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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to label the block with legends, as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The arguments are directed to the amended limitations to claims 11 and 19. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 11-20, advanced in the previous action, under Pandey in view of Kobayaski, is being maintained.
Regarding the amendments to the claims “wherein the instance causes, in dependence on the use of data set, energizing of the second electronic control device”, is functional limitations with predictable result, given the combined teachings of Pandey and Kobayaski.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 11-18 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.
In claim 11, lines 3, 5, 8, 10 and 12, ”with a processor, …”, the term “with” rendered the claim confusing or indefinite. Should the term “with” read ---by---?
Regarding claim 16, line 2, ---request since--- should have read ---request when--- so as to clarify the claim language.
Regarding, applying, with the processor, the data set in the instance to initiate a reaction of the second electronic control device to the request”, it is not clear as to how ---applying the data set in the instance can initiate a reaction of the second electronic control device to the request---. Also, it is a question as to how the instance causes, in dependence on the user of data set, energizing of the second electronic control device? Is ”data set”, recited in the last line, claim 11, referring to ---data set---recited above?
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the relationship between the “processor” and the ---first electronic control device and the second control device, claim 11---.
Regarding claim 19, it is not clear as to how ---apply the data set in the instance--- can initiate a reaction of the second electronic control device to the request, when the relationship between the “instance” and the “second control device” is not established.
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.
Claim(s) 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pandey (US 20210105174) in view of Kobayashi (US 20220417346).
Regarding claim 11, Pandey teaches a method for communication between electronic control devices for a transportation vehicle (see Fig. 1 and [0054]: FIG. 1 depicts a communications network 100 that includes one or more sensor nodes 104-1, 104-2, 104-18, one or more communications nodes 106-1, 106-2, 106-10, and one or more electronic control units (ECUs) 108-1, 108-2. The communications network can be used in various applications, such as automotive applications, communications applications, industrial applications, medical applications, computer applications, and/or consumer or appliance applications), comprising: Sending, a processor, a request by a first electronic control device to a second electronic control device (see Fig. 16 step 1606 and [0078]: Al block 1606, communications are conducted between the communications devices (i.e. first electronic control device and second electronic control device) based on the addresses assigned to the clusters. The communications devices may be similar to, the same as, or a component of the sensor nodes 104-1, 104-2, 104-18 and the ECUs 108-1, 108-2 depicted in FIG. 1, the communications device 210 depicted in FIG. 2; see also [0084]: At block 2002, at a communications device, a request for changing a network parameter of the communications device is received. For example, a request for changing a network parameter of the communications device 1810-1 or 1810-2 (i.e. first electronic control device and second electronic control device) is received at the transceiver unit 1872-1 or 1872-2); Determining, with the processor, that the second electronic control device does not react to the request (see at least [0084]: Next, at block 2004, it is determined whether or not locally stored link status information indicates a failure of a communications link that involves the communications device (i.e. failure to react to the request). For example, the controller unit 1878-1 or 1878-2 of the communications device 1810-1 or 1810-2 determines whether or not locally stored link status information indicates a failure of the communications channel 1870; Additionally, Pandey teaches in [0082]: The failure detection unit 1874-2 is configured to detect a failure related to the communication device 1810-2 (i.e. the second electronic control device). In some embodiments, the failure detection unit is configured to detect a failure of a communications link within the communications network 1800 that involves the communication device 1810-2 and to store link information that specifies the link failure status of the communications link in the storage unit 1876-2).
However, while the invention of Pandey does not explicitly suggest that the second electronic control device fails to react to the request in response to detecting the failed communication link, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious and reasonable to interpret the link failure condition at one of the communication devices 1810-1 and/or 1810-2 as implying a lack of reaction from either one of the communication devices because link failures, as known in the art, relate to the interruption of a physical or logical connection between two devices in a network, preventing data from being transmitted. This feature is further evidenced in the Kobayashi.
Kobayashi teaches: a method in accordance with the present invention, the method comprising: [0058]: After transmitting a wake-up signal to the Ethernet communication line or the CAN communication line, the bypass circuit 24 determines the presence/absence of a response signal transmitted from a device (device such as an ECU 3 or the GW 1) connected to the communication line; see also [0063]: Then, the bypass circuit 24 determines whether or not a response signal from a device connected to the CAN communication line, to which a wake-up signal was output, has been received on the communication line before a predetermined period has elapsed (step S6) (i.e. determining that the second electronic control device does not react to the request)).
Given the teachings of Kobayashi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the system of Pandey to incorporate the solutions provided by Kobayashi, namely monitoring communication requests between a first electronic device and a second electronic device and detecting connection failure between the devices due to non-response to a request in order to implement the connection failure determination from Pandey.
The motivation for such combination would have been to provide a processing unit for monitoring presence/absence of activation signals on a communication line between a plurality of network devices, thereby facilitating identification of communication failures between components of an in-vehicle control system and implementing remedial actions for reestablishing the failed connection.
Pandey further teaches a system wherein in response to the determination that the second electronic control device does not react: automatically adapting, with the processor, a data set assigned to the second electronic control device (see [0084]: Next, at block 2006, if/when locally stored link status information indicates a failure of a communications link that involves the communications device (i.e. failure to react), the request is granted and the network parameter is changed according to the request; see also [0085]: For example, the controller unit 1878-1 or 1878-2 of the communications device 1810-1 or 1810-2 changes a routing table entry (i.e. adapting a dataset assigned to the second device) in the communications device 1810-1 or 1810-2 such that data between the communications device 1810-1, 1810-2 is routed through other communications link(s)); automatically writing, with the processor, the data set on an instance located outside the second electronic control device (see Fig. 22 and [0088]: FIG. 22 depicts a communications link 2288 in the communications network 1100 depicted in FIG. 11 that can be used to replace the communications link 1118-1 depicted in FIG. 21. As shown in FIG. 22, the ECU 1108-1 sends a change request to the ECU 1108-2 (i.e. instance located outside of the second electronic control device as shown in Fig. 11) to add an element on its routing table for routing data packets between the ECU 1108-1 and the communications node 1106-2 (i.e. the second electronic control device) through the communications link 2288 (i.e. writing the data set)), and applying, with the processor, the data set in the instance to initiate a reaction of the second electronic control device to the request (see [0088]: The ECU1108-1 sends a control command and conveys link failure status to the communications node 1106-2 via an alternative route, ECU 1108-1 the ECU 1108-2-the communications node 1106-2 (i.e. applying the data set in the instance). The communications node 1106-2 can send an acknowledgement (ACK) back to the ECU 1108-1 (i.e. the reaction as a consequence of defining an alternate route). The ECU 1108-1 sends a command to set routing table in the communications node 1106-2 to route data packet via the ECU 1108-2).
Regarding the claimed limitations “wherein the instance causes, in dependence on the use of data set, energizing of the second electronic control device”, given the combined teachings of Pandey and Kobayaski, discussed above, the claimed function would have been an obvious and/or intended result thereof.
Regarding claim 12, Pandey in view of Kobayashi is applied as disclosed in claim 11, examined above. The combination of Pandey and Kobayashi teaches a method comprising automatically writing the data set on an instance located outside the second electronic control device. Furthermore, Pandey teaches a method wherein the instance comprises: a switching device (see [0056]: In some embodiments, at least one of the communications nodes is implemented as a switch or a daisy chain node that can be serially connected with other daisy chain node to form a daisy chain network).
Regarding claim 13, Pandey in view of Kobayashi is applied as disclosed in claim 11, examined above. The combination of Pandey and Kobayashi teaches a method comprising automatically writing the data set on an instance located outside the second electronic control device. Furthermore, Pandey teaches a method wherein the data set comprises a data supply table (see [0085]: Examples of network parameters of the communications device 1810-1 or 1810-2 that can be changed according to a change request include, without being limited to, a routing table entry. For example, the controller unit 1878-1 or 1878-2 of the communications device 1810-1 or 1810-2 changes a routing table entry in the communications device 1810-1 or 1810-2 such that data between the communications device 1810-1, 1810-2 is routed through other communications link(s)).
Regarding claim 14, Pandey in view of Kobayashi is applied as disclosed in claim 11, examined above. Moreover, Pandey teaches a method wherein the data set has data for defining a mode of operation of a plurality of electronic control devices and/or instances contained in an electrical system of the transportation vehicle (see [0090]: In some embodiments, in a cluster-based communications network (e.g., the communications network 1100 depicted in FIG. 11), the routing table
of a communications device, such as port-to-protocol information of the communications nodes 1106-1, 1106-2, 1106-10, are used to ensure the accuracy of the communications between the ECU 1008-1 or 1108-2 and corresponding sensor node(s)).
Regarding claim 15, Pandey in view of Kobayashi is applied as disclosed in claim 11, examined above. The combination of Pandey and Kobayashi teaches a method comprising sending a request by a first electronic control device to a second electronic control device. Furthermore, Kobayashi teaches a method wherein the request relates to a network message (see [0043]: The wake-up signal transmitted by the ECU 3 a to ECU 3 c).
Regarding claim 16, Pandey in view of Kobayashi is applied as disclosed in claim 11, examined above. The combination of Pandey and Kobayashi teaches a method comprising determining that the second electronic control device does not react to the request. Furthermore, Pandey teaches a method wherein the second electronic control device does not react to the request since the second electronic control device is not: linked to a communication channel (see [0081]: The failure detection unit 1874-1 is configured to detect a failure related to the communication device 1810-1. In some embodiments, the failure detection unit is configured to detect a failure of a communications link within the communications network 1800 that involves the communication device 1810-1).
Regarding claim 17, Pandey in view of Kobayashi is applied as disclosed in claim 11, examined above. The combination of Pandey and Kobayashi further teaches a method wherein the instance causes, in dependence on the use of the data set: authorizing of data exchange of the second electronic control device with the first electronic control device (Pandey - see [0081]: For example, if the link failure status information that is stored locally to the communications device 1810-1 indicates a communications link failure (e.g., a link failure of the communications channel 1870) when the change request is received at the communications device 1810-1, the change request is most likely authentic and the communications device 1810-2 from which the change request is received is most likely not compromised. Consequently, the controller unit 1878-1 grants the request for changing a network parameter of the communications device 1810-1 and changes the network parameter of the communications device 1810-1 according to the change request).
Regarding claim 18, Pandey in view of Kobayashi is applied as disclosed in claim 11, examined above. The Kobayashi reference further teaches a method wherein the request and the writing take place via a bus system or network of the transportation vehicle (see [0036]: FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram illustrating one example configuration of an in-vehicle communication system according to the present embodiments. The in-vehicle communication system according to the present embodiments has a configuration in which a central gateway (GW) 1, a plurality of peripheral GWs 2a to 2d, a plurality of ECUs 3a to 3d, a plurality of sensors 4a to 4d, and a plurality of actuators 5a to 5d are installed at suitable positions of a vehicle 100).
Regarding claim 19, Pandey teaches a controller group for a transportation vehicle comprising: a processor; and a memory in communication with the processor and storing instructions executable by the processor to configure the controller group to: send a message by a first electronic control device to a second electronic control device (see Fig. 16 step 1606 and [0078]: At block 1606, communications are conducted between the communications devices (i.e. first electronic control device and second electronic control device) based on the addresses assigned to the clusters. The communications devices may be similar to, the same as, or a component of the sensor nodes 104-1, 104-2, 104-18 and/or the ECUs 108-1, 108-2 depicted in FIG. 1, the communications device 210 depicted in FIG. 2; see also [0084]: Al block 2002, at a communications device, a request for changing a network parameter of the communications device is received. For example, a request for changing a network parameter of the communications device 1810-1 or 1810-2 (i.e. first electronic control device and second electronic control device) is received at the transceiver unit 1872-1 or 1872-2). Determine that the second electronic control device does not react to the request (see at least [0084]: Next, at block 2004, il is determined whether or not locally stored link status information indicates a failure of a communications link that involves the communications device (i.e. failure to react to the request). For example, the controller unit 1878-1 or 1878-2 of the communications device 1810-1 or 1810-2 determines whether or not locally stored link status information indicates a failure of the communications channel 1870; Additionally, Pandey teaches in [0082]: The failure detection unit 1874-2 is configured to detect a failure related to the communication device 1810-2 (i.e. the second electronic control device). In some embodiments, the failure detection unit is configured to detect a failure of a communications link within the communications network 1800 that involves the communication device 1810-2 and to store link information that specifies the link failure status of the communications link in the storage unit 1876-2).
However, while the invention of Pandey does not explicitly suggest that the second electronic control device fails to react in response to the request in response to detecting the failed communication link, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious and reasonable to interpret the link failure condition at one of the communication devices 1810-1 and/or 1810-2 as implying a lack of reaction from either one of the communication devices because link failures, as known in the art, relate to the interruption of a physical or logical connection between two devices in a network, preventing data from being transmitted. This feature is further evidenced in the Kobayashi reference which teaches: a system in accordance with the present invention, thesystem comprising: [0058]: After transmitting a wake-up signal to the Ethernet communication line or the CAN communication line, the bypass circuit 24 determines the presence/absence of a response signal transmitted from a device (device such as an ECU 3 or the GW 1) connected to the communication line; see also [0063]: Then, the bypass circuit 24 determines whether or not a response signal from a device connected to the CAN communication line, to which a wake-up signal was output, has been received on the communication line before a predetermined period has elapsed (step S6) (i.e. determining that the second electronic control device does not react to the request)).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the teachings of Pandey to incorporate the solutions provided by Kobayashi, namely monitoring communication requests between a first electronic device and a second electronic device and detecting connection failure between the devices due to non-response to a request in order to implement the connection failure determination from Pandey. The motivation for such combination would have been to provide a processing unit for monitoring presence/absence of activation signals on a communication line between a plurality of network devices, thereby facilitating identification of communication failure points between components of an in-vehicle control system and implementing remedial actions for reestablishing the failed connection.
Pandey further teaches a system adapted to, in response to the determination that the second electronic control device does not react: automatically adapt a data set assigned to the second electronic control device (see [0084]: Next, at block 2006, if/when locally stored link status information indicates a failure of a communications link that involves the communications device (i.e. failure to react), the request is granted and the network parameter is changed according to the request; see also [0085]: For example, the controller unit 1878-1 or 1878-2 of the communications device 1810-1 or 1810-2 changes a routing table entry (i.e. adapting a dataset assigned to the second device) in the communications device 1810-1 or 1810-2 such that data between the communications device 1810-1, 1810-2 is routed through other communications link(s)); automatically write the data set on an instance located outside the second electronic control device (see Fig. 22 and [0088]: FIG. 22 depicts a communications link 2288 in the communications network 1100 depicted in FIG. 11 that can be used to replace the communications link 1118-1 depicted in FIG. 21. As shown in FIG. 22, the ECU 1108-1 sends a change request to the ECU 1108-2 (i.e. instance located outside of the second electronic control device as shown in Fig. 11) to add an element on its routing table for routing data packets between the ECU 1108-1 and the communications node 1106-2 (i.e. the second electronic control device) through the communications link 2288 (i.e. writing the data set)), and apply, with the processor, the data set in the instance to initiate a reaction of the second electronic control device to the request (see [0088]: The ECU 1108-1 sends a control command and conveys link failure status to the communications node 1106-2 via an alternative route, ECU 1108-1-the ECU 1108-2-the communications node 1106-2 (i.e. applying the data set in the instance). The communications node 1106-2 can send an acknowledgement (ACK) back to the ECU 1108-1 (i.e. the reaction as a consequence of defining an alternate route). The ECU 1108-1 sends a command to set routing table in the communications node 1106-2 to route data packet via the ECU 1108-2).
Regarding claim 20, Pandey in view of Kobayashi is applied, as examined above, according to claim 19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GLENTON B BURGESS whose telephone number is (571)272-3949. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 am - 5:00 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.
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.
/GLENTON B BURGESS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights