DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: wireless unit and synchronization unit in claims 1-20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1, 8, 16 and 20 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. More specifically, the phrase “concurrent mode” is unclear as to whether it means both wireless and wired communication is active.
Regarding claims 2-7, 17-19 are rejected under 112(b) for being dependent on claims 1, 8, 16 and 20.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-11, 14, 16-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pillar (US 20080114513 A1) in view of YU (WO 2009026747 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Pillar discloses a vehicle module (FIG. 6) comprising:
a network port configured to support communications between a plurality of vehicle devices and a vehicular communication network in accordance with a communication protocol of the vehicular communication network, the plurality of vehicle devices comprising one or more sensors, actuators, or electronic control units (ECUs) (¶0053, FIG. 15, ¶0166);
a wireless unit configured to communicate wirelessly and with the plurality of vehicle devices (¶0320, “a wireless joystick and GUI display may be provided that allows an operator to control movement of the vehicle 110 from an aerial basket of the fire fighting vehicle (particularly if the vehicle is provided with outriggers comprising hard rollers instead of pads). Again, the wireless capability may be achieved by providing the interface module 114a and the wireless operator device with corresponding wireless communication interfaces (e.g., Bluetooth communicators)”)
Pillar does not explicitly disclose but, YU teaches a network buffer coupled to the network port (page 26, lines 14-19, “an interface will 15 generally include a portion for receiving the actual signal (for example, a connector) and for buffering the received signal (for example, a transmit/receive buffer)”) and
processing circuitry configured to cause the vehicle module to operate in a wireless mode, a wired mode and a concurrent mode, wherein in the wireless mode the network buffer and the network port are inactive and the wireless unit is active, wherein in the wired mode the wireless unit is inactive and the network buffer and the network port are active, and in the concurrent mode the wireless unit, the network buffer and the network port are active (abstract, “a communication unit is configured for communicating over multiple media including a wireless medium and a wired medium, the communication unit being operable in a wireless mode for communicating over a wireless medium using a wireless protocol, and in a wired mode for communicating over the wired medium using a variation of the wireless protocol… a switch to switch the communication unit between the wireless mode and the wired mode”).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the vehicle network disclosed in Pillar with the dual mode taught in YU with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an improvement in safety functions related to vehicle.
Regarding claim 2, Pillar discloses a plurality of vehicular network interfaces, each of the plurality of vehicular network interfaces operably coupled to a respective one of the plurality of vehicle devices (FIG. 20A).
Regarding claim 3, Pillar discloses wherein in the wireless mode the wireless unit communicates with the plurality of vehicle devices via the vehicle network interfaces (FIG. 20A).
Regarding claim 4, Pillar discloses wherein the wireless mode the wireless unit communicates with the plurality of vehicle devices wirelessly without using the vehicle network interfaces (FIG. 20A, abstract).
Regarding claim 5, Pillar discloses wherein the wireless mode comprises a first mode where the wireless unit communicates with the plurality of vehicle devices via the vehicle network interfaces and a second mode where the wireless unit communicates with the plurality of vehicle devices wirelessly without using the vehicle network interfaces (abstract).
Regarding claim 6, Pillar discloses wherein the network port supports wireless inter-vehicular communications (¶0164).
Regarding claim 7, Pillar discloses a plurality of vehicular network interfaces; and a switching circuit coupled between the network buffer and the plurality of vehicular network interfaces, each of the plurality of vehicular network interfaces operably coupled to the switching circuit and a respective one of the plurality of vehicle devices (FIG. 20A, FIG. 20B).
Regarding claim 8, YU further teaches synchronization unit configured to synchronize transmission and reception of concurrent packets and coordinates concurrent transmission of the same packet and concurrent transmission of different packets for the wireless unit and the network buffer in the concurrent mode (page 13, lines 20-25).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the vehicle network disclosed in PIllar with the dual mode taught in YU with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an improvement in safety functions related to vehicle.
Regarding claim 9, YU teaches wherein the network port comprises an Ethernet Physical Interface (page 7, lines 1-2).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the vehicle network disclosed in PIllar with the dual mode taught in YU with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an improvement in safety functions related to vehicle.
Regarding claim 10, Pillar discloses wherein at least one of the plurality of vehicle devices is configured to communicate with an analog sensor (¶0056).
Regarding claim 11, Pillar discloses wherein the plurality of vehicle devices comprise at least one digital sensor (¶0056).
Regarding claim 14, Pillar discloses wherein the processing circuitry and the network port are further configured to translate the communications between an Ethernet format and a differing vehicle communication format (¶0311).
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is rejected using the same art and rationale used to reject claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is rejected using the same art and rationale used to reject claim 5.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is rejected using the same art and rationale used to reject claim 7.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is rejected using the same art and rationale used to reject claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, YU teaches selectively operating in a concurrent mode where the wireless unit, the network buffer and the network port are active (abstract, “a communication unit is configured for communicating over multiple media including a wireless medium and a wired medium, the communication unit being operable in a wireless mode for communicating over a wireless medium using a wireless protocol, and in a wired mode for communicating over the wired medium using a variation of the wireless protocol… a switch to switch the communication unit between the wireless mode and the wired mode”).
Claims 12-13, and 15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pillar (US 20080114513 A1) in view of YU (WO 2009026747 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Miller (US 5648759 A).
Regarding claim 12, Pillar does not explicitly disclose but, Miller teaches wherein the plurality of vehicle devices, the network port, the network buffer, and the processing circuitry are implemented on at least two integrated circuits (col. 4, lines 40-42).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the vehicle network disclosed in Pillar with the integrated circuits taught in Miller with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an enhanced method of malfunction detection.
Regarding claim 13, Miller teaches wherein the network port, the network buffer, and the processing circuitry are implemented on a single integrated circuit (col. 10, line 67).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the vehicle network disclosed in Pillar with the integrated circuits taught in Miller with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an enhanced method of malfunction detection.
Regarding claim 15, Miller teaches wherein the differing vehicle communication format comprises one of:J1850 format; OBDII format; Intellibus format; Controller Area Network (CAN) format; FlexRay format; Bosch-Siemens-Temic format; Motorola® interconnect (MI) format; Mobile Media Link (MML) format; Domestic Digital Data (D2B) format; smartwireX format; inter-equipment bus (IEBus) format; or media oriented systems transport (MOST) format (FIG. 2A).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the vehicle network disclosed in Pillar with the integrated circuits taught in Miller with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted an enhanced method of malfunction detection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chinnadurai (US 20060217855 A1) discloses An integrated circuit vehicle diagnostics interface adapter includes a semiconductor substrate with two integral gateway conductors. A set of paired switches on the substrate link any two of a first set of contacts to the gateway conductors, and another set of paired switches on the substrate link the two gateway conductors to any pair of a second set of contacts corresponding to a particular vehicle network communications protocol circuit in a vehicle diagnostics device. Both sets of switches are controlled by an integrated switch control module (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REDHWAN K MAWARI whose telephone number is (571)270-1535. The examiner can normally be reached mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached at 571-272-4896. 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.
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights