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 .
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
Claim 1 recites “enable the monitor (40) to perform in-line and real time testing of the two CAN inputs while ensuring continuous an uninterrupted data flow of the two CAN inputs to the two CAN outputs” in lines 7-9.
The only limitation on the CAN Transceiver monitor is that it be formed (in any way) to be capable of obtaining the result of “continuous an uninterrupted data flow of the two CAN inputs to the two CAN outputs”.
The “while ensuring” clause in this case does not add a further limitation to the recited CAN Transceiver monitor.
See MPEP 2111.04
Specification
The specification amendment submitted on 02/28/2024 which amended the abstract has been accepted.
The specification amendment submitted on 02/28/2024 which added the cross-reference to related applications has been accepted.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 1-8, please remove the parentheses with numbers (e.g., (40), (41), (42), etc.) from the claims.
Claim 1, line 1, recites “A CAN (Controller Area Network)”. For clarity, it is suggested to replace with “A Controller Area Network (CAN)”.
Regarding claim 1, please insert a colon “:” after the transitional phrase “comprising” to differentiate between the preamble and the body of the claim.
Claim 1, line 2, recites “two CAN inputs, CAN H input (41) and CAN L input (42)”. For clarity, it is suggested to replace with “two CAN inputs including CAN H input and CAN L input”.
Claim 1, line 3, recites “two CAN outputs, CAN H output (43) and CAN L output (44)”. For clarity, it is suggested to replace with “two CAN outputs including CAN H output and CAN L output”.
Claim 1, line 7, recites “the monitor”. For clarity, it is suggested to replace with “the CAN Transceiver monitor”.
Claims 2-8, recites “The CAN (Controller Area Network)” in line 1. For clarity, it is suggested to replace with “The CAN”.
Claim 2, line 2, recites “configured to be installed”. For clarity, it is suggested to replace with “is configured to install”.
Claim 3, line 3, recites “the monitor (40) between two CAN types, CAN classic and CAN-FD”. For clarity, it is suggested to replace with “the CAN Transceiver monitor between two CAN types including CAN classic and CAN-FD”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 3-4 and 6-8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3, line 3, recites “CAN classic and CAN-FD” without defining it. It is unclear what “CAN classic” and “CAN-FD” is referring to. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the bus line" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the test circuit" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the ACK detection circuit" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the position" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the ACK response circuit" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the CAN data frame" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the CAN bus line" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Orton et al. (US 2010/0082805 A1, hereinafter “Orton”).
Regarding claim 1, Orton discloses a CAN (Controller Area Network) Transceiver monitor (40) [see Fig. 1, 3, para. 38, 41; a network diagnostic device 100] comprising
two CAN inputs, CAN H input (41) and CAN L input (42) [see Fig. 1, 3, para. 38, 41; CAN_H (CAN High) and CAN_L (CAN Low) inputs];
two CAN outputs, CAN H output (43) and CAN L output (44) [see Fig. 1, 3, para. 38, 41; CAN_H (CAN High) and CAN_L (CAN Low) outputs];
a CAN type selector (47) [see Fig. 1, 3, para. 38, 41-42, 51-52, 88; NIOS microprocessor 308 selecting CAN_H and CAN_L inputs and outputs]; and
a test enable port (48) [see Fig. 1-3, para. 15, 38, 40-41; a DeviceNet port 202];
wherein the test enable port (48) is configured to enable the monitor (40) to perform in-line and real time testing of the two CAN inputs while ensuring continuous an uninterrupted data flow of the two CAN inputs to the two CAN outputs [see Fig. 1-3, para. 15, 38, 40-41; the DeviceNet port 202 is configured to enable the network diagnostic device 100 to perform in-line and real time testing of the CAN_H and CAN_L inputs (the hardware components of the network diagnostic device 100 capture the network signals in a non-pervasive manner)].
Regarding claim 2, Orton discloses the CAN (Controller Area Network) Transceiver monitor (40) according to claim 1, configured to be installed in series in a CAN bus line (49) comprising a CAN H line (31) and a CAN L line (32) [see Fig. 3, para. 4, 41; installed in series in a CAN bus line comprising CAN_H and CAN_L lines].
Regarding claim 3, Orton discloses the CAN (Controller Area Network) Transceiver monitor (40) according to claim 1, wherein the CAN type selector (47) is configured to commute the monitor (40) between two CAN types, CAN classic and CAN-FD [see Fig. 3, para. 42; monitoring between two CAN types, CAN High and CAN Low line voltage waveforms].
Regarding claim 4, Orton discloses the CAN (Controller Area Network) monitor (40) according to claim 1, wherein the real time testing of the two CAN inputs comprises determining if a CAN transceiver (30) connected to the bus line (49) is correctly transmitting and receiving CAN data frames (200) [see Fig. 3, para. 15, 41, 44, 59-60; the real time testing of CAN_H and CAN_L inputs comprises determining if a CAN transceiver 307 connected to the bus line is correctly transmitting and receiving CAN frame data].
Regarding claim 5, Orton discloses the CAN (Controller Area Network) Transceiver monitor (40) according to claim 1, further comprising at least a test circuit, an ACK detection circuit and a ACK response circuit [see Fig. 3-4, para. 15, 17, 46, 55, 66, 73, 92; a test circuit, a detection circuit and a response circuit].
Regarding claim 6, Orton discloses the CAN (Controller Area Network) Transceiver monitor (40) according to claim 1, wherein the test circuit comprises electronic and additional logic circuits configured to commute between a testing mode and a default operation mode [see Fig. 3, para. 9, 11, 15-17, 38, 45, 64, 87; electronic and additional logic circuits configured to commute between a normal mode and a calibration mode].
Regarding claim 7, Orton discloses the CAN (Controller Area Network) Transceiver monitor (40) according to claim 1, wherein the ACK detection circuit comprises logic circuits configured to determine the position of an ACK bit within a CAN data frame (200) [see Fig. 3, para. 17-20, 41, 49, 52, 87; detection circuit comprises logic circuits configured to determine position of a bit within a CAN frame data].
Regarding claim 8, Orton discloses the CAN (Controller Area Network) Transceiver monitor (40) according to claim 1, wherein the ACK response circuit is configured to output an ACK bit of the CAN data frame (200) in the CAN bus line (49) for a set duration of time [see Fig. 3, 6, 8, para. 41, 54, 130; output a bit of a CAN frame data in a CAN bus line for a set duration of time].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang et al. (US 2022/0417057 A1), see Fig. 5-7, para. 6-30, discloses a CAN bus circuit and a CAN bus communications method.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN T LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5615. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9AM-6PM.
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, JAE LEE can be reached on 571-270-3936. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN T LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469