DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghedin et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0274615).
Regarding Claims 1 and 6, Ghedin discloses a method for performing data transmission between a control device (Figure 1, item 102) and an electronic unit (Figure 1, item 112), the method comprising:
providing a control unit (Figure 1, item 104) and a FlexRay transceiver (paragraph 0032; i.e., a FlexRay interface) in the control device, and also providing a control unit (Figure 2, item 204) and a FlexRay transceiver in the electronic unit (paragraph 0044; i.e., the electronic unit 112 may contain circuitry conforming to the same protocols as the control unit 104); and
using a FlexRay link (Figure 1, item 138, paragraph 0032; i.e., although the reference does not expressly state the bus 138 is a FlexRay link, it states that it may be a two-wire bus; FlexRay is known in the art to be a two-wire bus; therefore, given the fact that the reference states that there may be a FlexRay interface, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a FlexRay link as bus 138 for the purpose of providing a bus system that is enhanced for security applications) as only a physical route for the data transmission by omitting a FlexRay protocol from the FlexRay link, and performing the data transmission over the FlexRay link using a UART protocol so that the data transmission occurs over the physical route of the FlexRay link in accordance only with the UART protocol and without using the FlexRay protocol (paragraph 0032; i.e., communications circuitry 108 [for the control device 102] and 212 [for the electronic unit 112/200] may contain a UART, which would communicate using only the UART protocol over the FlexRay link 138).
Regarding Claim 2, Ghedin discloses wherein the data transmission is used to program the control device (paragraph 0026; i.e., circuit C 120 may be programmed; this would meet the claim limitation if it is assumed that the circuit C 120 is the claimed “control device”).
Regarding Claims 3 and 7, Ghedin discloses performing a switching between a communication element (Figure 1, item 112) and an interface module (Figure 1, item 150; i.e., interface to battery 150) using software or a switch (Figure 1, item 130, paragraph 0024).
Regarding Claim 4, Ghedin discloses wherein the data transmission takes place via a communication link (Figure 1, item 138, paragraph 0032).
Regarding Claim 5, Ghedin discloses wherein synchronization of pins TXD and TXEN is performed (paragraph 0032; i.e., the reference discloses the use of the FlexRay protocol; the FlexRay specification requires that devices that use the protocol must synchronize the TXEN and TXD pins [see FlexRay specification, page 58, Section 3.2.1.2.1]; therefore, the reference teaches synchronization of pins TXD and TXEN).
Regarding Claim 8, Ghedin discloses wherein software that is configured to switch between the interface module and the communication element is stored in the control device (paragraphs 0020 and 0023; i.e., the switch 132 is used to regulate power to circuit B 114; given the fact that the control device 102 controls which circuits operate [paragraphs 0017-0019], the software within that control device 102 would control when the circuit B 114 receives power).
Regarding Claim 9, Ghedin discloses a switching element (Figure 1, item 117) configured to switch between the interface module and the communication element (paragraph 0025; i.e., this would be the case if the driver 112 were interpreted as the claimed “communication element” and the interface to the LEDs 140 was interpreted as the claimed “interface module”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant argues “[o]n the basis of this single, isolated mention, the Patent Office puts together a string of bare assertions that conveniently arrives at the claimed invention. But these assertions are not grounded in the facts as presented by Ghedin, since instead they are grounded in the only source available for the limitations of the present claims, namely, Applicant’s own specification. But using Applicant’s own specification against him is simply nothing more than impermissible hindsight.” Response, page 3. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). As will be explained below, the examiner had in fact taken into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made rather than using knowledge gleaned from the applicant's disclosure.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant argues “[n]othing in Ghedin would have led a POSITA to the hybrid arrangement of the claimed invention, in which a communication that is formatted according to the UART protocol is transmitted over FlexRay hardware.” Response, page 3. The examiner disagrees. Ghedin states “communication circuitry 108 [Figure 1] may include a Universal Asynchronous Receiver/Transmitter (UART)”. Ghedin, paragraph 0032. Therefore, the data transmission is performed using a UART protocol, as required by the claim. Ghedin further states “communication circuitry 108 may operate using any one or more of … UARToverCAN (Universal Asynchronous Receiver/Transmitter), … [or] an interface defined according to a FlexRay protocol”. Id. This sentence shows two options: first, that data conforming to a UART protocol can be transmitted over another type of bus, namely a CAN bus. Second, data conforming to a UART protocol can be transmitted over a FlexRay bus. Both of these options teach the argued limitation. As for the first option, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted FlexRay for CAN (i.e., replacing “UARToverCAN” with “UARToverFlexRay”). This is because the MPEP states “[t]he Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper ‘functional approach’ to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham.” MPEP § 2143. “Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include: … (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results”. Id. at § 2143(I). “The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. at § 2143(I)(B). UART, CAN, and FlexRay are all well-established, known communication protocols, especially within the automotive and embedded systems fields. Replacing CAN with FlexRay involves selecting a known alternative that offers different performance characteristics (e.g., higher speed, determinism, fault tolerance). The substitution yields only the expected results inherent to the FlexRay protocol. A skilled engineer in this field would likely be aware of both CAN and FlexRay protocols (particularly given the fact that Ghedin discusses both of these protocols in its disclosure) and understand the general principles of interfacing a UART with various network transceivers. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted CAN with FlexRay, thereby resulting in UART data being transmitted over a FlexRay bus.
Ghedin further states “communication bus 138 [Figure 1] may be a two-wire bus operating using CAN-FD or similar two-wire protocol.” Ghedin, paragraph 0032. As stated in the previous Office action and evidenced by the attached article “FlexRay Automotive Communication Bus Overview” (see page 2 under “FlexRay Basics”), the FlexRay protocol uses a two-wire bus. The FlexRay protocol would therefore fall within the scope of a "a similar two-wire protocol" as discussed in Ghedin because FlexRay systems use a single pair of twisted wires. Both CAN-FD and FlexRay use differential signaling over a pair of twisted wires to reduce the effects of electrical noise and interference. A person skilled in the art would recognize FlexRay as a prominent, high-speed, two-wire automotive protocol in the same general class of technology as CAN-FD, making it "similar" in the context of the physical connection type and general application domain. Accordingly, it can be seen that Ghedin does in fact teach the argued feature.
Therefore, the claims stand as previously rejected.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 FAISAL M ZAMAN, ESQ. whose telephone number is (571)272-6495. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 pm, alternate Fridays.
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, Andrew J. Jung can be reached on 571-270-3779. 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.
/FAISAL M ZAMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175