DETAILED ACTION
This communication is response to the amendment 07/29/2025. Claims 1-12 are pending and presented for examination.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/12/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2 and 7 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 2020/0204397 in view of US Pub. 2014/0376599 to XI et al. (hereafter Xi) and further in view of US 2010/0054305 to Hammerschmidt et al. (hereafter Hammerschmidt).
Regarding claim 1, Inoue discloses a controller area network (CAN) communication apparatus configured to communicate through a CAN bus (see Inoue, Fig 2 and Fig 3; ¶ 0038), the CAN communication apparatus comprising:
a CAN communication circuit comprising a first CAN transceiver connected to the CAN bus, and configured to transmit and receive CAN data through the first CAN transceiver (see Inoue, Fig 2 and Fig 3; ¶ 0038-¶ 0050; ¶ 0065- ¶ 0072); and
a repeater circuit configured to relay a CAN communication signal comprising the CAN data on the CAN bus by setting a connection with the CAN bus in a repeater mode (see Inoue, Fig 2 and Fig 3; ¶ 0043-¶ 0050; ¶ 002; ¶ 0053; ¶ 0065- ¶ 0072).
Inoue does not explicitly disclose the repeater circuit comprises a second CAN transceiver connected to the CAN bus and configured to strengthen a CAN communication signal; a third CAN transceiver connected to the CAN bus; and an arbitration logic configured to transmit and receive the CAN data between the second CAN transceiver and the third CAN transceiver.
However, Xi discloses a repeater circuit comprising a second CAN transceiver connected to the Can bus and configured to strengthen and relay a CAN communication signal comprising the CAN data on the CAN bus by setting a connection with the CAN bus in a repeater mode (see Xi, ¶ 0014: providing controller area network (CAN) bus communication over a single wire link to extend the communication range (interpreted as strengthen and relay CAN communication signal) of controller area network (CAN) buses. The repeater device includes: a first CAN transceiver coupled to a CAN bus, configured to sense levels on the CAN bus and supply a first receive signal indicating the sensed levels, and configured to receive a first transmit signal and drive a corresponding level on the CAN bus; a second CAN transceiver coupled to a single wire link, configured to supply a second receive signal that signals the level on the single wire link, and configured to receive a second transmit signal and drive a corresponding level on the single wire link; logic circuitry coupled to the first and second CAN transceivers and configured to break closed lock loop between first and second CAN transceivers; and a DC-DC converter configured to generate an internal low voltage supply derived from an external high voltage input, the internal ground floating from the external ground; ¶ 0016; ¶ 0017).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the above teaching as taught by Xi and incorporate it into the system of Inoue for improved CAN bus repeater cable (see Inoue, ¶ 0011; ¶ 0013).
Hammerschmidt discloses a third CAN transceiver connected to the CAN bus; and an arbitration logic configured to transmit and receive the CAN data between the second CAN transceiver and the third CAN transceiver (see Hammerschmidt, ¶ 0023: in one embodiment, bus 116 is a controller-area network (CAN-bus); ¶ 0025: Second transceiver 104 and third transceiver 106 are communicatively coupled via a radio frequency (RF) communications link 132. ECU 114 transmits data to second transceiver 104 via bus 116 and second transceiver 104 relays the data to third transceiver 106 via RF communications link 132; ¶ 0035: ECU 114 transmits digital data to first transceiver 102, second transceiver 104, transmitter 110 and receiver 112 via bus 116. ECU 114 transmits data to third transceiver 106 by transmitting the data to second transceiver 104 via bus 116 and second transceiver 104 forwards the data to third transceiver 106 via RF communications link 132).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the above teaching as taught by Hammerschmidt and incorporate it into the system of Inoue for efficient communication of CAN data.
Regarding claim 2, Inoue in view of Xi and Hammerschmidt discloses the CAN communication apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the CAN communication circuit further comprises a micro controller unit (MCU) configured to set the repeater mode to on or to off according to a setup signal (see Inoue, Fig 2 and Fig 3; ¶ 0035; ¶ 0041; ¶ 0071).
Regarding claim 3, Inoue in view of Xi and Hammerschmidt discloses the CAN communication apparatus as claimed in claim 2, wherein the repeater circuit comprises: a first switch serially connected to the CAN bus; a second switch connected between the CAN bus and the second CAN transceiver; and a third switch connected between the CAN bus and the third CAN transceiver, and wherein the MCU is configured to set the first switch to an open state, and to set the second switch and the third switch to a closed state, to turn on the repeater mode based on the setup signal (see Inoue, Fig 2 and Fig 3; ¶ 0038- ¶ 0048; ¶ 0052-¶ 0060; ¶ 0073- ¶ 0081).
Regarding claim 4, Inoue in view of Xi and Hammerschmidt discloses the CAN communication apparatus as claimed in claim 3, wherein the MCU is configured to set the first switch to a closed state, and to set the second switch and the third switch to an open state, to turn off the repeater mode based on the setup signal (see Inoue, Fig 2 and Fig 3; ¶ 0052 - ¶ 0060; ¶ 0073 - ¶ 0081).
Regarding claim 5, Inoue in view of Xi and Hammerschmidt discloses the CAN communication apparatus as claimed in claim 3, wherein the repeater circuit further comprises a fourth switch configured to supply a power voltage to the second CAN transceiver and the third CAN transceiver, or to cut off the power voltage, and wherein the MCU is configured to control the fourth switch to be closed if the repeater mode is turned on (see Inoue, Fig 2 and Fig 3; ¶ 0042; ¶ 0048; ¶ 0053; ¶ 0054; ¶ 0062- ¶ 0067; ¶ 0071).
Regarding claim 7, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1. Although phrased as a method claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 3. Although phrased as a method claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 3.
Regarding claim 9, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 4. Although phrased as a method claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 4.
Regarding claim 10, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 5. Although phrased as a method claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 5.
Claim(s) 6, 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue in view of Xi and Hammerschmidt and further in view of US Pub. 2012/0236525 to Okada (hereafter Okada).
Regarding claim 6, Inoue in view of Xi and Hammerschmidt discloses the CAN communication apparatus as claimed in claim 3, Inoue does not explicitly disclose wherein the arbitration logic is configured to feed back the CAN data that is transmitted and received between the second CAN transceiver and the third CAN transceiver to the MCU as feedbacked CAN data, and wherein the MCU is configured to monitor an operation state of the repeater mode using feedbacked CAN data.
However, Okada discloses wherein the arbitration logic is configured to feed back the CAN data that is transmitted and received between the second CAN transceiver and the third CAN transceiver to the MCU as feedbacked CAN data, and wherein the MCU is configured to monitor an operation state of the repeater mode using feedbacked CAN data (see Okada, Fig 3- Fig 6; ¶ 0072; ¶ 0073; ¶ 0079).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the above teaching as taught by Okada and incorporate it into the system of Inoue based on user design preference to achieve for efficiently relaying communication.
Regarding claim 11, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 6. Although phrased as a method claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 6.
Regarding claim 12, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 6. Although phrased as a method claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 6.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 2020/0204397 in view of US Pub. 2022/0376947 to Antonsson (hereafter Antonsson).
Regarding claim 1, Inoue discloses a controller area network (CAN) communication apparatus configured to communicate through a CAN bus (see Inoue, Fig 2 and Fig 3; ¶ 0038), the CAN communication apparatus comprising:
a CAN communication circuit comprising a first CAN transceiver connected to the CAN bus, and configured to transmit and receive CAN data through the first CAN transceiver (see Inoue, Fig 2 and Fig 3; ¶ 0038-¶ 0050; ¶ 0065- ¶ 0072); and
a repeater circuit configured to relay a CAN communication signal comprising the CAN data on the CAN bus by setting a connection with the CAN bus in a repeater mode (see Inoue, Fig 2 and Fig 3; ¶ 0043-¶ 0050; ¶ 002; ¶ 0053; ¶ 0065- ¶ 0072).
Inoue does not explicitly disclose the repeater circuit comprises a second CAN transceiver connected to the CAN bus and configured to strengthen a CAN communication signal; a third CAN transceiver connected to the CAN bus; and an arbitration logic configured to transmit and receive the CAN data between the second CAN transceiver and the third CAN transceiver.
However, Antonsson discloses a repeater circuit comprising a second CAN transceiver connected to the Can bus and configured to strengthen and relay a CAN communication signal comprising the CAN data on the CAN bus by setting a connection with the CAN bus in a repeater mode (see Antonsson, Fig 3; ¶ 0025: a transceiver mode based on a first Controller Area Network (CAN) XL transceiver mode switch message received over a first receive data signal on a CAN XL network to a first transceiver, and in response to determining the transceiver mode, routing, by the device, a second CAN XL transceiver mode switch message over a second receive data signal to a second transceiver; ¶ 0032: a monitoring device can comprising a memory, a processor operatively coupled to the memory and comprising computer executable components comprising a protocol controller that determines a transceiver mode based on a first Controller Area Network (CAN) XL transceiver mode switch message received over a first receive data signal on a CAN XL network to a first transceiver, and a router that, in response to the protocol controller determining the transceiver mode, routes a second CAN XL transceiver mode switch message over a second receive data signal to a second transceiver; ¶ 0085: the process 1100 can comprise in response to determining the transceiver mode, routing, by the device, a second CAN XL transceiver mode switch message over a second receive data signal to a second transceiver);
a third CAN transceiver connected to the CAN bus; and an arbitration logic configured to transmit and receive the CAN data between the second CAN transceiver and the third CAN transceiver (see Antonsson, ¶ 0063: the router 240 can receive a mode switch message 461 and route the mode switch message 461 to CAN XL transceiver 210 in order to switch CAN XL transceiver 210 to symmetric reception. Next, router 240 can receive the mode switch message 461, replace the mode switch message 461 with mode switch message 458, and route mode switch message 458 to CAN XL transceivers 220 and 230 in order to switch CAN XL transceivers 220 and 230 to symmetric transmission; ¶ 0084: the monitoring device 200 can route the transceiver mode switch message (e.g., 458) for a switch from the first mode to the third mode over the second and third RXD signal to the second and third transceiver. At S206, the monitoring device can identify the transceiver mode switch message (e.g., 459) as a switch from a second or third mode to a first mode. At S207, the monitoring device 200 can route a transceiver mode switch message (e.g., message 459) for a switch from a second or third mode to a first mode over the second and third RXD signal to the second and third transceiver; ¶ 0123: in response to determining the transceiver mode, routing, by the device, a third CAN XL transceiver mode switch message over a third receive data signal to a third transceiver; ¶ 0124: wherein the first CAN XL transceiver mode switch message comprises a command to switch from an asymmetric arbitration mode to a symmetric data receive mode).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the above teaching as taught by Antonsson and incorporate it into the system of Inoue in order to identify and address CAN XL node faults (see Inoue, ¶ 0010).
Regarding claim 2, Inoue in view of Antonsson discloses the CAN communication apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the CAN communication circuit further comprises a micro controller unit (MCU) configured to set the repeater mode to on or to off according to a setup signal (see Inoue, Fig 2 and Fig 3; ¶ 0035; ¶ 0041; ¶ 0071).
Regarding claim 3, Inoue in view of Antonsson discloses the CAN communication apparatus as claimed in claim 2, wherein the repeater circuit comprises: a first switch serially connected to the CAN bus; a second switch connected between the CAN bus and the second CAN transceiver; and a third switch connected between the CAN bus and the third CAN transceiver, and wherein the MCU is configured to set the first switch to an open state, and to set the second switch and the third switch to a closed state, to turn on the repeater mode based on the setup signal (see Inoue, Fig 2 and Fig 3; ¶ 0038- ¶ 0048; ¶ 0052-¶ 0060; ¶ 0073- ¶ 0081).
Antonsson also discloses wherein the repeater circuit comprises: a first switch serially connected to the CAN bus (see Antonsson, Fig 5 and Fig 6; ¶ 0025); a second switch connected between the CAN bus and the second CAN transceiver (see Antonsson, ¶ 0025; ¶ 0027; ¶ 0028); and a third switch connected between the CAN bus and the third CAN transceiver (see Antonsson, ¶ 0033; ¶ 0123; ¶ 0137), and wherein the MCU is configured to set the first switch to an open state, and to set the second switch and the third switch to a closed state, to turn on the repeater mode based on the setup signal (see Antonsson, ¶ 0027; ¶ 0033; ¶ 0084; ¶ 0124).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the above teaching as taught by Antonsson and incorporate it into the system of Inoue in order to identify and address CAN XL node faults (see Inoue, ¶ 0010).
Regarding claim 4, Inoue in view of Antonsson discloses the CAN communication apparatus as claimed in claim 3, wherein the MCU is configured to set the first switch to a closed state, and to set the second switch and the third switch to an open state, to turn off the repeater mode based on the setup signal (see Inoue, Fig 2 and Fig 3; ¶ 0052 - ¶ 0060; ¶ 0073 - ¶ 0081).
Also, Antonsson discloses wherein the MCU is configured to set the first switch to a closed state, and to set the second switch and the third switch to an open state, to turn off the repeater mode based on the setup signal (see Antonsson, ¶ 0084: the monitoring device 200 can replacing the message (e.g., message 461) with a transceiver mode switch message (e.g., message 458) for a switch from the first mode to a third mode. At S206, the monitoring device 200 can route the transceiver mode switch message (e.g., 458) for a switch from the first mode to the third mode over the second and third RXD signal to the second and third transceiver. At S206, the monitoring device can identify the transceiver mode switch message (e.g., 459) as a switch from a second or third mode to a first mode. At S207, the monitoring device 200 can route a transceiver mode switch message (e.g., message 459) for a switch from a second or third mode to a first mode over the second and third RXD signal to the second and third transceiver. It is noted that, with respect to process 1000, the first mode can comprise an asymmetric arbitration mode, the second mode can comprise a symmetric data receive mode, and the third mode can comprise a symmetric data transmit mode, though other combinations or orders are envisaged; ¶ 0123: in response to determining the transceiver mode, routing, by the device, a third CAN XL transceiver mode switch message over a third receive data signal to a third transceiver; ¶ 0035).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the above teaching as taught by Antonsson and incorporate it into the system of Inoue in order to identify and address CAN XL node faults (see Inoue, ¶ 0010).
Regarding claim 5, Inoue in view of Antonsson discloses the CAN communication apparatus as claimed in claim 3, wherein the repeater circuit further comprises a fourth switch configured to supply a power voltage to the second CAN transceiver and the third CAN transceiver, or to cut off the power voltage, and wherein the MCU is configured to control the fourth switch to be closed if the repeater mode is turned on (see Inoue, Fig 2 and Fig 3; ¶ 0042; ¶ 0048; ¶ 0053; ¶ 0054; ¶ 0062- ¶ 0067; ¶ 0071).
Regarding claim 7, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1. Although phrased as a method claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 3. Although phrased as a method claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 3.
Regarding claim 9, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 4. Although phrased as a method claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 4.
Regarding claim 10, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 5. Although phrased as a method claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 5.
Claim(s) 6, 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue in view of Antonsson and further in view of US Pub. 2012/0236525 to Okada (hereafter Okada).
Regarding claim 6, Inoue in view of Antonsson discloses the CAN communication apparatus as claimed in claim 3, Inoue does not explicitly disclose wherein the arbitration logic is configured to feed back the CAN data that is transmitted and received between the second CAN transceiver and the third CAN transceiver to the MCU as feedbacked CAN data, and wherein the MCU is configured to monitor an operation state of the repeater mode using feedbacked CAN data.
However, Okada discloses wherein the arbitration logic is configured to feed back the CAN data that is transmitted and received between the second CAN transceiver and the third CAN transceiver to the MCU as feedbacked CAN data, and wherein the MCU is configured to monitor an operation state of the repeater mode using feedbacked CAN data (see Okada, Fig 3- Fig 6; ¶ 0072; ¶ 0073; ¶ 0079).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the above teaching as taught by Okada and incorporate it into the system of Inoue based on user design preference to achieve for efficiently relaying communication.
Regarding claim 11, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 6. Although phrased as a method claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 6.
Regarding claim 12, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 6. Although phrased as a method claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent 5,684,966 to Gafford et al.
US Patent 8,767,753 to Van de Maele.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASHEED GIDADO whose telephone number is (571)270-7645. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at 571-272-3139. 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.
/RASHEED GIDADO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2464