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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0224359 A1 to Sugaya et al. (hereafter refers as Sugaya) in view of US 2017/0353342 A1 to Baskaran et al. (hereafter refers as Baskaran) and further in view of US 2017/0371832 A1 to Wei.
Regarding claim 1, Sugaya teaches a wired communication system for replacing an in-vehicle CAN/LIN bus (a wired communication system inside a vehicle that using a Ethernet or FlexRay bus, paragraphs [51, 59, 131, 139-142] and Fig. 1, 5), the wired communication system having a power line or a transmission line coupled to multiple communication units (wherein the wired communication system having a transmission line/wired coupled to multiple communication units/zone control nodes, Fig. 5-6 and paragraphs [51, 59, 131, 139-142]), the wired communication system comprising:
wherein in a first time domain, each of the communication units has a transmission frequency band which is dedicated (wherein in a same time interval, each of the zone control nodes has a different allocated frequency channel, paragraphs [182, 245-248, 265-267], which is a frequency band, paragraphs [183-187] and Fig. 11), the transmission frequency bands of the communication units do not overlap with one another (wherein each allocated frequency channel is not overlapped with each other, paragraphs [182, 245-248, 265-267], and Fig. 11), and the transmission frequency bands of the communication units also do not overlap with a transmission frequency band or a transmission time of the main control communication unit (wherein the each allocated frequency channel do not overlap with a frequency channel of the central control node, i.e. NW1, used by central node, and NW2 used by each zone control nodes, paragraphs [137, 182, 183-188, 245-247] and Fig. 5-6).
However, Sugaya does not explicitly teach “all of the transmission frequency bands can be combined into a complete OFDM frequency band, and there is no guard band between the transmission frequency bands”.
Baskaran teaches transmission frequency bands do not overlap with one another (subbands do not overlap with one another, paragraphs [54, 157, 195-198] and Fig. 19), all of the transmission frequency bands can be combined into a complete OFDM frequency band (wherein all of the subbands are split from a complete OFDM frequency band, paragraphs [54, 118, 152]), and there is no guard band between the transmission frequency bands (and there is no guard band between the subbands, paragraphs [86, 157, 178]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of all of the transmission frequency bands can be combined into a complete OFDM frequency band, and there is no guard band between the transmission frequency bands as taught by Baskaran, with the teachings of transmission frequency bands as taught by Sugaya, for a purpose of providing, spectrally, more efficient use of transmission frequency bands by using frequency bands of OFDM frequency band while eliminating guard band between the transmission frequency bands (see Baskaran, paragraphs [86, 91, 118, 135, 152, 157]).
However, the combination of Sugaya and Baskaran does not explicitly teach “a main control communication unit for performing a clock calibration on the communication units to complete synchronization, or performing a time delay or attenuation value calibration”.
Wei teaches a main control communication unit for performing a clock calibration on the communication units to complete synchronization (a bus controller performs a clock calibration on its terminals to complete synchronization, paragraphs [21, 24, 35-39] and Fig. 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of a main control communication unit for performing a clock calibration on the communication units to complete synchronization as taught by Wei, with the teachings of transmission frequency bands as taught by combination of Sugaya and Baskaran, for a purpose of increase efficiency in communication by allowing the main control communication unit and the communication units to be clock synchronized (see Wei, paragraphs [21, 24, 35-39] and Fig. 1-2).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Sugaya, Baskaran and Wei further teaches wherein the communication units use a same one of the transmission frequency bands (same frequency bands, see Sugaya, paragraphs [253, 254]), but the communication units need to use the same one of the transmission frequency bands in a time-division manner (using the same frequency bands in a time-division manner, see Wei, paragraphs [43, 61], see Baskaran, paragraphs [162-164, 196]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0224359 A1 to Sugaya et al. (hereafter refers as Sugaya) in view of US 2017/0353342 A1 to Baskaran et al. (hereafter refers as Baskaran) and further in view of US 2017/0371832 A1 to Wei as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2013/0070782 A1 to Vermeulen et al. (hereafter refers as Vermeulen).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Sugaya, Baskaran and Wei further teaches wherein the main control communication unit has a transceiver capable of transceiving multiple OFDM signals (wherein the central control zone includes a first network communication module, see Sugaya, Fig. 7 and paragraphs [158-161], capable of transceiving multiple OFDM signals, see Sugaya, paragraphs [184-185], see Baskaran, paragraphs [2, 12-15, 90-93, 134-136, 151-152]), the wired communication system is coupled to the main control communication unit through a band pass filter corresponding to the transmission frequency bands, which are different (communicate via a band pass filter corresponding to different bands, see Baskaran, paragraphs [33, 41, 180-182, 184]), the communication units can concurrently communicate with the main control communication unit (wherein the devices are simultaneously communicate with the central control node, see Sugaya, paragraphs [130, 255]).
However, the combination of Sugaya, Baskaran and Wei does not explicitly teach wherein the communication units in the wired communication system “cannot directly communicate with one another”.
Vermeulen teaches a wired communication system is coupled to the main control communication unit through a filter (a wired communication system is coupled to a communications controller through a filter paragraphs [20, 23, 26] and Fig. 1), wherein the communication units in the wired communication system cannot directly communicate with one another (wherein the branches in the wired communication system cannot directly communicate with one another, paragraphs [55, 65]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of the communication units in the wired communication system cannot directly communicate with one another as taught by Vermeulen, with the teachings of communication units in the wired communication system as taught by combination of Sugaya, Baskaran and Wei, for a purpose of reducing interference in the wired communication by preventing the communication units in the wired communication system directly communicate with one another (see Vermeulen, paragraphs [55, 65]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0224359 A1 to Sugaya et al. (hereafter refers as Sugaya) in view of US 2017/0353342 A1 to Baskaran et al. (hereafter refers as Baskaran) and further in view of US 2017/0371832 A1 to Wei as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2007/0195956 A1 to Gavette.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Sugaya, Baskaran and Wei further teaches wherein the communication units use the same one of the transmission frequency bands (same frequency bands, see Sugaya, paragraphs [253, 254]), but different ones of the communication units using the same one of the transmission frequency bands only can transmit signals in specific time periods (using the same frequency bands in a time-division manner, see Wei, paragraphs [43, 61], see Baskaran, paragraphs [162-164, 196]).
However, the combination of Sugaya, Baskaran and Wei does not explicitly on “the power line”.
Gavette teaches wherein the communication units on the power line use the same one of the transmission frequency bands (devices connected to a PLC network including an audio equipment(s), uses a same frequency band, paragraphs [21-22]), but different ones of the communication units using the same one of the transmission frequency bands only can transmit signals in specific time periods (wherein different ones of the devices using a same frequency band only can transmit signals in a specific time, paragraphs [21-22]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of the communication units on the power line use the same one of the transmission frequency bands as taught by Gavette, with the teachings of communication units in the wired communication system as taught by combination of Sugaya, Baskaran and Wei, for a purpose of increase efficiency in communication by allowing the wired communication system to use power line to exchange data, thus reducing a number of connection lines in the wired communication system (see Gavette, paragraphs [21-22]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0224359 A1 to Sugaya et al. (hereafter refers as Sugaya) in view of US 2017/0353342 A1 to Baskaran et al. (hereafter refers as Baskaran) and US 2017/0371832 A1 to Wei as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2007/0195956 A1 to Gavette and US 2023/0171718 A1 to Gu et al. (hereafter after refers as Gu).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Sugaya, Baskaran and Wei further teaches wherein in a second time domain, in addition to the main control communication unit, uses all of the transmission frequency bands (the central control node uses all of the frequency bands/channels, see Sugaya, paragraphs [182-188]).
However, the combination of Sugaya, Baskaran and Wei does not explicitly teach “on the power line”.
Gavette teaches main control communication unit on the power line (devices connected to a PLC network including an audio equipment(s), uses a same frequency band, paragraphs [21-22]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of main control communication unit on the power line as taught by Gavette, with the teachings of communication units in the wired communication system as taught by combination of Sugaya, Baskaran and Wei, for a purpose of increase efficiency in communication by allowing the wired communication system to use power line to exchange data, thus reducing a number of connection lines in the wired communication system (see Gavette, paragraphs [21-22]).
However, the combination of Sugaya, Baskaran, Wei and Gavette does not explicitly teach “at least one of the communication units uses all of the transmission frequency bands”.
Gu teaches in a second time domain, at least one of the communication units uses all of the transmission frequency bands (during a specific time slot, each node communicates using all bands, paragraph [56]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of in the second time domain, at least one of the communication units uses all of the transmission frequency bands as taught by Gu, with the teachings of communication units in the wired communication system as taught by combination of Sugaya, Baskaran, Wei and Gavette, for a purpose of eliminating the possibility of collision while allowing the communication unit to uses all of the transmission frequency bands (see Gu, paragraph [56]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 7-11 and 15-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2023/0261921 A1 discloses OFDM technology convers a high speed stream into a plurality of parallel low speed streams (paragraph [98]).
US 2023/0163829 A1 discloses receiver sends control messages indirectly via a control node (paragraphs [48, 51]).
US 2022/0006669 A1 discloses a star communications network includes a controller and gateways, wherein the gateways cannot directly communicate with one another (paragraphs [101, 153]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG B. HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)270-7642. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ian N. Moore can be reached at 571-272-3085. 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.
/DUNG B HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469 June 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights