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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on March 25, 2024, September 05, 2024, and October 22, 2024, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed January 20, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-19 & 21 remain pending in the application. Claim 20 was canceled. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18 & 19 were amended. Claim 21 is new. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed October 23, 2026, hereafter referred to as the Non-Final Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 20, 2026 have been entered and fully considered. In light of the amendments, the rejection(s) have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection(s) have been made, and Applicant’s arguments are rendered moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3-4 & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 recites, “comparing a final threshold code…” in line 3, where “a final threshold code…” is not disclosed in the specification or the figures provided, therefore the claim contains new subject matter. The new claim language is part of a method, mentioning multiple/plurality of “threshold code(s)” “highest threshold code”, “lowest threshold code”, “amplitude of the threshold codes”, “non-zero threshold codes” and “maximum threshold code”, neither description provided in the disclosure focuses on “a final threshold code”, which is an important limitation in the methodology. Claim 4 is rejected by virtue of dependence on independent claim 19, which does not rectify the defect.
Claim 4 similarly recites, “the final threshold code…” in ll. 3, 5 & 6, where “the final threshold code…” is not disclosed in the specification or the figures provided, therefore the claim contains new subject matter. The new claim language is part of a method, mentioning multiple/plurality of “threshold code(s)” “highest threshold code”, “lowest threshold code”, “amplitude of the threshold codes”, “non-zero threshold codes” and “maximum threshold code”, neither description provided in the disclosure focuses on “a final threshold code”, which is an important limitation in the methodology.
Claim 13 similarly recites, “a/the final threshold code…” in ll. 4, 6, 9 & 12, where “the final threshold code…” is not disclosed in the specification or the figures provided, therefore the claim contains new subject matter. The new claim language is part of a method, mentioning multiple/plurality of “threshold code(s)” “highest threshold code”, “lowest threshold code”, “amplitude of the threshold codes”, “non-zero threshold codes” and “maximum threshold code”, neither description provided in the disclosure focuses on “a final threshold code”, which is an important limitation in the methodology
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 12-19 & 21 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "an amplitude of the observed signal" in line 4, without prior disclosure, resulting in a lack of antecedent basis for this claim limitation. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets the limitation to read as “an amplitude of an observed signal”. Claims 13-18 are rejected by virtue of dependence on independent claim 12, which do not rectify the defect.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "transmit a pulse signal over a shared bus; " in line 4, and “diagnose a shared bus…” in line 22, which were previously disclosed in line 2 of the same claim. The repeated recitation of “…a shared bus;” introduces indefiniteness for the limitations in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets the limitation to read as “transmit a pulse signal over the shared bus;” and “diagnose the shared bus…”. Claim 21 is rejected by virtue of dependence on independent claim 19, which does not rectify the defect.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, 11-13, 15-16, 19 & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zang et al. (US 2021/0058168 A1, Pub. Date Feb. 25, 2021, hereinafter, Zang), in view of Bani Milhim et al. (US 2024/0193028 A1, Fil. Date, Dec. 8. 2022, hereinafter Bani), and further in view of Ezra et al. (US 2018/0248766 A1, Pub. Date Aug. 30, 2018, hereinafter Ezra).
Regarding independent Claim 1, Zang, teaches:
A method ([Abstract], [0017]-[0018], [0026] & [0077]) comprising:
transmitting a pulse signal over a shared bus (Fig. 7; [0026], [0030], & [0078]-[0079]: block 704);
capturing an observed signal (Fig. 3A: 306), wherein the observed signal (Fig. 3A: 306) is a superimposition of the pulse signal (Fig. 3A: 302) and a reflection signal (Figs. 3A & 3B; [0041]-[0042] & [0046]: 304 reflection signal);
comparing an amplitude of the observed signal to a plurality of threshold values (Figs. 4A & 7; [0051], [0053], [0055], [0076], [0082]-[0083], [0086] & [0097]: blocks 702, 710, & 712);
creating a vector indicating a given threshold at which the amplitude of the observed signal first exceeds one of the plurality of threshold values at a plurality of sampling times (Figs. 4A, 4B, & 5; [0049]-[0057], [0055], [0058], [0063]-[0064], & [0071]);
and diagnosing the shared bus based on the indicator (Fig. 7; [0027], [0029], [0058], [0065], [0071], & [0085]: block 714).
PNG
media_image1.png
631
786
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
891
643
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
736
547
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
638
785
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
858
633
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Zang, is silent in regard to:
selecting an indicator from a plurality of indicators, wherein each indicator of the plurality of indicators is used to identify a fault in the shared bus;
applying the indicator to the vector; and
However, Zang, in combination of Bani, further teach:
selecting an indicator from a plurality of indicators, wherein each indicator of the plurality of indicators is used to identify a fault in the shared bus (Zang: [0058] & [0065]: mathematically combines the vectors to generate a reflection array (r[n]), the values in the array (+1 or -1) act as the indicators that dictate the fault type (open vs. short); Bani: [0035]: introduces the concept of calculating and selecting health indicators to identify faults on a shared bus);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate Bani’s method of selecting specific health indicator’s into Zang’s time-domain reflectometry (TDR) system to improve the reliability and granularity of the fault diagnosis, according to known methods. Zang’s method provides the raw vector data of the reflection. By modifying Zang’s system to select and apply Bani’s mathematical health indicators (e.g., variance or intensity ratios) to the vectors generated by Zang, the system can accurately categorize complex faults (e.g., partial shorts). This constitutes applying a known diagnostic technique, Bani’s health indicators, to a known method of data extraction, Zang’s threshold vectors, to yield the predictable result (KSR) of an accurate fault diagnosis system.
However, Zang, in combination of Ezra, further teach:
applying the indicator to the vector (Zang: Figs. 4A & 4B; [0050], [0053], [0057]-[0058], [0065], & [0071]; Ezra: [0065]); and
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine Zang’s vector-generation steps with Ezra’s mathematical application step, according to known methods. A POSITA would recognize that instead of adding Zang’s arrays together, they can select an indicator (a known fault vector profile similar to Ezra’s library fingerprint) and apply it to Zang’s observed vector using Ezra’s scalar product method. Would mathematically filter out noise and calculate how closely the observed vector aligns with the known fault indicator. This is a substitution of one known mathematical evaluation method (Zang’s basic arithmetic) for another known mathematical evaluation method (Ezra’s scalar product/indicator application), to achieve the predictable result (KSR) of increasing the diagnostic accuracy of the TDR system in high-noise environments.
Regarding dependent Claim 2, Zang, teaches:
The method of claim 1 ([Abstract], [0017], [0026] & [0077]), comprising:
measuring a time duration (Fig. 3A; 310) on the observed signal (Fig. 3A; 306) between the pulse signal (Fig. 3A; 302) and a transition of the observed signal (Fig. 3A; [0043]-[0047] & [0066]: 304 reflection signal interpreted as observed signal); and
determining a location of a shared bus fault based on the time duration (Fig. 3A; [0043]-[0044], [0046], [0066], & [0108]: 310 time duration).
Regarding dependent Claim 3, Zang, teaches:
The method of claim 1 ([Abstract], [0021]-[0022], [0026] & [0077]), and
diagnosing the shared bus includes comparing a final threshold code of the vector ([0050]-[0058], [0061], [0065]-[0066], [0071], & [0076]: captures samples at different times (T1-T8) and assigns binary logic values (1s and 0s) to create arrays/vectors based on whether the signal crosses specific threshold, then mathematically processes the vectors into a final reflection array (r[n]), which serves as the final threshold code used to diagnose whether the bus has an open or short fault)
Zang, is silent in regard to:
wherein the indicator is a settled state indicator;
to a pre-defined amplitude range.
However, Zang, in combination of Bani, further teach:
wherein the indicator is a settled state indicator (Zang: [0044],[0057]-[0058], [0060], [0065]-[0066], & [0071]: “reflection array” r[n] is the computed indicator, its values (0, +1, -1) represent the final, processed stated of the signal after analysis, which is the settled state and diagnosis; Bani: [0002] &[0039]-[0040]: utilizes the recessive state of the bus as the primary diagnostic indicator);
to a pre-defined amplitude range (Zang: [0057]-[0058], [0061], [0065]-[0066], [0071], & [0076]: teaches diagnosis the bus (determining an ‘open’ or ‘short’ fault) by comparing the values (samples) of the vector r[n] to a pre-defined amplitude range, and specifies a predetermined sample for fault location, such as the “first non-zero element” in the vector; Bani: [0039]-[0040]: teaches evaluating the settled/recessive bits against an expected 2.5+/-0.2 volts, the range is used as a recessive boundary for a normal CAN bus).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Zang’s vector-generation method to incorporate Bani’s pre-defined amplitude ranges for settled states, according to known methods. Zang’s method evaluates reflections during the active pulse and immediately after. Zang teaches diagnosing a shared bus by sampling an observed signal, comparing it to specific thresholds, creating a vector of binary codes, and determining the fault based on the final vector array. Bani teaches diagnosing shared bus health by looking at the settled (idle/recessive) state of the bus and comparing those settled signals against a pre-defined amplitude range (e.g., 2.5 +/-0.2V) to set a boundary for a healthy bus. A POSITA would recognize that by incorporating Bani’s teaching of a pre-defined amplitude range (a specific tolerance band rather than a hard threshold line) and evaluating the settled state of the bus, the diagnostic vectors generated in Zang’s system would be more efficient, filtering out minor voltage fluctuations that occur when the bus returns to idle, yielding expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent Claim 4, Zang, teaches:
The method of claim 3 ([Abstract], [0021]-[0022], [0026] & [0077]), wherein diagnosing the shared bus includes ([0002], [0021]-[0022], [0028]-[0029], [0047], [0058] & [0065]):
determining that the shared bus is shorted ([0029], [0046], [0058], [0065]) when the final threshold code of the vector ([0050]-[0058] & [0061]-[0066]) is below the pre-defined amplitude range ([0029], [0033], [0051]-[0056], [0058], & [0062]-[0065]: explains that if a vector array (r[n]) yields a negative value, where the observed signal drops below the expected normal thresholds, the system diagnoses a short fault, and correlates to a threshold code falling below the predefined heathy amplitude range); and
determining that the shared bus is open ([0029], [0042], & [0058]) when the final threshold code of the vector is above the pre-defined amplitude range ([0030], [0050]-[0058], & [0061]-[0066]: teaches that if the vector array (r[n]) yields a positive value, where the observed signal reflects back additively and spikes above normal thresholds, the system diagnoses an open fault, correlates to the threshold code rising above the pre-defined amplitude range).
Zang, is silent in regard to:
determining that the shared bus is terminated when the final threshold code of the vector is within the pre-defined amplitude range;
However, Zang, in combination of Bani, further teach:
determining that the shared bus is terminated (Zang: [0028]-[0029], [0047], & [0065]) when the final threshold code of the vector is within the pre-defined amplitude range (Zang: [0029], [0047], [0050]-[0058] & [0061]-[0066]; Bani: [0039]-[0040]: teaches that a healthy bus is one where the signal remains within a predefined amplitude range (e.g., 2.5 +/-0.2V), a terminated bus is diagnosed when the vector code remains within the pre-defined healthy range);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine Bani’s pre-defined amplitude ranges with Zang’s vector diagnostic logic, according to known methods. Zang teaches how to mathematically classify the fault (positive = open, negative = short, null = terminated). Zang’s method requires baseline thresholds to determine what constitutes a positive or negative deviation. A POSITA would look to Bani’s teaching of a pre-defined amplitude range (the 2.5+/-0.2V boundary) to establish the baseline for Zang’s vector. Zang teaches evaluating an observed signal vector against threshold to classify the physical state of the bus. Further teaching that a zero/null vector indicates a properly terminated bus, negative vector indicates a short, and a positive vector indicates an open bus. Bani teaches diagnosis the bus health by establishing a pre-defined amplitude range (e.g., 2.5+/-0.2V) to define the voltage boundary of a healthy bus. By combining them, the system diagnoses the terminated bus terminated (within Bani’s range), shorted (below Bani’s range, per Zang’s negative logic), or open (above Bani’s range per Zang’s positive logic)., yielding expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent Claim 7, Zang, teaches:
The method of claim 1 ([Abstract], [0026] & [0077]), wherein the indicator is a maximum amplitude indicator (Fig. 6; [0030], [0051], [0070]-[0071], & [0076]); and diagnosing the shared bus includes determining whether a plurality of consecutive samples of the vector are beyond a predetermined maximum amplitude (Figs. 4A & 4B; [Abstract], [0028], [0030], [0042], [0051]-[0058], [0065], & [0070]-[0071]: discloses diagnosing the bus by analyzing a vector (r[n]) and determining that a fault condition exists where there are a plurality of consecutive samples in that vector that are non-zero (+1 or -1), which is the result of the observed signal samples being “beyond a predetermined maximum amplitude”).
PNG
media_image6.png
738
810
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding dependent Claim 8, Zang, teaches:
The method of claim 1 ([Abstract], [0026] & [0077]),
Zang, is silent in regard to:
wherein the indicator is a voltage sum indicator; and
However, Zang, in combination of Bani, and Ezra, further teach:
wherein the indicator is a voltage sum indicator (Zang: Figs. 4A & 4B; [0049], [0057]-[0058], [0065], [0071],& [0097]: fault detection logic 510 interpreted as a “voltage sum indicator”; Bani: [0043] & [Claim 19]: a moving mean inherently requires a voltage sum over time; Ezra: [0065]: scalar product is a mathematical sum of the vector components); and
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine Bani’s physical fault indicators with Ezra’s and Zang’s vector summation framework, according to known methods. A POSITA seeking to improve Bani’s fault detection system would recognize that Ezra provides a mathematical implementation (vector scalar products) for evaluation signal characteristics. Further, Ezra’s anomaly detection framework would incorporate into Bani’s health indicator parameters (summing bit intensities to detect open faults) to expand Ezra’s system from detecting anomalies to also diagnosing physical layer faults. This combination constitutes applying a known technique (Ezra’s mathematical vector summation and threshold comparison) to a known device/method (bani’s shared bus health indicator system) to yield the predictable result (KSR) of a diagnostic tool capable of identifying physical wire faults through precise mathematical vector evaluation.
Zang, in combination with Bani, are silent in regard to:
diagnosing the shared bus includes summing a plurality of non-zero threshold codes of the vector over time and comparing the sum to a predetermined threshold.
However, Zang, in combination of Ezra, further teach:
diagnosing the shared bus includes summing a plurality of non-zero threshold codes of the vector over time (Zang: Figs. 4A & 4B; [0042], [0049]-[0058], [0062]-[0065], & [0071]: matrix 420 in the figures further illustrate the vectors a[n], b[n], c[n] as rows of data across the sampling times T1-T8 and provides the discrete non-zero threshold codes over time; Ezra: [0065]: teaches the mathematical summation of the vector components)
and comparing the sum to a predetermined threshold (Zang: [0058], [0065]-[0066], & [0071]; Ezra: Fig. 8; [0038], [0077]-[0078], [0114], [0119]-[0120], [Claim 10] & [Claim 17]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine Zang’s vector generation with Ezra’s vector summation and threshold comparison, according to known methods. A POSITA would recognize that by integrating Ezra’s teachings, summing the non-zero threshold codes of Zang’s vector over time and comparing that total sum to a predetermined threshold, the system can measure the total energy or duration of the reflection. This yields the predictable results (KSR) of a diagnostic system that ignores brief transient noise and only diagnoses a fault when the threshold sum confirms a physical anomaly on the shared bus.
Regarding dependent Claim 11, Zang, teaches:
The method of claim 1 ([Abstract], [0017]-[0018], [0026] & [0077]), comprising determining a fault type (Fig. 7; [0028]-[0029], [0058], [0065], & [0071]: Block 714).
Regarding independent Claim 12, Zang, teaches:
An apparatus (Figs. 1 & 5; [0020], [0024], [0040], [0068]-[0071]: PHY 500 (apparatus)) comprising:
a control circuit to (Figs. 1 & 5; [0068]-[0071]: controller 506 and more specifically Fault Detection Logic 510):
receive a plurality of sequences of bits (Fig. 4A; [0071]: a[n], b[n], c[n], etc. are the sequences of bits), wherein a given one of the plurality of sequences of bits is indicative of an amplitude of the observed signal (Fig. 3A: 306) compared to a given one of a plurality of threshold values at a plurality of sampling times (Figs. 4A, 4B, & 5; [0049]-[0058], [0062]-[0066], & [0071]: control circuit receives multiple sequences of bits, each sequence corresponds to the observed signal’s amplitude compared to a specific threshold at multiple sampling times);
creating a vector based on the plurality of sequences of bits ([0057]-[0058]: matrix 420), wherein the vector indicates (Fig. 4A; [0057]-[0058] & [0071]), for a given one of the plurality of sampling times ([0049]-[0058]), a first threshold of the plurality of threshold values at which the amplitude of the observed signal (Fig. 3A: 306) exceeds one of the plurality of threshold values (Figs. 4A & 4B; [0049]-[0058] & [0071]: control circuit creates a vector that indicates, for each sampling time, which threshold exceeded);
diagnose a shared bus based on the indicator (Fig. 7; [0027], [0029], [0058], [0065], [0071], & [0085]: block 714).
Zang, is silent in regard to:
select an indicator from a plurality of indicators, wherein each indicator of the plurality of indicators is used to identify a fault in the shared bus;
However, Zang, in combination of Bani, and Ezra, further teach:
select an indicator from a plurality of indicators, wherein each indicator of the plurality of indicators is used to identify a fault in the shared bus (Zang: [0058] & [0065]: mathematically combines the vectors to generate a reflection array (r[n]), the values in the array (+1 or -1) act as the indicators that dictate the fault type (open vs. short); Bani: [0035]: introduces the concept of calculating and selecting health indicators to identify faults on a shared bus; Ezra: [0065] & [0086]: teaches applying a predetermined indicator (library fingerprint) to an observed vector (waveform fingerprint) via scalar products to identify an anomaly);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate Bani’s method of selecting specific health indicators and Ezra’s method of mathematically applying predetermined indicators (library fingerprints) to the observed vectors, into Zang’s time-domain reflectometry (TDR) system to improve the reliability and granularity of the fault diagnosis, according to known methods. Zang’s method provides the raw vector data of the reflection. A POSITA would recognize that by programming Zang’s control circuit to store a plurality of known fault indicators and apply them to Zang’s generated reflection vectors via Ezra’s scalar product operations, the apparatus could filter out noise and identify complex fault profiles. This constitutes the combination a known diagnostic apparatus, Zang’s TDR logic circuit, with a known mathematical data processing technique, Ezra’s vector application, and Bani’s health indicators, to a known method of data extraction, Zang’s threshold vectors, to yield the predictable result (KSR) of a robust, noise-immune bus fault detector.
Zang, in combination with Bani, are silent in regard to:
apply the indicator to the vector; and
However, Zang, in combination of Ezra, further teach:
apply the indicator to the vector (Zang: Figs. 4A & 4B; [0050], [0053], [0057]-[0058], [0065], & [0071]: diagnoses the fault by evaluating if the vector contains a negative or positive value; Ezra: [0065]: teaches an apparatus that stores a plurality of known indicators (library fingerprints) and applies it to the observed vector (waveform fingerprint FPW) using scalar product computation); and
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine Zang’s vector-generation steps with Ezra’s mathematical application step, according to known methods. A POSITA would recognize that instead of adding Zang’s arrays together, they can select an indicator (a known fault vector profile similar to Ezra’s library fingerprint) and apply it to Zang’s observed vector using Ezra’s scalar product method. Would mathematically filter out noise and calculate how closely the observed vector aligns with the known fault indicator. This constitutes the combination of a known diagnostic apparatus, Zang’s TDR logic circuit with a known mathematical evaluation method for another known mathematical evaluation apparatus/method (Ezra’s scalar product/indicator application), to achieve the predictable result (KSR) of increasing the diagnostic accuracy of the TDR system in high-noise environments.
Regarding dependent Claim 13, Zang, teaches:
The apparatus of claim 12 (Fig. 5; [0021]-[0022], [0026], [0040], [0068]-[0071] & [0077]),
determining that the shared bus is shorted ([0029], [0046], [0058] & [0065]) when the final threshold code of the vector ([0050]-[0058] & [0061]-[0066]) is below the pre-defined amplitude range ([0029], [0033], [0051]-[0056], [0058], & [0062]- [0065]); and
determining that the shared bus is open ([0029], [0042] & [0058]) when the final threshold code of the vector ([0050]-[0058] & [0061]-[0066]) is above the pre-defined amplitude range ([0030], [0051]-0056], [0058], & [0062]-[0065]).
Zang, is silent in regard to:
wherein the indicator is a settled state indicator; and
the control circuit diagnoses the shared bus by:
comparing a final threshold code of the vector to a pre-defined amplitude range;
determining that the shared bus is terminated when the final threshold code of the vector is within the pre-defined amplitude range;
However, Zang, in combination of Bani, further teach:
wherein the indicator is a settled state indicator (Zang: [0044],[0057]-[0058], [0060], [0065]-[0066], & [0071]: “reflection array” r[n] is the computed indicator, its values (0, +1, -1) represent the final, processed stated of the signal after analysis, which is the settled state and diagnosis; Bani: [0002] & [0039]-[0040]: utilizes the recessive state of the bus as the primary diagnostic indicator); and the control circuit diagnoses the shared bus by (Zang: [0002], [0028], [0057-[0058] & [0071]: processes intermediate logic arrays into a final threshold code vector (r[n]) used for diagnosis; Bani: [0039]-[0040]: teaches diagnosing shared bus health by comparing the settled signals against a pre-defined nominal amplitude range (2.5+/-0.2V boundary)):
comparing a final threshold code of the vector to a pre-defined amplitude range (Zang: [0057]-[0058], [0061], [0065]-[0066], & [0076]: teaches diagnosing the bus (determining an ‘open’ or ‘short’ fault) by comparing the values (samples) of the vector r[n] to a pre-defined amplitude range, and specifies a predetermined sample for fault location, such as the “first non-zero element” in the vector; Bani: [0039]-[0040]);
determining that the shared bus is terminated ([0028]-[0029], [0047] & [0065]) when the final threshold code of the vector is within the pre-defined amplitude range (Zang: [0029], [0047], [0050]-[0058], [0061]-[0066], [0071] & [0076]: occurs when the reflection vector registers no deviation (i.e., null or zero); Bani: [0039]-[0040]: teaches that a healthy bus is one where the signal remains within a predefined amplitude range (e.g., 2.5 +/-0.2V), a terminated bus is diagnosed when the vector code remains within the pre-defined healthy range);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to integrate Zang’s programmed control circuit to incorporate Bani’s pre-defined amplitude ranges for settled states, according to known methods. Zang’s hardware determines fault directionality (positive vs. negative), but requires threshold boundaries to prevent false triggering from noise. A POSITA would combine these teachings by configuring Zang’s control circuit to use Bani’s pre-defined amplitude range to establish the boundaries of the terminated state. This yields the predictable result (KSR) of a hardware apparatus capable of accurate, calibrated classification of open and short faults by measuring vector deviations above and below the settled boundary.
Regarding dependent Claim 15, Zang, teaches:
The apparatus of claim 12 (Fig. 5; [0026], [0040], [0068]-[0071] & [0077]), wherein the indicator is a maximum amplitude indicator (Fig. 6; [0030], [0051], [0070]-[0071], & [0076]); and the control circuit ([0051] & [0071]: fault detection logic 510) diagnoses the shared bus by determining whether a plurality of consecutive samples of the vector are beyond a predetermined maximum amplitude (Figs. 4A & 4B; [Abstract], [0028], [0030], [0042], [0051]-[0058], [0065], & [0070]-[0071]: discloses diagnosing the bus by analyzing a vector (r[n]) and determining that a fault condition exists where there are a plurality of consecutive samples in that vector that are non-zero (+1 or -1), which is the result of the observed signal samples being “beyond a predetermined maximum amplitude”).
Regarding dependent Claim 16, Zang, teaches:
The apparatus of claim 12 (Fig. 5; [0026], [0040], [0068]-[0071] & [0077]),
Zang, is silent in regard to:
wherein the indicator is a voltage sum indicator; and
However, Zang, in combination of Bani, and Ezra, further teach:
wherein the indicator is a voltage sum indicator (Zang: Figs. 4A & 4B; [0049], [0057]-[0058], [0065], [0071], & [0097]: fault detection logic 510 interpreted as a “voltage sum indicator”; Bani: [0043] & [Claim 19]: a moving mean inherently requires a voltage sum over time; Ezra: [0065]: scalar product is a mathematical sum of the vector components);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine Bani’s physical fault indicators with Ezra’s and Zang’s vector summation framework, according to known methods. A POSITA seeking to improve Bani’s fault detection apparatus would recognize that Ezra provides a mathematical implementation (vector scalar products) for evaluation signal characteristics. Further, Ezra’s anomaly detection framework would incorporate into Bani’s health indicator parameters (summing bit intensities to detect open faults) to expand Ezra’s apparatus from detecting anomalies to also diagnosing physical layer faults. This combination constitutes applying a known technique (Ezra’s mathematical vector summation and threshold comparison) to a known device (Bani’s shared bus health indicator system) to yield the predictable result (KSR) of a diagnostic tool capable of identifying physical wire faults through precise mathematical vector evaluation.
Zang, in combination with Bani, are silent in regard to:
and the control circuit diagnoses the shared bus by summing a plurality of non-zero threshold codes of the vector over time and comparing the sum to a predetermined threshold.
However, Zang, in combination of Ezra, further teach:
and the control circuit diagnoses the shared bus by summing a plurality of non-zero threshold codes of the vector over time (Zang: Figs. 4A & 4B; [0042], [0049]-[0058], [0062]-[0065], & [0071]: matrix 420 in the figures further illustrate the vectors a[n], b[n], c[n] as rows of data across the sampling times T1-T8; Ezra: [0065]: teaches mathematical mechanism applied to the vector by the control circuit) and comparing the sum to a predetermined threshold (Zang: [0058], [0065]-[0066], & [0071]; Ezra: Fig. 8; [0038], [0077]-[0078], [0114], [0119]-[0120], [Claim 10] & [Claim 17]: teaches the control logic must determine if the result is above/below predetermined threshold to provide a designation (e.g., compromised or anomalous)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine Zang’s vector generation with Ezra’s vector summation and threshold comparison logic, according to known methods. A POSITA would recognize that by programming the control circuit to integrate Ezra’s teachings, summing the non-zero threshold codes of Zang’s vector over time and comparing that total sum to a predetermined threshold, the apparatus can measure the total energy or duration of the reflection. This yields the predictable results (KSR) of a hardware diagnostic system that ignores brief transient noise and only diagnoses a fault when the threshold sum confirms a physical anomaly on the shared bus.
Regarding independent Claim 19, Zang, teaches:
A system comprising (Fig. 1; [0017]-[0018], [0037]-[0040], [0068], [0077] & [0079]: network 100 (a system)):
a shared bus (Figs. 1, 2, & 5; [0037]-[0040], [0068] & [0079]: bus 104/504 );
a transceiver coupled to the shared bus (Figs. 1 & 2; [0040], [0028], [0068] & [0112]: transmit circuitry 502 (transceiver), communication bus 104/504), the transceiver ([0040] & [0068]) to:
transmit a pulse signal over a shared bus (Figs. 1, 2, & 7; [0007]-[0011], [0030], [0040]-[0043], [0045]-[0051], [0053], [0055], [0057], [0059]-[0062], [0065], [0068]-[0069], & [0071]: transmit circuitry 502 (“transceiver”), Block 704);
capture an observed signal, wherein the observed signal is a superimposition of the pulse signal and a reflection signal (Figs. 3A & 7; [0041]-[0042] & [0046]: observed signal 306, transmit pulse signal 302, reflection signal 304, Block 706);
compare an amplitude of the observed signal to a plurality of threshold values ([0030], [0051], [0053], [0055], [0070] & [0097]); and output a sequence of bits indicative of an amplitude of an observed signal compared to a plurality of threshold values at a given sampling time (Fig. 4A; [0050], [0052], [0054], [0056], [0061], [0070] & [0097]: comparator conveys a signal det_out, which is a logic value indicative of the amplitude comparison for each sampling time); and
a control circuit coupled to the transceiver (Figs. 4A, 4B, & 5; [0020], [0069], [0071]-[0073], [0112], [0114], [Claim 18] & [Claim 20]: controller 506 (control circuit), transmit circuitry 502 (transceiver) ), the control circuit to (Fig. 5: controller 506):
receive a plurality of sequences of bits, wherein a given one of the plurality of sequences of bits is indicative of an amplitude of the observed signal compared to a given one of a plurality of threshold values at a plurality of sampling times (Figs. 4A & 4B; [0049]-[0050], [0060] & [0069]-[0071]);
creating a vector based on the plurality of sequences of bits, wherein the vector indicates, for a given one of the plurality of sampling times, a first threshold of the plurality of threshold values at which the amplitude of the observed signal exceeds one of the plurality of threshold values (Figs. 4A & 4B; [0057]-[0064], [0071] & [0076]);
PNG
media_image7.png
515
879
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
584
761
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Zang, is silent in regard to:
select an indicator from a plurality of indicators, wherein each indicator of the plurality of indicators is used to identify a fault in the shared bus;
However, Zang, in combination of Bani, and Ezra, further teach:
select an indicator from a plurality of indicators, wherein each indicator of the plurality of indicators is used to identify a fault in the shared bus (Zang: [0058] & [0065]: mathematically combines the vectors to generate a reflection array (r[n]), the values in the array (+1 or -1) act as the indicators that dictate the fault type (open vs. short); Bani: [0035]: introduces the concept of calculating and selecting health indicators to identify faults on a shared bus; Ezra: [0065] & [0086]: teaches applying a predetermined indicator (library fingerprint) to an observed vector (waveform fingerprint) via scalar products to identify an anomaly);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate Bani’s method of selecting specific health indicators and Ezra’s method of mathematically applying predetermined indicators (library fingerprints) to the observed vectors, into Zang’s time-domain reflectometry (TDR) system to improve the reliability and granularity of the fault diagnosis, according to known methods. Zang’s method provides the raw vector data of the reflection. A POSITA would recognize that by programming Zang’s control circuit to store a plurality of known fault indicators and apply them to Zang’s generated reflection vectors via Ezra’s scalar product operations, the system could filter out noise and identify complex fault profiles. This constitutes the combination a known diagnostic system, Zang’s TDR logic circuit, with a known mathematical data processing technique, Ezra’s vector application, and Bani’s health indicators, to a known method of data extraction, Zang’s threshold vectors, to yield the predictable result (KSR) of a robust, noise-immune bus fault detector system.
Zang, in combination with Bani, are silent in regard to:
apply the indicator to the vector; and diagnose a shared bus based on the indicator.
However, Zang, in combination of Ezra, further teach:
apply an indicator to the vector (Zang: Figs. 4A & 4B; [0050], [0053], [0057]-[0058], [0065]-[0066] & [0071]: indicator is the presence and sign (positive/negative) of the non-zero values and signal FS in r[n]; Ezra: [0065]); and diagnose a shared bus based on the indicator (Zang: Figs. 4A, 4B, & 7; [0058], [0065]-[0066], [0071]: determine the fault condition (open, short, normal) and its locations based on the analysis vector, Block 714; Ezra: [0021]-[0023], [0024], [0062], [0064], [0071]-[0072], [0074]-[0075], [0077]-[0078], [0114]-[0115], [0117] & [0120]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to configure the control circuit in Zang’s architecture to execute Ezra’s mathematical indicator application, according to known methods. Zang provides the necessary hardware structure, a transceiver extracting raw threshold bit sequences and a control circuit assembling the bits into vectors. A POSITA would recognize that Ezra’s method of selecting predetermined indicators and applying them via a scalar product to the observed vectors allows the circuit to mathematically filter out noise and identify complex fault signatures. This combination applies a known data-processing technique, Ezra’s vector application, to a known hardware platform, Zang’s TDR logic circuit system, to achieve the predictable result (KSR) of an accurate TDR system in high-noise environments.
Regarding dependent Claim 21, Zang, teaches:
The system of claim 19 (Fig. 1; [0017]-[0018], [0037]-[0040], [0043], [0046], [0068], [0077] & [0079]), where in the control circuit is to ([0043] & [0046]):
measure a time duration on the observed signal between the pulse signal and a transition of the observed signal (Fig. 3A; [0043]-[0047] & [0066]); and
determine a location of a shared bus fault based on the time duration (Fig. 3A; [0043]-[0047] & [0066]).
Claims 5-6, 9, 14 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zang, in view of Spillane et al. (US 5420512, Pat. Date. May 30, 1995, hereinafter Spillane), in view of Bani, and further in view of Ezra.
Regarding dependent Claim 5, Zang, teaches:
The method of claim 1 ([Abstract], [0026] & [0077]),
Zang, is silent in regard to:
wherein the indicator is a significant slope indicator; and diagnosing the shared bus includes determining whether a slope of the vector has multiple portions above a predetermined threshold.
However, Spillane, further teaches:
wherein the indicator is a significant slope indicator (Figs. 2 & 3; [Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 15-17], [Col. 3, ll. 54-62], [Col. 5, ll. 57-60], [Col. 7, ll.54-67], [Col. 8, ll. 1-2], & [Col. 9, ll. 31-35]: The “SLOPE” signal (UI3-4 in Fig. 3) is a direct “slope indicator”); and diagnosing the shared bus includes determining whether a slope of the vector has multiple portions above a predetermined threshold (Figs. 2 & 3; [Col. 3, ll. 45-62], [Col. 5, ll. 57-60], [Col. 6, ll. 1-8], [Col. 7, ll.54-67], [Col. 10, ll. 22-35]: system uses a slope detector circuit (90) to measure slope for identifying wires, slope detector means (90) provides signals (CHK SLP and SLOPE) to indicate slope polarity, where the component itself is a slope detector means (90)).
PNG
media_image9.png
733
941
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
909
1265
media_image10.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the indicator as a significant slope indicator and diagnosing the shared bus to determine whether a slope of the vector has multiple portions above a predetermined threshold, of Spillane to Zang, according to known methods. In order to attain and improve, by integrating the slope detector means (90) of Spillane into the TDR sampling system of Zang, that would involve replacing Zang’s amplitude comparison-derived fault indicator with Spillane’s slope indicator. To determine whether the slope indicator is active for multiple consecutive sampling times defined by the length of the vector (r[n]), providing an explicit pulse-shape characterization in Spillane, achieving to the claimed invention with predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent Claim 6, Zang, teaches:
The method of claim 5 ([Abstract], [0026] & [0077]), wherein diagnosing the shared bus includes ([0002] & [0028]):
determining that the shared bus is terminated (Fig. 3C; [0029, [0047], & [0065])
determining that the shared bus is shorted (Fig. 4B; [0029, [0046], &[0065])
determining that the shared bus is open (Fig. 4A; [0029], [0042], [0058], & [0065])
Zang, is silent in regard to:
when the slope of the vector has one portion above the predetermined threshold;
when the slope of the vector has two portions above the predetermined threshold, a slope of a first portion above the predetermined threshold is positive and a slope of a second portion above the predetermined threshold is negative; and
when the slope of the vector has two portions above the predetermined threshold, a slope of a first portion above the predetermined threshold is positive and a slope of a second portion above the predetermined threshold is positive.
However, Spillane, further teaches:
when the slope of the vector has one portion above the predetermined threshold ([Col. 3, 54-62],[Col. 1, ll. 15-17], [Col. 7, ll. 50-68], & [Col. 8, ll. 1-2]);
when the slope of the vector has two portions above the predetermined threshold (Figs. 2 & 3; [Col. 7, ll. 45-68], & [Col. 8, ll. 1-2]), a slope of a first portion above the predetermined threshold is positive and a slope of a second portion above the predetermined threshold is negative (Figs. 2 & 3; [Col. 7, ll. 45-68], & [Col. 8, ll. 1-2]); and
when the slope of the vector has two portions above the predetermined threshold (Figs. 2 & 3; [Col. 7, ll. 45-68], & [Col. 8, ll. 1-2]), a slope of a first portion above the predetermined threshold is positive and a slope of a second portion above the predetermined threshold is positive (Figs. 2 & 3; [Col. 7, ll. 45-68], & [Col. 8, ll. 1-2]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the slope of the vector has one portion above the predetermined threshold (terminated bus); when the slope of the vector has two portions above the predetermined threshold, a slope of a first portion above the predetermined threshold is positive and a slope of a second portion above the predetermined threshold is negative (bus is shorted), and a slope of the vector has two portions above the predetermined threshold, a slope of a first portion above the predetermined threshold is positive and a slope of a second portion above the predetermined threshold is positive (bus is open), of Spillane to Zang. In order to attain and improve, by integrating the slope-based discrimination technique of Spillane into the fault detection logic (TDR fault classification method) of Zang, enhancing Zang’s system by programing it to not only note the polarity of the reflection vector, but to further analyze its slope characteristics and enhance its fault discrimination (fault detection logic 510), a known parameter from Spillane, to determine an “open” fault when the slope is positive where there are two slope portions of the same polarity, and a “short” fault when the slope is negative, identifying a short when there are two slope portions of opposite polarity. The “terminated” condition is disclosed by Zang as the absence of a reflection (a vector with no significant portions), where one of skill in the art would understand corresponds to a signal lacking the slope transitions indicative of a fault, therefore yielding expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding Claim 9, Zang, teaches:
The method of claim 1 ([Abstract], [0026] & [0077]),
Zang, is silent in regard to:
wherein the indicator is a gradient indicator; and
diagnosing the shared bus includes analyzing a slope of a droop of the vector to determine whether the slope of the droop exceeds a predetermined threshold.
However, Spillane, further teaches:
wherein the indicator is a gradient indicator (Fig. 8; [Abstract], [Col. 3, ll. 54-62], [Col. 4, ll. 56-60], [Col. 5, ll. 57-60], & [Col. 7, ll. 50-68]: a slope is the mathematical definition of a gradient); and
diagnosing the shared bus includes analyzing a slope of a droop of the vector to determine whether the slope of the droop exceeds a predetermined threshold (Figs. 2 & 3; [Col. 3, ll. 54-62], [Col. 4, ll. 55-60], [Col. 5, ll. 57-68]: slope is a measured value used for identification).
PNG
media_image11.png
925
1299
media_image11.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the indicator is a gradient indicator; and diagnosing the shared bus includes analyzing a slope of a droop of the vector to determine whether the slope of the droop exceeds a predetermined threshold, of Spillane to Zang, according to known methods. In order to attain and improve, by integrating Zang’s diagnosing cable faults within a network (e.g., a 10SPE network) using time-domain reflectometry, providing the method of transmitting a pulse, observing a signal, sampling it, and determining a fault condition based on the amplitude of the samples and a derived vector. To improve the system, would incorporate Spillane’s electronic cable testing that provides a robust method for identifying faults and crossovers. Teaching the slope of a signal is a valuable and effective diagnostic parameter for cable faults. Spillane’s system using a differential amplifier and a slope detector means to determine the slope at signal transition points (“droops”) as one of three key variables (pulse width, cycle length and slope) to identify wire conditions. Replacing Zang’s analysis of the reflection vector’s r[n] positive/negative state with Spillane’s slope analysis technique would be and obvious design choice to configure the fault detection logic (Zang 510) to calculate or detect (acting as a gradient indicator) the slope of the signal droop/transition (taught by Spillane) and compare it to a predetermined threshold for an improved diagnostic decision, yielding expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent Claim 14, Zang, teaches:
The apparatus of claim 12 (Fig. 5; [0026], [0040]-[0041], [0068]-[0071] & [0077]),
and the control circuit diagnoses the shared bus by (Figs. 4A & 4B; [0057]):
determining that the shared bus is terminated (Fig. 3C; [0029, [0047], & [0065])
determining that the shared bus is shorted (Fig. 4B; [0029, [0046], & [0065])
determining that the shared bus is open (Fig. 4A; [0029], [0042], [0058], & [0065])
Zang, is silent in regard to:
wherein the indicator is a significant slope indicator;
determining whether a slope of the vector has multiple portions above a predetermined threshold;
when the slope of the vector has one portion above the predetermined threshold;
when the slope of the vector has two portions above the predetermined threshold, a slope of a first portion above the predetermined threshold is positive and a slope of a second portion above the predetermined threshold is negative; and
when the slope of the vector has two portions above the predetermined threshold, a slope of a first portion above the predetermined threshold is positive and a slope of a second portion above the predetermined threshold is positive.
However, Spillane, further teaches:
wherein the indicator is a significant slope indicator (Figs. 2 & 3; [Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 15-17], [Col. 3, ll. 54-62], [Col. 5, ll. 57-60], [Col. 7, ll.54-67], [Col. 8, ll. 1-2], & [Col. 9, ll. 31-35]: The “SLOPE” signal (UI3-4 in Fig. 3) is a direct “slope indicator”);
determining whether a slope of the vector has multiple portions above a predetermined threshold (Figs. 2 & 3; [Col. 3, ll. 45-62], [Col. 5, ll. 57-60], [Col. 6, ll. 1-8], [Col. 7, ll.54-67], [Col. 10, ll. 22-35]: system uses a slope detector circuit (90) to measure slop for identifying wires, slope detector means (90) provides signals (CHK SLP and SLOPE) to indicate slope polarity, where the component itself is a slope detector means (90));
when the slope of the vector has one portion above the predetermined threshold ([Col. 3, 54-62],[Col. 1, ll. 15-17], [Col. 7, ll. 50-68], & [Col. 8, ll. 1-2]);
when the slope of the vector has two portions above the predetermined threshold (Figs. 2 & 3; [Col. 7, ll. 45-68], & [Col. 8, ll. 1-2]), a slope of a first portion above the predetermined threshold is positive and a slope of a second portion above the predetermined threshold is negative (Figs. 2 & 3; [Col. 7, ll. 45-68], & [Col. 8, ll. 1-2]); and
when the slope of the vector has two portions above the predetermined threshold (Figs. 2 & 3; [Col. 7, ll. 45-68], & [Col. 8, ll. 1-2]), a slope of a first portion above the predetermined threshold is positive and a slope of a second portion above the predetermined threshold is positive (Figs. 2 & 3; [Col. 7, ll. 45-68], & [Col. 8, ll. 1-2]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the indicator is a significant slope indicator, the slope of the vector has one portion above the predetermined threshold (terminated bus); when the slope of the vector has two portions above the predetermined threshold, a slope of a first portion above the predetermined threshold is positive and a slope of a second portion above the predetermined threshold is negative (bus is shorted), and a slope of the vector has two portions above the predetermined threshold, a slope of a first portion above the predetermined threshold is positive and a slope of a second portion above the predetermined threshold is positive (bus is open), of Spillane to Zang, according to known methods. In order to attain and improve, by integrating the slope-based discrimination technique of Spillane into the fault detection logic (TDR fault classification method) of Zang, enhancing Zang’s system by programing it to not only note the polarity of the reflection vector, but to further analyze its slope characteristics and enhance its fault discrimination (fault detection logic 510). A known parameter from Spillane, is to determine an “open” fault when the slope is positive where there are two slope portions of the same polarity, and a “short” fault when the slope is negative, identifying a short when there are two slope portions of opposite polarity. The “terminated” condition is disclosed by Zang as the absence of a reflection (a vector with no significant portions), where one of skill in the art would understand corresponds to a signal lacking the slop transitions indicative of a fault, yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent Claim 17, Zang, teaches:
The apparatus of claim 12 (Fig. 5; [0026], [0030]-[0035], [0050]-[0059], [0071] & [0077]),
Zang, is silent in regard to:
wherein the indicator is a gradient indicator; and
the control circuit diagnoses the shared bus by analyzing a slope of a droop of the vector to determine whether the slope of the droop exceeds a predetermined threshold.
However, Spillane, further teaches:
wherein the indicator is a gradient indicator (Fig. 8; [Abstract], [Col. 3, ll. 54-62], [Col. 4, ll. 56-60], [Col. 5, ll. 57-60], & [Col. 7, ll. 50-68]): a slope is the mathematical definition of a gradient); and
the control circuit diagnoses the shared bus by analyzing a slope of a droop of the vector to determine whether the slope of the droop exceeds a predetermined threshold (Figs. 2 & 3; [Col. 3, ll. 45-62], [Col. 4, ll. 55-60], [Col. 5, ll. 51-68]: slope is a measured value used for identification).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the indicator is a gradient indicator; and the control circuit diagnosing the shared bus by analyzing a slope of a droop of the vector to determine whether the slope of the droop exceeds a predetermined threshold, of Spillane to Zang, according to known methods. In order to attain and improve, by integrating Zang’s diagnosing cable faults within a network (e.g., a 10SPE network) using time-domain reflectometry, providing the method of transmitting a pulse, observing a signal, sampling it, and determining a fault condition based on the amplitude of the samples and a derived vector. To improve the system, would incorporate Spillane’s electronic cable testing that provides a robust method for identifying faults and crossovers, teaching the slope of a signal is a valuable and effective diagnostic parameter for cable faults. Spillane’s system using a differential amplifier and a slope detector means to determine the slope at signal transition points (“droops”) as one of three key variables (pulse width, cycle length and slope) to identify wire conditions. Substituting Zang’s analysis of the reflection vector’s r[n] positive/negative state with Spillane’s slope analysis technique would be an obvious design choice to configure the fault detection logic (Zang 510) to calculate or detect the slope (acting as a gradient indicator) of the signal droop/transition (taught by Spillane) and compare it to a predetermined threshold for an improved diagnostic decision, yielding expected predictable results (KSR).
Claims 10 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zang, in view of Spillane et al. (US 5420512, Pat. Date. May 30, 1995, hereinafter Spillane), in view of Bani, in view of Ezra, and further in view of Needle et al. (US 6509740 B1, Pat. Date Jan. 21, 2003, hereinafter, Needle).
Regarding dependent Claim 10, Zang, teaches:
The method of claim 1 ([Abstract], [0026] & [0077]), wherein:
the predetermined location is selected by identifying a maximum threshold code of the vector ([0046] & [0057]-[0058]: generates vector arrays based on oversampling and isolates the reflection point (the peak/maximum threshold code where r[n] jumps to +1 for an open or -1 for a short) to located the fault); and
Zang, is silent in regard to:
wherein the indicator is a localized slope indicator; and
diagnosing the shared bus includes analyzing a slope of the vector at a predetermined location to determine whether the slope exceeds a predetermined threshold;
However, Spillane, in combination with Needle, further teach:
wherein the indicator is a localized slope indicator (Spillane: Figs. 3 & 9; [Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 15-17], [Col. 3, ll. 45-62], [Col. 5, ll. 57-60], [Col. 7, ll. 50-68], [Col. 8, ll. 1-2] & [Col. 9, ll. 31-35]: The “SLOPE” signal (UI3-4 in Fig. 3) is a direct “slope indicator”): Fig. 3 further illustrates slope detection, Fig. 9 illustrates “Slope Detector Means 90” as a distinct component in the system; Needle: [Col. 5, ll. 13-25] & [Col. 8, ll. 19-29]: teaches the slope of the knee at a real fault perturbation is larger than the slope of the waveform due to its natural characteristics); and
diagnosing the shared bus includes analyzing a slope of the vector at a predetermined location to determine whether the slope exceeds a predetermined threshold (Spillane: Figs. 2 & 3; [Col. 3, ll. 45-62], [Col. 5, ll. 51-68], [Col. 7, ll. 50-68], & [Col. 8, ll. 1-2]; Needle: [Col. 5, ll. 26-31] & [Col. 8, ll. 31-51]: teaches comparing the calculated slope against a predetermined threshold and provides a lookup table of “Required Deltas” that the measured slope must exceed to be classified as a fault);
PNG
media_image12.png
876
1048
media_image12.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine Zang’s vector generation with Spillane’s slope detection technology and Needle’s 4-reading slope calculation, according to known methods. By integrating Spillane’s teachings to confirm whether the slope exceeds the threshold set by the slope detector and Needle’s teachings to evaluate the slope over a 4-reading (4 time-step) window starting at the identified anomaly, the diagnostic system can filter out harmless perturbations and trigger a fault diagnosis when the sharp slope of a real fault is mathematically confirmed. This yields the predictable result (KSR) of a reliable and noise-immune automated cable diagnostic system.
Zang, in combination with Spillane, Bani, and Ezra, are silent in regard to:
the slope of the vector is calculated based on a time of the maximum threshold code and a threshold code four times-steps after the time of the maximum threshold code.
However, Zang, in combination with Needle further teach:
the slope of the vector is calculated based on a time of the maximum threshold code (Zang: [0057]-[0058]: uses discrete sampling times (T1-T8) at the reflection peak; Needle: [Col. 8, ll. 19-51]) and a threshold code four times-steps after the time of the maximum threshold code (Needle: [Col. 8, ll. 19-51]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine Zang’s vector generation with Needle’s 4-reading slope calculation, according to known methods. By integrating Needle’s teaching to evaluate the slope over a 4-reading (4 time-step) window starting at the identified anomaly, the diagnostic system can filter out harmless perturbations and only trigger a fault diagnosis when the sharp slope of a real fault is mathematically confirmed. This yields the predictable result (KSR) of a reliable and noise-immune automated cable diagnostic system.
Regarding dependent Claim 18, Zang, teaches:
The apparatus of claim 12 (Fig. 5; [Abstract], [0026], [0030]-[0035], [0050]-[0059], [0071] & [0077]), wherein:
the predetermined location is selected by identifying a maximum threshold code of the vector ([0046] & [0057]-[0058]); and
Zang, is silent in regard to:
wherein the indicator is a localized slope indicator; and
the control circuit diagnoses the shared bus by analyzing a slope of the vector at a predetermined location to determine whether the slope exceeds a predetermined threshold.
However, Spillane, in combination with Needle, further teach:
wherein the indicator is a localized slope indicator (Spillane: Figs. 3 & 9; [Abstract], [Col. 1, ll. 15-17], [Col. 3, ll. 45-62], [Col. 5, ll. 57-60], [Col. 7, ll. 50-68], [Col. 8, ll. 1-2] & [Col. 9, ll. 31-35]: Fig. 3 further illustrates slope detection, Fig. 9 illustrates “Slope Detector Means 90” as a distinct component in the system); and
the control circuit diagnoses the shared bus (Spillane: [Col. 5, ll. 50-68]) by analyzing a slope of the vector at a predetermined location to determine whether the slope exceeds a predetermined threshold (Spillane: Figs. 2 & 3; [Col. 3, ll. 45-62], [Col. 5, ll. 51-68], [Col. 7, ll. 50-68], & [Col. 8, ll. 1-2]; Needle: [Col. 5, ll. 26-31] & [Col. 8, ll. 31-51]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made combine Zang’s vector generation with Spillane’s slope detection technology apparatus and Needle’s 4-reading slope calculation, according to known methods. By integrating Spillane’s teachings to confirm whether the slope exceeds the threshold set by the slope detector and Needle’s teachings to evaluate the slope over a 4-reading (4 time-step) window starting at the identified anomaly, the diagnostic system can filter out harmless perturbations and trigger a fault diagnosis when the sharp slope of a real fault is mathematically confirmed. This yields the predictable result (KSR) of a reliable and noise-immune automated cable diagnostic system apparatus.
Zang, in combination with Spillane, Bani, and Ezra, are silent in regard to:
the slope of the vector is calculated based on a time of the maximum threshold code and a threshold code four times-steps after the time of the maximum threshold code.
However, Zang, in combination with Needle further teach:
the slope of the vector is calculated based on a time of the maximum threshold code (Zang: [0057]-[0058]; Needle: [Col. 8, ll. 19-51]: teaches calculating the slope of the digitized TDR readings) and a threshold code four times-steps after the time of the maximum threshold code (Needle: [Col. 8, ll. 19-51]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine Zang’s vector generation apparatus with Needle’s 4-reading slope calculation, according to known methods. By integrating Needle’s teaching to evaluate the slope over a 4-reading (4 time-step) window starting at the identified anomaly, the diagnostic system can filter out harmless perturbations and only trigger a fault diagnosis when the sharp slope of a real fault is mathematically confirmed. This yields the predictable result (KSR) of a reliable and noise-immune automated cable diagnostic system apparatus.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection 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 HUGO NAVARRO whose telephone number is (571)272-6122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 08:30-5:00 pm 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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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.
/HUGO NAVARRO/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858 May 5, 2026
/EMAN A ALKAFAWI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 5/11/2026
Prosecution Insights