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 .
Notice for all Patent Application as subject to AIA
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 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.
RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
Claims 1-10 are pending and remain for further examination.
The old rejection maintained
Applicant’s amendments and arguments with respect to claims 1-10 filed on September 04, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not deemed to be persuasive for the claims 1-10. The rejection is respectfully maintained as set forth in the last Office Action mailed on June 04, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of title AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Torisaki et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/01145252 A1).
Torisaki’s patent application meets all the limitations for claims 1-10 recited in the claimed invention.
As to claim 1, Torisaki et al disclose an in-vehicle relay device (see abstract and figure 1, pars. 0058 & 0064-0066, discloses relay ECUs) comprising: a relay unit configured to relay frames transmitted and received between a first in-vehicle device and a second in-vehicle device in an in-vehicle network (figure 4, pars. 0089-0090 & 0093, relay ECU having a relay unit for transmitting and receiving the frames); a calculation unit configured to calculate a processing load of the other in-vehicle device based on a plurality of frames that were received from the one in-vehicle device by the relay unit and are addressed to the other in-vehicle device (figure 4, pars. 0092, 0104, 0165, 0168, generation unit detecting control frame and size of a payload); and a determination unit configured to determine whether or not the relay unit is to relay the frames addressed to the other in-vehicle device based on the processing load calculated by the calculation unit (figure 4, pars. 0093-0096, 0101-0104, 0159, determination unit determining to relay the frames based on the load).
As to claim 2, Torisaki et al teach that a storage unit configured to store frame processing information indicating a processing load of frames in each of the in-vehicle devices for each type of frame (figure 4, pars. 0091-0092), and the calculation unit calculates the processing load based on the type of each of the received frames and the frame processing information (figure 4, pars. 0092, 0104, 0165, 0168).
As to claim 3, Torisaki et al teach that the frame processing information further indicates a processing time required for each of the in-vehicle devices to process frames for each type of frame (pars. 0033-0034), and the calculation unit updates the processing load based on an elapsed time from when the relay unit received or relayed the received frames and the processing time corresponding to the received frames (figure 4, pars. 0092, 0104, 0165, 0168).
As to claim 4, Torisaki et al teach that a storage unit configured to store frame processing information indicating, for each of the in-vehicle devices, a processing load of frames in the in-vehicle device (figure 4, pars. 0091-0092), and the calculation unit calculates the processing load of the first in-vehicle device based on the processing load corresponding to the second in-vehicle device in the frame processing information (figure 4, pars. 0092, 0104, 0165, 0168).
As to claim 5, Torisaki et al teach that the frame processing information further indicates, for each of the in-vehicle devices, a processing time required for each of the in-vehicle devices to process frames (pars. 0033-0034), and the calculation unit updates the processing load based on an elapsed time from when the relay unit received or relayed the received frames and the processing time corresponding to the received frames (figure 4, pars. 0092, 0104, 0165, 0168).
As to claim 6, Torisaki et al teach that a storage unit configured to store frame processing information indicating a threshold of the processing load for each of the in-vehicle devices, and the determination unit makes the determination based on a comparison result of a comparison between the processing load of the first in-vehicle device calculated by the calculation unit and the threshold corresponding to the second in-vehicle device in the frame processing information (figures 12-13, pars. 0133-0143).
As to claim 7, Torisaki et al teach that the determination unit makes the determination based on a comparison result of a comparison between the processing load calculated by the calculation unit and a threshold, and the threshold is a value based on a result of measurement of a frame transmission cycle in a vehicle having a predetermined network configuration (figures 13-15, pars. 0143-0151).
As to claim 8, Torisaki et al teach that the in-vehicle relay device relays the frames transmitted and received between the in- vehicle devices in a star topology with peer-to-peer communication (pars. 0065-0068).
As to claim 9, it is also rejected for the same reasons set forth to rejecting claims 1 above, since claim 9 is merely method of operations for the apparatus defined in the claim 1 and claim 9 does not teach or define any new limitations than above rejected claim 1.
As to claims 10, it is also rejected for the same reasons set forth to rejecting claim 1 above, since claim 10 is merely a program product for the apparatus defined in the claim 1 and claim 10 does not teach or define any new limitations than above rejected claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-10 under 102 rejections filed on September 04, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not deemed to be persuasive for the claims 1-25.
In the remarks, the applicant argues that:
Arguments: Applicant submits that the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest an in-vehicle relay device including a relay unit configured to relay frames transmitted and received between a first in-vehicle device and a second in-vehicle device in an in- vehicle network; a calculation unit configured to calculate a processing load of the second in-vehicle device based on a plurality of frames that were received from the first in-vehicle device by the relay unit and are addressed to the second in-vehicle device; and a determination unit configured to determine whether or not the relay unit is to relay the frames addressed to the second in-vehicle device based on the processing load calculated by the calculation unit.
Response: Torisaki et al disclose a relay unit configured to relay frames transmitted and received between a first in-vehicle device and a second in-vehicle device in an in-vehicle network (figure 4, pars. 0089-0090 & 0093, relay ECU having a relay unit for transmitting and receiving the frames); a calculation unit configured to calculate a processing load of the other in-vehicle device based on a plurality of frames that were received from the one in-vehicle device by the relay unit and are addressed to the other in-vehicle device (figure 4, pars. 0092, 0104, 0165, 0168, generation unit detecting control frame and size of a payload); and a determination unit configured to determine whether or not the relay unit is to relay the frames addressed to the other in-vehicle device based on the processing load calculated by the calculation unit (figure 4, pars. 0093-0096, 0101-0104, 0159, determination unit determining to relay the frames based on the load), which implies as claimed invention; therefore, the applicant’s arguments are moot.
Applicant’s amendments arguments, filed on September 04, 2025, with respect to the 101 rejection of claim 10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 101 rejection of claim 10 has been withdrawn.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
Content Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bharat Barot whose telephone number is (571)272-3979. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00AM-3:30PM.
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, Kamal B Divecha can be reached on (571)272-5863. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BHARAT BAROT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453December 01, 2025