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 Interpretation
Claim 28 recites: A non-transitory computer program product containing machine-readable instructions, when executed on a system carry out the data processing method according to claim 15.
Claim 28 and claim 15 are directed at two different statutory classes. There is case law that permits a dependent claim to depend on an independent claim of a different statutory class. Claim 28 is interpreted accordingly.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 07/10/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., page 12 of the instant application, line 30 - page 13, line 2; page 13 of the instant application, lines 3 - 6; page 15 of the instant application, lines 5 - 7; page 3 of the instant application, lines 27 - 28) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The remarks, on pages 15-22, are adding limitations to the Claims, which are not explicitly recited in the Claims.
The Claims are a translation - unusual terminology has been utilized; however, the technical engineering equivalents are well known, in the electronic communications art.
The amended Claim is as follows:
Claim 15: A data processing method, which comprises the steps of:
transmitting data between various network subscribers of a network in accordance with a communication cycle consisting of consecutive time intervals defined in a communication scheme;
during at least one time interval of the communication cycle, predefined network subscribers are each authorized either to send or to receive the data;
providing a plurality of data processing apparatuses as the network subscribers;
running through a process cycle by each of the plurality of data processing apparatuses;
carrying out consecutive process steps in the respective process cycle, in which at least a part of the data is either read in, processed or output;
synchronizing the communication cycle with the process cycle of at least one of the plurality of data processing apparatuses such that, during a temporal run-through of the communication cycle, a predefined process step of the process cycle of the at least one of the plurality of data processing apparatuses is carried out during a time interval of the communication cycle assigned to the predefined process step; and
running through the communication cycle and also the process cycle of the at least one of the plurality of data processing apparatuses multiple times.
Utilizing unusual terminology, such as “running through” or “temporal run-through”, does not make the Claim allowable.
Furthermore, utilizing large amounts of prose to argue semantics does not distinguish the Claims from the prior art.
Regarding the limitation “during at least one time interval of the communication cycle, predefined network subscribers are each authorized either to send or to receive the data”:
Applicant states: the claims require that, during at least one time interval of the communication cycle, predefined network subscribers are each authorized either to send or to receive the data. This requires a granting of permissions that is tied to a specific time interval. The communication scheme defines which network subscriber is permitted to send or receive during which time interval. See page 13 of the instant application, lines 3 - 6 ("In the communication scheme 12 it is defined which network subscriber is authorized for sending or for receiving in which time interval"). See page 15 of the instant application, lines 5 - 7 ("Here the first data processing apparatus 26 is authorized to receive data and the three further data processing apparatuses 28 are each authorized to send data").
“granting of permissions” feature is not in the limitation. It is unclear whether the Applicant is familiar with fundamental concepts of digital communications. In multiplex communications, there are always techniques to avoid collisions between transmitters. If the Applicant is looking for “granting of permissions” this would be simple to find, e.g., in cellular communication systems. Each smart phone or device needs “granting of permissions” to communicate on a network.
Regarding the limitation “carrying out consecutive process steps in the respective process cycle, in which at least a part of the data is either read in, processed or output”:
Applicant states: Each data processing apparatus runs through its own process cycle consisting of consecutive process steps in which data is read in, processed, and output. That is an internal sequence following the input-processing- output principle. See page 3 of the instant application, lines 27 - 28 ("In particular the process cycle here is a basic scheme according to the input- processing-output principle"). This is an internal operation of each individual data processing apparatus.
The above is a fundamental concept in digital signal processing, wherein data is read in, processed, and outputted.
Regarding the limitation “synchronizing the communication cycle with the process cycle of at least one of the plurality of data processing apparatuses such that, during a temporal run-through of the communication cycle, a predefined process step of the process cycle of the at least one of the plurality of data processing apparatuses is carried out during a time interval of the communication cycle assigned to the predefined process step”:
Applicant states: The above passage is not disclosed.
The Claim limitation: synchronizing the communication cycle with the process cycle of a data processing apparatuses such that, during a temporal run-through of the communication cycle, a predefined process step of the process cycle of the data processing apparatus is carried out during a time interval of the communication cycle assigned to the predefined process step.
This limitation states that communication and data processing are synchronized. This would make sense in any communication system. If there is no synchronization, then communication could take place before the data processing step, which would waste valuable communication resources and no useful data is communicated.
Figure 1 of the invention:
PNG
media_image1.png
450
864
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This is disclosed by the Abstract of the prior art. Figure 1 of the invention shows the hardware that would be utilized in any motorcycle, car, automobile, bus, train, airplane, space craft, smart building, manufacturing plant, etc.
Applicant is advised to study the entire prior art document. E.g., page 179, paragraph above section 4.2: We present in the next section an incremental algorithm specifically tailored for task scheduling that reduces the runtime of combined task/network scheduling for the average case by taking into account the different types of tasks executing on end-systems.
As seen above, tasks are executing on end-systems; therefore, it is unclear why the Applicant is stating that, network subscribers and what is occurring within the network subscribers are not disclosed.
Page 180, last page spanning paragraph: The demand check is based on the necessary and sufficient feasibility condition for constrained-deadline asynchronous tasks with periodic execution under EDF. The test constructs a set of intervals between any release and
any deadline over a certain time-window. In each of these intervals the demand of the
executing tasks is checked to be smaller than or equal to the supply (the length of the
interval). In our case, for every end-system, the set of tasks is derived from the already
scheduled tasks in Tsmt and the tasks in Tedf. The already scheduled tasks in Tsmt
have fixed scheduled intervals according to their virtual frames whereas the tasks in
Tedf will be treated as EDF tasks.
As seen above, there is a deadline over a certain time-window, length of the interval; for every end-system, the set of tasks is derived from the already scheduled tasks interval.
The above also matches the disclosed and claimed invention.
End-systems, equivalent to network subscribers, of the invention, are described many times, in the applied prior art. It would not be practical to quote all of citations, in the Office Action. A search of the document would provide the Applicant with a comprehensive view of what the prior art discloses.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 15-21 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Craciunas et al, "Combined task- and network-level scheduling for distributed time-triggered systems", 28 October 2015. (Year: 2015); hereinafter Craciunas.
Claim 15. Craciunas teaches a data processing method (e.g., Abstract), which comprises the steps of: transmitting data between various network subscribers of a network in accordance with a communication cycle consisting of consecutive time intervals defined in a communication scheme (e.g., title: Combined task- and network-level scheduling for distributed time-triggered systems, Abstract); during at least one time interval of the communication cycle, predefined network subscribers are each authorized either to send or to receive the data (e.g., page 162 last full paragraph);
providing a plurality of data processing apparatuses as the network subscribers (e.g., title: Combined task- and network-level scheduling for distributed time-triggered systems, Abstract);
running through a process cycle by each of the plurality of data processing apparatuses (e.g., page 162 first & second full paragraphs); carrying out consecutive process steps in the respective process cycle, in which at least a part of the data is either read in, processed or output (e.g., page 165 last page spanning paragraph); synchronizing the communication cycle with the process cycle of at least one of the plurality of data processing apparatuses such that, during a temporal run-through of the communication cycle, a predefined process step of the process cycle of the at least one of the plurality of data processing apparatuses is carried out during a time interval of the communication cycle assigned to the predefined process step (e.g., page 195 last full paragraph, page 196 first and last full paragraphs, Fig. 5); and running through the communication cycle and also the process cycle of the at least one of the plurality of data processing apparatuses multiple times (e.g., Fig. 3 Network cycle, e.g., page 174 first five lines).
Claim 16. Craciunas teaches the data processing method according to claim 15, which further comprises carrying out the predefined process step of the process cycle completely within the time interval of the communication cycle assigned to the predefined process step (e.g., Fig. 5).
Claim 17. Craciunas teaches the data processing method according to claim 15, wherein: during a first type of time interval of the communication cycle at least one of the plurality of data processing apparatuses is authorized to receive data; and during the first type of time interval input data is read in by the at least one data processing apparatus (e.g., page 177 first ten lines).
Claim 18. Craciunas teaches the data processing method according to claim 17, wherein: during the first type of time interval of the communication cycle the plurality of data processing apparatuses is authorized to receive data; and during the first type of time interval identical input data is read in by the plurality of data processing apparatuses (e.g., page 197 first 14 lines, support for multicast communication).
Claim 19. Craciunas teaches the data processing method according to claim 15, wherein during a second type of time interval of the communication cycle, input data is processed to an output dataset by at least one of the plurality of data processing apparatuses (e.g., page 173 lines 14-18).
Claim 20. Craciunas teaches the data processing method according to claim 19, wherein during the second type of time interval, processing the input data to the output dataset by each of the plurality of data processing apparatuses by a same deterministic data processing program (e.g., page 173 lines 14-22).
Claim 21. Craciunas teaches the data processing method according to claim 20, wherein during a third type of time interval of the communication cycle, a transmission of data is exclusively restricted to a transmission between the plurality of data processing apparatuses (e.g., Fig. 5).
Claim 27 is rejected substantially the same as the corresponding claim 15.
Claim 28 is rejected substantially the same as the corresponding claim 15 and A non-transitory computer program product containing machine-readable instructions, when executed on a system (e.g., page 183 lines 4-5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-26 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Allowable subject matter: see office action mailed 04/21/2026, pages 10-13, paragraph 20.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: see office action mailed 04/21/2026, pages 13, paragraph 21.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and claims:
WEICHLEIN (US 20220045835 A1) Claims 12
PARK (US 20210250410 A1) Abstract
Poledna (US 20160147568 A1) Abstract, [0012]- [0021]
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection, if any, presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 HOOMAN HOUSHMAND whose telephone number is (571)270-1817. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 PT. 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, AYMAN ABAZA can be reached at (571)270-0422. 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.
/H.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2465
/AYMAN A ABAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights