DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the 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.
This action is in response to communications filed on 8/7/2026.
Claims 1-20 remain pending. Claims 1-20 have been examined and are rejected.
Priority
This application was filed on 4/5/2024.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the communications above have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, 11, 13-18, & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hubbard et al. (US 2020/0049754 A1) in view of Dong-Sun et al. (KR-20090011806-A) in view of Chen et al. (US 2020/0309864 A1) in view of practices well known in the art (abbreviated PWK).
With regard to Claim 1, Hubbard teaches:
An automotive communication system comprising:
a controller area network (CAN) transceiver associated with bus wires; (a CAN bus transceiver integrated circuit 300 [Hubbard: 0026; Fig. 2]);
a microprocessor connected with the CAN transceiver via transmission and receiver lines; (TXD, RXD and STB signals connect a MCU 352 and the CAN bus transceiver with an embedded CAN bus fault detection module 354 for the normal CAN bus transceiver functions [Hubbard: 0033; Fig. 3]);
and programmed to initiate a transmission on the transmission line during an idle time of the bus wires such that signals are transmitted on the bus wires; (TXD from MCU 352 controls CAN bus transceiver 354 to transmit onto the CAN bus CANH and CANL lines [Hubbard: 0026; 0036; Fig. 3], wherein when CAN bus fault detection circuitry is separate from the CAN bus transceiver circuitry, the CAN bus fault detection circuitry monitors the CAN bus for an appropriate period when no other devices are driving the CAN bus to drive measurement signals onto the CAN bus [Hubbard: 0062]);
and a comparator having a first input from the receiver line and an output to the microprocessor; (the time-domain reflectometer 506 monitors the CAN bus signals for transmitted and reflected signals (i.e. reflectometer 506 is connected to the receiver line) and identifies faults [Hubbard: 0003; 0053; Fig. 5], wherein fault code output signals are read by the MCU 352 which then provides the fault code to a system technician for fault detection purposes [Hubbard: 0052; Fig. 3]).
Hubbard does not explicitly teach (where underlining indicates the portion of each limitation not taught):
a controller area network (CAN) transceiver associated with twisted wires;
and programmed to initiate a pulse on the transmission line of the twisted wires such that signals are transmitted on the twisted wires;
In a similar field of endeavor involving can bus diagnostics using TDR, Dong-Sun discloses:
and programmed to initiate a pulse on the transmission line of the wires such that signals are transmitted on the wires; (pulse generator 21 generates a pulse and applies it to the input terminals of the CAN wirings 11a and 11b, wherein a measuring instrument 22 measures and outputs the reflected wave reflected to the input terminal of the CAN wirings 11a and 11b, filter 23 converts the digital signal to the microcomputer 25 through the A / D converter 24, and microcomputer 25 compares the measured reflected wave with the standard reflected wave to determine whether the CAN wiring 11a or 11b is abnormal depending on whether the error is equal to or greater than the reference value [Dong-Sun: p.7 top]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hubbard in view of Dong-Sun in order to initiate a pulse on the transmission line in the system of Hubbard.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Hubbard with Dong-Sun as doing so would utilize a generated test pulse that is discrete from other CAN traffic, such that the generated test pulse can have a known voltage and defined timing thereby enhancing accuracy and reliability of reflection detection.
However, Hubbard-Dong-Sun does not teach (where underlining indicates the portion of each limitation not taught):
a comparator having a first input from the receiver line, a second input configured to receive a reference voltage, and an output to the microprocessor that is at a first logic state when a voltage on the receiver line exceeds the reference voltage and is at a second logic state when the voltage on the receiver line is less than the reference voltage.
In a similar field of endeavor involving detecting the presence and/or location of defective electrical lines, Chen discloses:
a comparator having a first input from the receiver line, a second input configured to receive a reference voltage, and an output to the microprocessor that is at a first logic state when a voltage on the receiver line exceeds the reference voltage and is at a second logic state when the voltage on the receiver line is less than the reference voltage; (comparator 814 compares the numerical values produced by ADC 808 (i.e. first input) with a reference voltage (i.e. second input), wherein the output of comparator 814 is 1 if the output of ADC 808 exceeds the reference voltage, and is 0 otherwise (though the opposite logic may alternatively be used) [Chen: 0107-109; Fig. 8A]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hubbard-Dong-Sun in view of Chen in order to utilize a comparator having an output to the microprocessor that is at a first logic state when a voltage on the receiver line exceeds the reference voltage and is at a second logic state when the voltage on the receiver line is less than the reference voltage in the CAN-bus fault detection system of Hubbard-Dong-Sun.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Hubbard-Dong-Sun with Chen as doing so would supplement the CAN bus fault detection based on edge detection of the reflected waveform with fault detection based on voltage/amplitude of the reflected waveform, thereby enhancing the collected information of the reflected waveform resulting in increased fault detection abilities.
Hubbard-Dong-Sun-Chen does not explicitly teach (where underlining indicates the portion of each limitation not taught):
a controller area network (CAN) transceiver associated with twisted wires;
However, in the field of Controller Area Network (CAN bus), it is well known in the art to configure the transceiver to communicate utilizing twisted wires for differential signaling.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hubbard-Dong-Sun in view of practices well known in the art in order to utilize a controller area network (CAN) transceiver associated with twisted wires in the system of Hubbard-Dong-Sun-Chen.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Hubbard-Dong-Sun-Chen with practices well known in the art as utilizing twisting wires ensures that CAN H and CAN L are subject to consistent EMI thereby allowing noise to be easily identified and removed resulting in a more robust differential mode signal.
With regard to Claim 2, Hubbard-Dong-Sun-Chen-PWK teaches:
The automotive communication system of claim 1, wherein the microprocessor is further programmed to identify a state of the twisted wires based on a signal on the output; (fault code output signals are read by the MCU 352 which then provides the fault code to a system technician for fault detection purposes [Hubbard: 0052; Fig. 3]).
With regard to Claim 3, Hubbard-Dong-Sun-Chen-PWK teaches:
The automotive communication system of claim 2, wherein the microprocessor is further programmed to generate a message regarding the state; (fault code output signals are read by the MCU 352 which then provides the fault code to a system technician for fault detection purposes [Hubbard: 0052; Fig. 3]).
With regard to Claim 4, Hubbard-Dong-Sun-Chen-PWK teaches:
The automotive communication system of claim 2, wherein the signal results from a reflection of the pulse; (the time-domain reflectometer 506 monitors the CAN bus signals for transmitted and reflected signals and identifies faults [Hubbard: 0003; 0053; Fig. 5]. Dong-Sun teaches a generated pulse [Dong-Sun: p.7 top]).
With regard to Claim 5, Hubbard-Dong-Sun-Chen-PWK teaches:
The automotive communication system of claim 2, wherein the microprocessor is further programmed to initiate a timer when the pulse is initiated on the transmission line such that the microprocessor identifies the state only during a predefined period after the pulse; (the passive time-domain reflectometer front end circuit 1102 provides START_IN and STOP_IN signals to indicate when to start measuring and when to stop measuring the time period [Hubbard: 0053]).
With regard to Claim 6, Hubbard-Dong-Sun-Chen-PWK teaches:
The automotive communication system of claim 1 further comprising a logic gate having an input from the microprocessor and an output to a power supply input of the comparator; (an OR gate 1218 having a RESET signal input that is the TXD signal (i.e. an input from the microprocessor), wherein the output of the OR gate 1218 provides a STOP_IN / STOP_OUT signal used to control the measuring time period, wherein a time to digital converter circuit nob receives the START_OUT, STOP_OUT and SAMPLE signals and a PORB or power on reset low signal and performs a timing operation to develop the B0-B7 output signals [Hubbard: 0053-56; 0059; Fig. 12]).
With regard to Claim 8, Hubbard-Dong-Sun-Chen-PWK teaches:
The automotive communication system of claim 6, wherein the microprocessor is further programmed to initiate a signal to the logic gate when the pulse is initiated on the transmission line such that the comparator is ON for a predefined period after the pulse; (the passive time-domain reflectometer front end circuit 1102 provides START_IN and STOP_IN signals to indicate when to start measuring and when to stop measuring the time period [Hubbard: 0053]).
With regard to Claim 9, Hubbard-Dong-Sun-Chen-PWK teaches:
The automotive communication system of claim 8, wherein a duration of the signal to the logic gate is longer than a duration of the pulse; (START_IN (i.e. signal has started) triggers a capacitor timer which creates a HOLDOFF delay signal to allow time for the leading or driven edge of the dominate signal to clear, wherein the HOLDOFF is input to OR gate 1218 [Hubbard: 0054-55; Fig. 12]).
With regard to Claim 15, Hubbard-Dong-Sun-Chen-PWK teaches:
The automotive communication control system of claim 14, wherein the microprocessor is further programmed to identify the state as open circuit responsive to the data indicating the reflection has a same polarity as the pulse; (characteristic waveforms for open fault, short fault and no fault [Hubbard: 0032; Fig. 2P]).
PNG
media_image1.png
704
942
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 16, Hubbard-Dong-Sun-Chen-PWK teaches:
The automotive communication control system of claim 14, wherein the microprocessor is further programmed to identify the state as short circuit responsive to the data indicating the reflection has an inverted polarity relative to the pulse; (characteristic waveforms for open fault, short fault and no fault [Hubbard: 0032; Fig. 2P]).
PNG
media_image1.png
704
942
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claims 11, 13-14, 17-18, & 20, they appear substantially similar to the limitations recited by claims 1-6 & 8-9 and consequently do not appear to teach or further define over the citations provided for said claims. Accordingly, claims 11, 13-14, 17-18, & 20 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 1-6 & 8-9.
Claims 7, 10, 12, & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hubbard et al. (US 2020/0049754 A1) in view of Dong-Sun et al. (KR-20090011806-A) in view of practices well known in the art (abbreviated PWK) as applied to Claims 1, 6, 11, & 18 above, and further in view of Izawa et al. (US 2025/0060401 A1).
With regard to Claim 7, Hubbard-Dong-Sun-Chen-PWK teaches the automotive communication system of claim 6, but does not teach:
wherein the logic gate is an XOR gate.
In a similar field of endeavor involving reflection signal measurements, Izawa discloses:
wherein the logic gate is an XOR gate; (utilizing an XOR circuit in place of an analog switch to calculate exclusive OR X of digital signal Ds2 and digital signal Ds1 [Izawa: 0114]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hubbard-Dong-Sun-Chen-PWK in view of Izawa in order to utilize an XOR gate in the system of Hubbard-Dong-Sun-Chen-PWK.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Hubbard-Dong-Sun-Chen-PWK with Izawa as doing so would allow switch (e.g. flip-flop) based circuitry to be replaced in part by an XOR gate, thereby simplifying logic design.
With regard to Claim 10, Hubbard-Dong-Sun-Chen-PWK teaches the automotive communication system of claim 1, but does not teach:
wherein the pulse is a one-bit pulse.
In a similar field of endeavor involving reflection signal measurements, Izawa discloses:
wherein the pulse is a one-bit pulse; (output a 1-bit first digital signal representing a waveform of a predetermined pattern or a signal based on the first digital signal to a transmission line as a measurement signal [Izawa: 0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hubbard-Dong-Sun-Chen-PWK in view of Izawa in order to utilize a one-bit pulse in the system of Hubbard-Dong-Sun-Chen-PWK.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Hubbard-Dong-Sun-Chen-PWK with Izawa as doing so would utilize a predetermined pattern that is short in length, thereby allowing measurements to occur in brief periods of idle time without disruption to an active bus.
With regard to Claims 12 & 19, they appear substantially similar to the limitations recited by claim 10 and consequently do not appear to teach or further define over the citations provided for said claim. Accordingly, claims 12 & 19 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 10.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated any new grounds 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 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sealey et al. (US 2023/0375610 A1) which teaches line diagnostics that sense a state of an electrical cable by using multiple, time-spaced stimuli and detecting their signal reflection time at different threshold levels.
In the case of amendments, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and support, for ascertaining the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN J MOREAU whose telephone number is (571) 272-5179. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 - 6:00 ET.
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, Rebecca Song can be reached on 571-270-3667. 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.
/AUSTIN J MOREAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2417
