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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 8-10, 13, 15, and 18-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites, “a first module”, “a second module”, and “third module” in lines 2, 5, and 6, respectively. However, the specification doesn’t describe what these modules are. The specification describes components within these modules. But it is not clear what these modules are.
Regarding claims 2-3, 8-10, 13, 15, and 18-20, the claims are objected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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: in “a first module”, “a second module”, and “a third module” assumed for transmitter and receivers, respectively, in claims 1-3, 8-10, 13, 15, and 18-20.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-3, 8, 10, 13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coffin et al. (US 2024/0291688 A1) in view of Vehra et al. (US 2021/0231005 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Coffin discloses an apparatus comprising: a first module (200A) configured to communicatively couple a first device (270A) to a communication bus (100) (fig. 3; paragraph [0032]-[0035]; [0048]-[0051]; and so on, illustrating device 200A is communicatively coupled with a first remote device 270A to a communication bus, MIL-STD-1553); wherein the first module is configured to transmit, over the bus, first data at a first frequency to a second module (200B) that is communicatively coupled to a second device (270B) (paragraph [0010]; [0018]-[0019]; [0034]; [0042]-[0043]; [0046]-[0048]; [0051]; [0055]-[0057]; [0059]-[0062]; and etc., describing the device 200A transmits through the communication bus, MIL-STD-1553, at a frequency above 15MHz to a device 200B communicatively coupled to a second remote device 270B); wherein the first module is configured to transmit, over the bus, second data at a second frequency (paragraph [0012]; [0054]; [0056]; [0066], explaining the device 200A transmits second IP data or plurality of IP data at such as second frequency such as below 15 MHz over the communication bus, MIL-TSD-1553); and wherein the first frequency is different from the second frequency (e.g. paragraph [0066], illustrating the first and second frequencies are different, which is above and below 15 MHz).
Coffin doesn’t exility disclose wherein the transmitted, over the bus, second data at the second frequency is to a third module that is communicatively coupled to a third device.
Vehra teaches wherein the transmitted, over the bus, second data at the second frequency is to a third module that is communicatively coupled to a third device (e.g. figs. 4-5; paragraph [0048]; [0050]-[0055]; and so on).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use wherein the transmitted, over the bus, second data at the second frequency is to a third module that is communicatively coupled to a third device as taught by Vehra into Coffin in order to increase interoperability.
Regarding claim 13, Coffin discloses a system comprising: a bus for communication between a plurality of devices (figs. 1A-2; abstract; paragraph [0009]-[0011]; [0017]-[0019]; [0026]-[0029]; [0031]-[0039]; and so on); and a first module (200A) configured to communicatively couple a first device (270A) of the plurality of devices and the bus, a second module (200B) configured to communicatively couple a second device (270B) of the plurality of devices and the bus (figs. 1A-2), and a third module configured to communicatively couple a third device of the plurality of devices and the bus (paragraph [0032]-[0035]; [0065]; and etc.); wherein the first module is configured to transmit first data to the second module in accordance with a first communication protocol and over the bus (paragraph [0010]; [0018]-[0019]; [0034]; [0042]-[0043]; [0046]-[0048]; [0051]; [0055]-[0057]; [0059]-[0062]; and etc., describing the device 200A transmits through the communication bus, MIL-STD-1553, at a frequency above 15MHz to a device 200B communicatively coupled to a second remote device 270B); and wherein the first module is configured to transmit second data in accordance with a second communication protocol and over the bus (paragraph [0012]; [0054]; [0056]; [0066], explaining the device 200A transmits second IP data or plurality of IP data at such as second frequency such as below 15 MHz over the communication bus, MIL-TSD-1553).
Coffin doesn’t exility disclose transmit second data to the third module in accordance with a second communication protocol and over the bus is to the third module.
Vehra teaches transmit second data to the third module in accordance with a second communication protocol and over the bus is to the third module (e.g. figs. 4-5; paragraph [0048]; [0050]-[0055]; and so on).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use transmit second data to the third module in accordance with a second communication protocol and over the bus is to the third module as taught by Vehra into Coffin in order to increase interoperability.
Regarding claim 18, Coffin discloses a method comprising: receiving, by a first module (200A) from a first device (270A), first data and second data (at least first IP data, plurality of IP data) (paragraph [0010]; [0018]-[0019]; [0034]; [0042]-[0043]; [0046]-[0048]; [0051]; [0054]-[0057]; [0059]-[0062]; [0012]; [0066]); determining that the first data is to be transmitted to the second module (200B) that supports receiving data at both a lower frequency and a higher frequency (paragraph [0048]; [0051]; [0034]; [0057]; [0066]; [0018]-[0019]; and etc., illustrating the first IP data is transmitted to the device 200B at the first and second frequencies, which is above and below 15 MHz); transmitting the first data at the higher frequency to the second module over a bus (paragraph [0018]-[0019]; [0034]; [0048]; [0051]; [0057]; and so on, describing the device 200A transmits through the communication bus, MIL-STD-1553, at a frequency above 15MHz to a device 200B communicatively coupled to a second remote device 270B); and transmitting the second data at the lower frequency (paragraph [0012]; [0054]; [0056]; [0066], explaining the device 200A transmits second IP data or plurality of IP data at such as second frequency such as below 15 MHz over the communication bus, MIL-TSD-1553).
Coffin doesn’t exility disclose determining that the second data is to be transmitted to the third module that supports receiving data at the lower frequency and not the higher frequency, and the second data at the lower frequency is to the third module over the bus.
Vehra teaches determining that the second data is to be transmitted to the third module that supports receiving data at the lower frequency and not the higher frequency, and the second data at the lower frequency is to the third module over the bus (e.g. figs. 4-5; paragraph [0048]; [0050]-[0055]; and so on).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use determining that the second data is to be transmitted to the third module that supports receiving data at the lower frequency and not the higher frequency, and the second data at the lower frequency is to the third module over the bus as taught by Vehra into Coffin in order to increase interoperability.
Regarding claim 2, Coffin discloses wherein the first data transmitted by the first module to the second module is encrypted by the first module (paragraph [0016]; [0050]-[0051]; [0055]-[0056]; [0061]; [0066]).
Regarding claim 3, as applied above, Coffin discloses first module. Coffin doesn’t disclose wherein the second data transmitted by the first module to the third module is not encrypted by the first module.
Regarding claim 8, 15, and 19, Coffin discloses wherein the first module comprises: an encryption module configured to encrypt the first data, prior to transmission of the first data from the first module to the second module over the bus, wherein the encryption module refrains from encrypting the second data, prior to transmission of the second data from the first module to the third module over the bus (paragraph [0016]; [0050]-[0051]; [0055]-[0056]; [0061]; [0066]).
Regarding claim 10, Coffin discloses wherein: the first module is configured to receive third data from the second module and over the bus at the first frequency (paragraph [0012]; [0054]; [0056]; [0066]); and the first module is configured to receive fourth data (paragraph [0011]; [0016]; [0018]-[0019]; [0048]; and so on). Coffin doesn’t disclose the fourth data is from the third module and over the bus at the second frequency.
Vehra teaches the fourth data is from the third module and over the bus at the second frequency (e.g. figs. 4-5; paragraph [0048]; [0050]-[0055]; and so on).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the fourth data is from the third module and over the bus at the second frequency as taught by Vehra into Coffin in order to increase interoperability.
Regarding claim 11, as applied above, Coffin discloses first and second frequency. Coffin doesn’t disclose wherein the third device is configured to communicate with any other device of the plurality of devices at the second frequency, and is incapable of communicating or processing data at the first frequency.
Vehra teaches wherein the third device is configured to communicate with any other device of the plurality of devices at the second frequency, and is incapable of communicating or processing data at the first frequency (e.g. figs. 4-5; paragraph [0025]-[0041]; [0044]-[0066]; [0068]-[0077]; and so on).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use wherein the third device is configured to communicate with any other device of the plurality of devices at the second frequency, and is incapable of communicating or processing data at the first frequency as taught by Vehra into Coffin in order to increase interoperability.
Regarding claim 12 and 16, Coffin discloses wherein the bus is a military standard MIL-STD-1553 bus (abstract; paragraph [0003]-[0004]; and so on).
Regarding claim 17, Coffin discloses wherein the first device is one of a remote terminal or a bus controller, and at least one of the second or third devices is the other of the remote terminal or the bus controller (figs. 1A-2).
Regarding claim 20, Coffin further discloses comprising: receiving, by the first module (200A) and over the bus (100), third data from the second module (paragraph [0010]; [0018]-[0019]; [0034]; [0042]-[0043]; [0046]-[0048]; [0051]; [0054]-[0057]; [0059]-[0062]; [0012]; [0066]); and determining (i) that the third data is received from the second module (200B) that supports transmitting data at both the lower frequency and the higher frequency (paragraph [0048]; [0051]; [0034]; [0057]; [0066]; [0018]-[0019]; [0012]; [0054]; and etc.), and (ii) that the fourth data is received that supports transmitting data at the lower frequency (paragraph [0012]; [0054]; [0056]; [0066]); decrypting the third data, and subsequently transmitting the third data to the first device; and transmitting the fourth data to the first device, without decrypting the fourth data (paragraph [0016]; [0051]; [0055]; [0061]; [0066]).
Coffin doesn’t explicitly disclose fourth data from the third module that supports transmitting data at the lower frequency.
Vehra teaches fourth data from the third module that supports transmitting data at the lower frequency (e.g. figs. 4-5; paragraph [0048]; [0050]-[0055]; and so on).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use fourth data from the third module that supports transmitting data at the lower frequency as taught by Vehra into Coffin in order to increase interoperability.
Claims 4-7, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coffin in view of Vehra, and further in view of Prentice (US 2023/0055859 A1).
Regarding claim 4-5 and 14, as applied above, the modified communication of Coffin discloses first and second frequencies. However, the modified communication of Coffin doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the first frequency is more than 10 MHz, and the second frequency is less than 5 MHz, and wherein the first frequency is 15 MHz, and the second frequency is 1 MHz.
Prentice teaches wherein the first frequency is more than 10 MHz, and the second frequency is less than 5 MHz, and wherein the first frequency is 15 MHz, and the second frequency is 1 MHz (paragraph [0003]; [0031]; [0077]-[0079]; claim 4-5, and 8-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use wherein the first frequency is more than 10 MHz, and the second frequency is less than 5 MHz, and wherein the first frequency is 15 MHz, and the second frequency is 1 MHz as taught by Pentice into the modified communication of Coffin in order to improve power consumption and speed of communication.
Regarding claim 6, Coffin discloses wherein the first module comprises: a transceiver configured to receive the first data at the second frequency from the first device (paragraph [0012]; [0054]; [0056]; [0066]). Coffin doesn’t disclose a decoder configured to receive the first data from the transceiver at the second frequency, and decode the first data at the first frequency; and an encoder configured to receive the first data at the first frequency, as decoded by the decoder, and encode the first data at the first frequency; wherein the transceiver is configured to transmit the first data, as encoded by the encoder, to the bus at the first frequency.
Prentice teaches a decoder configured to receive the first data from the transceiver at the second frequency, and decode the first data at the first frequency (paragraph [0012]; [0037]; [0042]-[0044]; [0059]; [0062]-[0072]; [0076]-[0083]; [0092]-[0093]; and so on); and an encoder configured to receive the first data at the first frequency, as decoded by the decoder, and encode the first data at the first frequency (paragraph [0043]-[0044]; [0076]-[0079]; [0086]-[0088]; [0090]-[0097]; and so on); wherein the transceiver is configured to transmit the first data, as encoded by the encoder, to the bus at the first frequency (paragraph [0043]-[0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a decoder configured to receive the first data from the transceiver at the second frequency, and decode the first data at the first frequency; and an encoder configured to receive the first data at the first frequency, as decoded by the decoder, and encode the first data at the first frequency; wherein the transceiver is configured to transmit the first data, as encoded by the encoder, to the bus at the first frequency as taught by Pentice into the modified communication of Coffin in order to improve power consumption and to decrease communication error.
Regarding claim 7, Coffin discloses wherein the first module comprises: a transceiver configured to receive the second data at the second frequency from the first device (paragraph [0012]; [0054]; [0056]; [0066]). Coffin doesn’t disclose a decoder configured to receive the second data from the transceiver at the second frequency, and decode the second data at the first frequency; and an encoder configured to receive the second data at the first frequency, as decoded by the decoder, and encode the second data at the second frequency; wherein the transceiver is configured to transmit the second data, as encoded by the encoder, to the bus at the second frequency.
Prentice teaches a decoder configured to receive the second data from the transceiver at the second frequency, and decode the second data at the first frequency (paragraph [0012]; [0037]; [0042]-[0044]; [0059]; [0062]-[0072]; [0076]-[0083]; [0092]-[0093]; and so on); and an encoder configured to receive the second data at the first frequency, as decoded by the decoder, and encode the second data at the second frequency (paragraph [0043]-[0044]; [0076]-[0079]; [0086]-[0088]; [0090]-[0097]; and so on); wherein the transceiver is configured to transmit the second data, as encoded by the encoder, to the bus at the second frequency (paragraph [0043]-[0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a decoder configured to receive the second data from the transceiver at the second frequency, and decode the second data at the first frequency; and an encoder configured to receive the second data at the first frequency, as decoded by the decoder, and encode the second data at the second frequency; wherein the transceiver is configured to transmit the second data, as encoded by the encoder, to the bus at the second frequency as taught by Pentice into the modified communication of Coffin in order to improve power consumption and to decrease communication error.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims assuming the 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph rejection is resolved.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIBROM T HAILU whose telephone number is (571)270-1209. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM to 5:30 PM.
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, HUY D VU can be reached at (571)272-3155. 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.
/KIBROM T HAILU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461