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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7,8-11 and 13-16 have been considered but are moot due to new grounds of rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burkman et al. (US 20180356454) in view of Grunthaner et al. (US 9316677) further in view of Lesesky et al. (US 20030222770).
Regarding claim 1, Burkman et al. teach A device for checking the function of a cable shield of a wired communication connection (340, 342, Fig. 4) between two communication partners (312, 314, Fig. 4) which communicate by the wired communication connection, (Note par. 0005) comprising:
a first electrical circuit (Note circuitry within 312, Fig. 4) is provided in at least one of the communication partners (312, Fig. 4), by which a test voltage can be applied to the cable shield; (Either of the control blocks 348, 352 (or another control block) may be configured to drive a signal into the in-line high voltage connector arrangement 316. The other of the control blocks 348, 352 (or another control block) may then be configured to detect the signal for interlock integrity. The control blocks 348, 352 (or other control blocks) may be configured to control the grounding switches 360, 362 respectively.)[par. 0024] and
a second electrical circuit (Note circuitry withing 314, Fig. 4) is provided in one or another of the communication partners (314, Fig. 4), which feeds the applied test voltage to a measured value acquisition unit (controller 352, Fig. 4) , which takes a measurement of the test voltage and generates an error signal if a test voltage has been measured that is outside a permissible value range or outside one of a plurality of permissible value ranges.
Burkman et al. does not teach takes a measurement of the test voltage and generates an error signal if a test voltage has been measured that is outside a permissible value range or outside one of a plurality of permissible value ranges.
Grunthaner et al. teach takes a measurement of the test voltage and generates an error signal if a test voltage has been measured that is outside a permissible value range or outside one of a plurality of permissible value ranges. (After a predetermined settling time (e.g., based on the resistance of the pull-up resistor and the flex cable shielding capacitance), the voltage applied to the GPIO is detected. If the voltage is low (e.g., approximately ground), then the flex cable shielding does not appear to have any complete breaks (e.g., test pass). However, if the voltage is high (e.g., approximately the voltage applied to the pull-up resistor), then the flex cable shielding appears to have a complete break (e.g., test failure).) (Note column 10, lines 39-47)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Burkman et al. to include the teaching of teach takes a measurement of the test voltage and generates an error signal if a test voltage has been measured that is outside a permissible value range or outside one of a plurality of permissible value ranges to determine if the shield has a complete break. (Note column 10, lines 39-47)
Burkman et al. does not teach wherein one of the two communication partners is located in a towing vehicle and the other of the two communication partners is located in a trailer vehicle, and wherein a cable of the communication connection has at least one twisted wire pair through which bus signals are transmitted.
Lesesky et al. teach wherein one of the two communication partners is located in a towing vehicle (Note 17 in 11, Fig. 1) and the other of the two communication partners is located in a trailer vehicle, (Note 17 in 12 of Fig. 1) ) and wherein a cable of the communication connection has at least one twisted wire pair through which bus signals are transmitted. (Note 14, par. 0028 and Fig. 1)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Burkman et al. to include the teaching of wherein one of the two communication partners is located in a towing vehicle and the other of the two communication partners is located in a trailer vehicle, and wherein a cable of the communication connection has at least one twisted wire pair through which bus signals are transmitted to cancel out electromagnetic interference (EMI) and crosstalk.
Regarding 9, Burkman et al. teach A method for checking the function of a cable shield of a wired communication connection between two communication partners (312, 314, Fig. 4) which communicate by the wired communication connection, (Note par. 0005) the method comprising:
applying a test voltage to the cable shield by one communication partner; (Either of the control blocks 348, 352 (or another control block) may be configured to drive a signal into the in-line high voltage connector arrangement 316. The other of the control blocks 348, 352 (or another control block) may then be configured to detect the signal for interlock integrity. The control blocks 348, 352 (or other control blocks) may be configured to control the grounding switches 360, 362 respectively.)[par. 0024]
measuring a test voltage on the cable shield at one or another communication partner; evaluating the measurements in one or the other communication partner; suggested by (Either of the control blocks 348, 352 (or another control block) may be configured to drive a signal into the in-line high voltage connector arrangement 316. The other of the control blocks 348, 352 (or another control block) may then be configured to detect the signal for interlock integrity. The control blocks 348, 352 (or other control blocks) may be configured to control the grounding switches 360, 362 respectively.)[par. 0024]
and
Burkman et al. does not teach generating an error signal in one or the other communication partner if the test voltage could not be measured or a test voltage was measured that is outside a permissible value range or outside one of a plurality of permissible value ranges.
Grunthaner et al. teach generating an error signal in one or the other communication partner if the test voltage could not be measured or a test voltage was measured that is outside a permissible value range or outside one of a plurality of permissible value ranges.
(After a predetermined settling time (e.g., based on the resistance of the pull-up resistor and the flex cable shielding capacitance), the voltage applied to the GPIO is detected. If the voltage is low (e.g., approximately ground), then the flex cable shielding does not appear to have any complete breaks (e.g., test pass). However, if the voltage is high (e.g., approximately the voltage applied to the pull-up resistor), then the flex cable shielding appears to have a complete break (e.g., test failure).) (Note column 10, lines 39-47)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Burkman et al. to include the teaching of generating an error signal in one or the other communication partner if the test voltage could not be measured or a test voltage was measured that is outside a permissible value range or outside one of a plurality of permissible value ranges determine if the shield has a complete break. (Note column 10, lines 39-47)
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Burkman et al. teach wherein in the first electrical circuit switching devices are provided which can switch the application of the test voltage on and off and/or wherein in the first electrical circuit switching devices are provided which can switch a dissipation of the test voltage to the electrical ground on and off. (Note par. 0024, The control blocks 348, 352 (or other control blocks) may be configured to control the grounding switches 360, 362 respectively.)
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Burkman et al. teach wherein one or both communication partners contain an electronic control device (348, Fig. 4) that is used to control the first or second switching device. (Note 360, Fig. 4)
Regarding claim 10, Burkman et al. teach a first electrical circuit by which a test voltage can be applied to the cable shield (Either of the control blocks 348, 352 (or another control block) may be configured to drive a signal into the in-line high voltage connector arrangement 316. The other of the control blocks 348, 352 (or another control block) may then be configured to detect the signal for interlock integrity. The control blocks 348, 352 (or other control blocks) may be configured to control the grounding switches 360, 362 respectively.)[par. 0024]
and/or a second electrical circuit which supplies the applied test voltage to a measured values acquisition unit, which takes a measurement of the test voltage and generates an error signal if the test voltage could not be measured or a test voltage has been measured that is outside a permissible value range or outside one of a plurality of permissible value ranges.
Regarding claim 14, Burkman et al. teach wherein the electronic control device (348, Fig. 4) is configured to control the first switching devices and/or the second switching devices such that additional information, about a state of the electronic processing unit or an activity signal of the electronic processing unit or serial data, in addition to the data transmitted through the communication connection, is transmitted unidirectionally or bidirectionally. (Note 360, Fig. 4)
Regarding claim 16, Burkman et al. does not teach A vehicle comprising: a towing vehicle; a trailer vehicle; and the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein one communication partner is an electronic processing unit in the towing vehicle and the other communication partner is an electronic processing unit in the trailer vehicle, both of which are connected to each other by a cable of the communication connection.
Lesesky et al. teach A vehicle comprising: a towing vehicle; a trailer vehicle; and the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein one communication partner is an electronic processing unit in the towing vehicle and the other communication partner is an electronic processing unit in the trailer vehicle, both of which are connected to each other by a cable of the communication connection. (Note rejection of claim 1)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Burkman et al. to include the teaching of a towing vehicle; a trailer vehicle; and the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein one communication partner is an electronic processing unit in the towing vehicle and the other communication partner is an electronic processing unit in the trailer vehicle, both of which are connected to each other by a cable of the communication so that controllers are preferably connected to the electrical conductors to control data communications among the electronic subsystems.
Claim(s) 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burkman et al. (US 20180356454) in view of Grunthaner et al. (US 9316677) in view of Lesesky et al. (US 20030222770) further in view of Tsubota (US 20110187383).
Burkman et al. teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations.
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Burkman et al. does not teach wherein the electronic control device is a programmable electronic control device in the form of a microcontroller, and wherein the measured values acquisition unit is an analog-to-digital converter, as a measured values acquisition means which digitally acquires the voltage value of the test voltage.
Tsubota et al. teach wherein the electronic control device is a programmable electronic control device in the form of a microcontroller, (12 a, par. 0053) and wherein the measured values acquisition unit is an analog-to-digital converter, as a measured values acquisition means which digitally acquires the voltage value of the test voltage. (12H, par. 0053)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Burkman et al. to include the teaching of the electronic control device is a programmable electronic control device in the form of a microcontroller, and wherein the measured values acquisition unit is an analog-to-digital converter, as a measured values acquisition means which digitally acquires the voltage value of the test voltage to allow controller to process the analog data.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burkman et al. (US 20180356454) in view of Grunthaner et al. (US 9316677) in view of Lesesky et al. (US 20030222770) further in view of Pham (DE 102020105780 A1).
Burkman et al. teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations.
Regarding claim 8, Burkman et al. does not teach wherein the transmission of data through the cable of the communication connection is carried out according to the communication standard IEEE 802.3 bp, corresponding to 1000BaseT1 type B.
Pham teach wherein the transmission of data through the cable of the communication connection is carried out according to the communication standard IEEE 802.3 bp, (par. 0046) corresponding to 1000BaseT1 type B. (par. 0051)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Burkman et al. to include the teaching of wherein the transmission of data through the cable of the communication connection is carried out according to the communication standard IEEE 802.3 bp, corresponding to 1000BaseT1 type B to enabling the use of lighter, less expensive cabling compared to traditional Ethernet that uses multiple pairs.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burkman et al. (US 20180356454) in view of Grunthaner et al. (US 9316677) in view of Lesesky et al. (US 20030222770) further in view of Thwaites et al. (US 20190228882).
Burkman et al. teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations.
Regarding claim 7, Burkman et al. does not teach wherein the cable of the communication connection is a cable of type S/FTP, corresponding to “screened foiled twisted pair” according to standard ISO/IEC-11801E: S/FTP and with only one pair of twisted wires encased in aluminum foil and a wire mesh as an external shield.
Thwaites et al. teach wherein the cable of the communication connection is a cable of type S/FTP, corresponding to “screened foiled twisted pair” according to standard ISO/IEC-11801E: S/FTP and with only one pair of twisted wires encased in aluminum foil and a wire mesh as an external shield (Note [0006] Twisted pair data communication cables are standardized in accordance to various standards such as ISO/IEC 11801 and TIA-568-B which define, among other qualifications, the required electrical performance of the cables. (Note par. 0006, wherein the cable of the communication connection is a cable of type S/FTP, corresponding to “screened foiled twisted pair” according to standard ISO/IEC-11801E: S/FTP and with only one pair of twisted wires encased in aluminum foil and a wire mesh as an external shield.) and (par. 0003).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Burkman et al. to include the teaching of wherein the cable of the communication connection is a cable of type S/FTP, corresponding to “screened foiled twisted pair” according to standard ISO/IEC-11801E: S/FTP and with only one pair of twisted wires encased in aluminum foil and a wire mesh as an external shield to provide some immunity to noise.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 12 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.
Regarding claim 5, wherein in the first electrical circuit contact pins are distributed around a circumference of the cable shield, which press against the contact surfaces of the cable shield in an area of the connector of the cable of the communication connection when it is plugged into a corresponding socket of the communication partner, wherein the contact pins are each connected to ground potential with a capacitor, and wherein the capacitors have different capacitance values.
Regarding claim 12, wherein in the first electrical circuit contact pins are distributed around a circumference of the cable shield, which press against the contact surfaces of the cable shield in an area of the connector of the cable of the communication connection when it is plugged into a corresponding socket of the communication partner, wherein the contact pins are each connected to ground potential with a capacitor, and wherein the capacitors have different capacitance values.
Claim 17 is allowed.
Upon conclusion of a comprehensive search of the pertinent prior art, the Office indicates that the claims are allowable.
Regarding independent claim 17 , patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of:
wherein in the first electrical circuit contact pins are distributed around a circumference of the cable shield, which press against the contact surfaces of the cable shield in an area of the connector of the cable of the communication connection when it is plugged into a corresponding socket of the communication partner, wherein the contact pins are each connected to ground potential with a capacitor, and wherein the capacitors have different capacitance values as claimed in combination with all other limitations of claim 17.
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 DEMETRIUS R PRETLOW whose telephone number is (571)272-3441. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 5:30-1:30.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
/DEMETRIUS R PRETLOW/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights