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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03-24-2026 has been entered.
The official correspondence below is a first action non-final on an RCE.
Response to Amendment
Claims 6 and 9 have been amended.
Claim 8 has been canceled.
Claims 13-16 are newly introduced.
Claims 6-7, 9, and 13-16 are currently pending.
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 6-7, 9, and 13-16 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 claim(s) 6 and 16 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. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
based on the bus impedance generating a synthesized input based on the command, claim 1
the FPGA enables measurement of the bus impedance during the data payload portion of a CAN frame subsequent to arbitration, claim 16
The remaining/intervening claims are rejected based upon their dependency to a rejected claim.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 6-7, 9, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20180295011 A1) in view of Nix (US 20170113664 A1) and in further view of Kamir (US 20200380131 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 6, Wang discloses, receiving, at the AVI (Wang: [0022] a display device 18, a microphone 28, a speaker 30, and input controls 32 (e.g., buttons, knobs, switches, keyboards, touchscreens, etc.). Generally, these hardware 16 components enable a user to communicate with the telematics unit 14 and other systems and system components within the vehicle), a command to control a system in the vehicle (Wang: [0028]); identifying a data payload portion of a data packet (Wang: [0028] If the master device wishes to wake (or snooze) a slave device, the NMF packet sent by the master may include a command for the slave device to transition to the awake state (or the asleep state)) transmitted over a controller area network (CAN) bus (Wang: [0003] In-vehicle ECUs typically communicate with one another via a network communication bus); determining an electronic control unit (ECU) associated with the system (Wang: [ABS]).
Wang does not explicitly disclose, generating a synthesized input based on the received command; and transmitting the synthesized input to the ECU associated with the system, wherein a sensor interposer, coupled between the ECU and a corresponding sensor, drives the synthesized input to the ECU associated with the system; and controlling, via the ECU, the associated system in the vehicle based on the synthesized input.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Nix discloses, generating a synthesized input based on the command (Nix: [0027] The surprising event rule set 112 may comprise instructions controlling which data to compile in the data snapshot … [0028] The surprising event rule set 112 may comprise instructions controlling which, of multiple available communication channels, data is uploaded from the event data buffer 113 through the connectivity module 111; [0036] store instructions and/or code that, when executed by a processor (e.g., the operating system processor 214 or the interface processor 220), controls the in-vehicle computing system 200 to perform one or more of the actions described in the disclosure; [0040]); and transmitting the synthesized input to the ECU associated with the system (Nix: [0054] As part of ADAS system 300, vehicle control system 316 may include fusion and control module 330. Fusion and control module 330 may receive data from ADAS sensors 305, as well as vehicle sensors 320, vehicle operator input 322, V2X modules 326, camera module 327, navigation subsystem 328, other sensors or data sources coupled to vehicle 301, and/or via extra-vehicle communication system 324. Fusion and control module 330 may validate, parse, process, and/or combine received data, and may determine control actions in response thereto. In some scenarios, fusion and control module 330 may provide a warning to the vehicle operator via ADAS-operator interface 332 (examiner: see figure 3 (310)(316), fused data is forwarded and a control is performed by a controlling unit)), wherein a sensor interposer, coupled between the ECU and a corresponding sensor, drives the synthesized input to the ECU associated with the system (Nix: [0028] Data snapshots stored in the event data buffer 113 may be uploaded to a cloud server 120 through a connectivity module 111, e.g. a cellular communication modem, a WiFi connection, or any other wireless communication channel. The surprising event rule set 112 may comprise instructions controlling which, of multiple available communication channels, data is uploaded from the event data buffer 113 through the connectivity module 111; [0035] Connection to a cloud-based server may be mediated via an extra-vehicle communication module 224. The application may retrieve information gathered by vehicle systems/sensors, input devices (e.g., user interface 218), devices in communication with the in-vehicle computing system (e.g., a mobile device connected via a Bluetooth link), etc; [0048] Intra-vehicle communication system 314 may be an example of intra-vehicle communication module 222, and may be configured to mediate communication among the systems and subsystems of vehicle 301. Vehicle control system 316 may be an example of vehicle control system 230, such as vehicle controls 261 of FIG. 2; [0066] Vehicle bus 405 may mediate communication and data transfer between various systems and subsystems communicatively coupled to vehicle data network 400); and controlling, via the ECU, the associated system in the vehicle based on the synthesized input (Nix: [0054] As part of ADAS system 300, vehicle control system 316 may include fusion and control module 330. Fusion and control module 330 may receive data from ADAS sensors 305, as well as vehicle sensors 320, vehicle operator input 322, V2X modules 326, camera module 327, navigation subsystem 328, other sensors or data sources coupled to vehicle 301, and/or via extra-vehicle communication system 324. Fusion and control module 330 may validate, parse, process, and/or combine received data, and may determine control actions in response thereto. In some scenarios, fusion and control module 330 may provide a warning to the vehicle operator via ADAS-operator interface 332 (examiner: see figure 3 (310)(316), fused data is forwarded and a control is performed by a controlling unit)), for the benefit of updating to be applied to surprising event module 532 indicating new or updated rules, instructions, priorities, classifications, etc. that would cause event detector 530 to adjust the spectrum of events detected, or how to handle such events when detected.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Wang to include sensor fusion taught by Nix. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to create updates to be applied to surprising event module 532 indicating new or updated rules, instructions, priorities, classifications, etc. that would cause event detector 530 to adjust the spectrum of events detected, or how to handle such events when detected.
Wang, as modified, does not explicitly disclose, measuring, during the data payload portion, bus impedance observed at the CAN bus; based on the bus impedance generating a synthesized input based on the command.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kamir discloses, measuring, during the data payload portion, bus impedance observed at the CAN bus (Kamir: [ABS] determining that any of the impedance values of the RT-signals is greater than the threshold, an alert is activated); based on the bus impedance generating a synthesized input based on the command (Kamir: [0029] The methods based on impedance measurement include generating AC electrical current … can decide to send and collect related data), for the benefit of intruders can place a malicious hardware on a vehicle data communication network when the vehicle 110 is inactive. Hence, making the impedance measurement during Deep Sleep Mode, makes sense during the Deep Sleep Mode, the impedance measurement does not interfere with other communications, and the measurement result is thus reliable (for the benefit of vehicle, hardware, software, firmware protection).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Wang to include measuring impedance taught by Kamir. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to intruders can place a malicious hardware on a vehicle data communication network when the vehicle 110 is inactive. Hence, making the impedance measurement during Deep Sleep Mode, makes sense during the Deep Sleep Mode, the impedance measurement does not interfere with other communications, and the measurement result is thus reliable (for the benefit of vehicle, hardware, software, firmware protection).
REGARDING CLAIM 7, Wang, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 6. Further, Nix also discloses, the synthesized input comprises synthesized sensor data (Nix: [0022]) based on combinations of signals generated by two or more sensors associated with the system (Nix: [0047]; [0054]).
REGARDING CLAIM 9, Wang, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 6. Further, Nix also discloses, a synthesized input comprises overwriting, by the sensor interposer, data fields received from the sensor, with synthesized data (Nix: [0007]; [0057]; [0036-0064]; [0100]).
REGARDING CLAIM 13, Wang, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 6. Further, Kamir also discloses, measuring the bus impedance using an analog-to-digital converter coupled to the CAN bus (Kamir: [ABS] an impedance measuring device. In a preliminary step, a set of impedance measurements of N reference AC signals is formed, and a threshold value is set. The signal generating device injects a set of N AC signals into the network bus and the bus impedance for each of the N frequencies is measured, where a set of impedance values of N RT-signals is formed).
In considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (2144.01 (see routine customization/optimization - 2144.05.II.a: "Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover ... by routine experimentation", "It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions".)).
REGARDING CLAIM 14, Wang, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 6. Further, Kamir also discloses, storing the bus impedance in a memory of the AVI (Wang: [0037] In a preliminary initialization step, the teleprocessing device forms and stores in the digital memory a set of N reference AC signals injected by the AC signal generating device into the data communication network, wherein each of the AC signals in the set of N reference AC signals has a different frequency, and wherein each of the AC signals in the set of N reference AC signals is the average of k.sub.1 impedance measurements of multiple AC signals of the same frequency, wherein k.sub.1>0).
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20180295011 A1) in view of Nix (US 20170113664 A1) in further view of Kamir (US 20200380131 A1) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Keiter (US 11840211 B2).
REGARDING CLAIM 15, Wang, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 6. Further, Wang, as modified, does not explicitly disclose, a field-programmable gate array (FPGA) observes transmission over the CAN bus to determine whether the data payload portion of the data packet is being transmitted.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Keiter discloses, a field-programmable gate array (FPGA) observes transmission over the CAN bus to determine whether the data payload portion of the data packet is being transmitted (Keiter: (Col. 4, Ln. 41-49) The autonomous vehicle 102 can additionally include an AVI 122, which can be coupled to the CAN bus 120. The AVI 122 can include a field-programmable gate array (FPGA) configured to observe and parse information transmitted over the CAN bus 120, generate data for transmittal over the CAN bus, and/or communicate with other components of the system (e.g., ECU interposers and sensor interposers) via the CAN bus and/or other communication channels), for the benefit of methods provide for sampling data packets transmitted by the electronic control units on the shared data bus, measuring the impedance of the shared data bus when data packets are being transmitted, and identifying particular electronic control units based on the measured impedance; for the benefit of high-speed sampling and versatility.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by a modified Wang to include high-speed and versatile sampling taught by Kamir. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to methods provide for sampling data packets transmitted by the electronic control units on the shared data bus, measuring the impedance of the shared data bus when data packets are being transmitted, and identifying particular electronic control units based on the measured impedance; for the benefit of high-speed sampling and versatility.
REGARDING CLAIM 16, Wang, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 6. Further, Kamir also discloses, the FPGA enables measurement of the bus impedance during the data payload portion of a CAN frame subsequent to arbitration (Kamir: [ABS] an impedance measuring device. In a preliminary step, a set of impedance measurements of N reference AC signals is formed, and a threshold value is set. The signal generating device injects a set of N AC signals into the network bus and the bus impedance for each of the N frequencies is measured, where a set of impedance values of N RT-signals is formed).
In considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (2144.01 (see routine customization/optimization - 2144.05.II.a: "Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover ... by routine experimentation", "It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions".)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 6 under 35 USC §103, obviousness, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the reference combination applied in the prior rejection of record for matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Nagase (US 20160127686 A1)
Imanishi (JP 2003189291 A)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARRON SANTOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5288. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, ANGELA ORTIZ can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights