DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to Application No. 18/304,384 filed on 4/21/2023. The amendment presented on 1/20/2026, which amends claims 1, 10, and 12-13, is hereby acknowledged. Claims 1-13 have been examined.
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 .
Specification
The amendment to the Title "ELECTRONIC CONTROL DEVICE AND DATA COMMUNICATION METHOD FOR PROTOCOL CONVERSION AND PROTOCOL DATA UNIT EXTRACTION” has been considered and is acceptable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-2 and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (hereinafter Yamamoto)(US 2021/0176090) in view of Louis Peschi (hereinafter Peschi)(US 2005/0276279), and further in view of Kurokawa et al. (hereinafter Kurokawa)(US 2022/0337453).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 12, Yamamoto teaches as follows:
An electronic control device (interpreted as the in-vehicle system 1000 in figure 1) comprising:
a control unit (interpreted as the electronic control unit (ECU in figure 1) that executes an application;
a data frame reception unit (interpreted as the first communication controller 2 in figure 1) that receives a data frame (CAN data frame message 401 in figure 1) of a first communication protocol (interpreted as the communication protocol (CAN)) from a first communication bus (interpreted as the first communication bus 101 in figure 1) conforming to the first communication protocol (a communication protocol (CAN) of the first communication bus 101, which is a transmission source of the message 401 received by the first communication controller 2, see, ¶ [0030] and figure 1); and
a reception time protocol conversion unit (interpreted as the data frame converter 6 in figure 1) that protocol-converts the data frame of the first communication protocol received by the data frame reception unit into a data frame of a second communication protocol (interpreted as the CAN-FD data frame)(the data frame converter 6 performs frame conversion on the message 401 of the CAN data frame to generate a message 402 of the CAN-FD data frame, see, ¶ [0030] and figure 1),
wherein the application is executed by the control unit that is not directly connected to the first communication bus (the diagnosing device 102 (ECU1) communicates with the CAN data frame-compatible diagnostic application running on the diagnosed device 202 (ECU2) to diagnose the diagnosed device 202 (ECU2), see, ¶ [0053] and figure 6)(therefore, the communication bus 101 is not directly connected to the diagnostic application running on the diagnosed device 202 (ECU2) which directly connected to the communication bus 201).
Yamamoto does not teach the protocol data unit extraction unit nor the protocol data unit provision unit.
Peschi teaches as follows:
The tunnel overhead adder converts the IPv6 protocol data unit into an IPv4 protocol data unit or encapsulates the IPv6 protocol data unit in an IPv4 protocol data unit (see, ¶ [0081]); and
The tunnel overhead remover converts the IPv6-in-IPv4 protocol data unit into an IPv6 protocol data unit or decapsulates an IPv6 protocol data unit (equivalent to applicant’s extracting a PDU) from the IPv4 protocol data unit (see, ¶ [0089]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamamoto with Peschi to include the well-known decapsulation process as taught by Peschi in order to efficiently obtain previously encapsulated PDU.
Yamamoto in view of Peschi does not teach protocol conversion between the CAN and the Ethernet.
Kurokawa teaches as follows:
The protocol converter 61 receives a backbone network signal through the backbone port 65 and performs protocol conversion on this signal. For example, a backbone network signal conforming to an Ethernet protocol is subjected to protocol conversion to be converted to a digital conversion signal conforming to, for example, a controller area network (CAN) protocol, a CAN with flexible data-rate (CAN-FD) protocol, or a local interconnect network (LIN) protocol (see, ¶ [0049] and figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamamoto in view of Peschi with Kurokawa to include converting from a CAN protocol to a Ethernet protocol in order to efficiently provide two way communications.
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 13, examiner interpreted all claimed limitations as a reverse traffic of claims 1, 10, and 12 as presented above.
Therefore, they are rejected for similar reason as presented above.
Regarding claims 7-8, Yamamoto teaches as follows:
When the in-vehicle processing device 102 (ECU1) transmits the message 401 of the CAN data frame to the in-vehicle processing device 302 (ECU-N) of the N-th network 300, since a communication protocol (CAN) of the first communication bus 101, which is a transmission source of the message 401, and a communication protocol (CAN) of the N-th communication bus 301, which is a transfer destination, match, the message 401 (CAN data frame) is transmitted from the N-th communication controller 4 to the N-th communication bus 301 without frame conversion and received by the communication controller 303 of the in-vehicle processing device 302 (ECU-N)(see, ¶ [0034] and figure 1).
Therefore, multiple ECUs communicate each other with multiple different protocols.
Regarding claim 9, Yamamoto teaches the in-vehicle system (1000 in figure 1) which is equivalent to applicant’s electronic control device teaches functions done by the claimed units as presented above. The in-vehicle system inherently includes a processor in order to perform the above functions.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (hereinafter Yamamoto)(US 2021/0176090) in view of Louis Peschi (hereinafter Peschi)(US 2005/0276279) and Kurokawa et al. (hereinafter Kurokawa)(US 2022/0337453), and further in view of Lin (US 2010/0131679).
Regarding claims 3-4, Yamamoto in view of Peschi and Kurokawa teaches all limitations as presented above except for accumulating process.
Lin teaches as follows:
The PDU parser 112 and the buffer 114 are integrated into a burst controller 110, and the PDU parser 122 and the buffer 124 are integrated into a burst controller 120 (see, ¶ [0023] and figure 3); and
the PDU parser 112 is arranged to parse the input data into a plurality of PDUs and is arranged to store each PDU into at least a portion of the buffering regions. In particular, the PDU parser 112 is arranged to parse the input data and the decrypted data to the buffering regions of the sharing-ring buffer (e.g., the FIFO 114 in this situation)(see, ¶ [0040] and figure 3).
Examiner interpreted the accumulating as storing in a buffer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamamoto in view of Peschi and Kurokawa with Lin to include the burst controller comprising the PDU parser and the buffer as taught by Lin in order for efficient burst controlling of received PDUs.
Regarding claims 5-6, Yamamoto in view of Peschi and Kurokawa teaches all limitations as presented above except for the processing order.
Lin teaches as follows
The PDU parser 112 is arranged to parse the input data into a plurality of PDUs and is arranged to store each PDU into at least a portion of the buffering regions. In particular, the PDU parser 112 is arranged to parse the input data and the decrypted data to the buffering regions of the sharing-ring buffer (e.g., the FIFO 114 in this situation)(see, ¶ [0040] and figure 3); and
the buffers 114 and 124 of this embodiment are implemented with First In First Out memories (FIFOs)(see, ¶ [0035] and figure 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamamoto in view of Peschi and Kurokawa with Lin to include the well-known FIFO memory as taught by Lin in order to efficiently handle data transfers more smoothly.
Conclusion
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 Jeong S Park whose telephone number is (571)270-1597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:00-4:30 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, Glenton B Burgess can be reached at 571-272-3949. 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.
/JEONG S PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
April 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights