue of dependency on Claim 11.
Further regarding Claim 12, the claim language recites “during each cycle to define the start of that cycle.” As noted above, the number of cycles is not specified in the claim language; therefore, Claim 12 is not clear as to which cycle is referenced. Similarly, claim language “that cycle” is unclear as to which of the cycles is referenced.
Prior art search and examination of the application will proceed based on the scope as best understood by the Office.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant’s admitted prior art, at paragraph 0005 recites the following: “The PIEEE802.3cg standard uses a newly defined mechanism (PLCA Physical Layer Collision Avoidance) to avoid collisions during bus access and to grant fair access. In this case, only exactly one PHY (transceiver) ever receives access to the bus at exactly one time. This makes it possible to avoid collisions. Access is based on what is called a round-robin method. Each ECU (node) on the bus has the opportunity to transmit within a defined cycle. A so-called head node in this case determines the cycle and transmits one "beacon" on the bus per cycle. The nodes, depending on their previously allocated ID (determines the order when they are allowed to transmit), thus start a timer, and are allowed to transmit after said timer has expired.”
Kim et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2020/0295957) is directed to tracking transmission opportunities in a network with a PLCA function.
Kim et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2021/0377343) discloses a wake up procedure as part of a network with a PLCA function (refer to Figure 7).
Yun et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2020/0130135857) discloses transmission opportunity counter synchronization (Figure 9A).
Sostawa et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2019/0363991) discloses a beacon starting a transmission cycle and interpreting silence to determine that a separate data portion of the transmission cycle with be received next.
Dalmia (United States Patent 11652585) discloses identifying nodes present on a network via presence of PRESENT, COMMIT, or DATA in assigned transmit opportunities (Figure 4).
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
Prosecution Insights