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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on April 26, 2024 and June 20, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed March 20, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-14 are canceled. Claims 15-26 are new and remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection and 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed December 22, 2025, hereafter referred to as the Non-Final Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments, see pp. 6-13 of Applicant’s remarks, filed March 20, 2026, have been entered and fully considered. In light of the amended new claim set, the rejection(s) have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejections have been made.
In response to applicant's argument(s), see pp. 9-10 of Applicant’s remarks, with respect to new independent claims 15, 25 & 26 (similar claim language), that the prior art reference(s), Ohashi (US2022/0194307, as cited by the Applicant, fails to teach, show or disclose, individually or in combination, certain features of the invention, “fails to disclose limitations (a)-(c)”.
In light of the amended new independent claims 15, 25 & 26, new ground(s) of rejection(s) is/are made over Ohashi, in view of Holger (EP3028890A1), and further in view of Wendt (US2016172851). The examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s contentions that Ohashi, and now in light of new prior art reference(s) Holger, and further in view of Wendt, fail to disclose, teach, and/or suggest individually or in combination, the “….limitations (a)-(c)”, for the above stated amended new independent claims. Ohashi, in view of Holger, and further in view of Wendt, further disclose the additional limitations that have been amended and included in the new independent claims 15, 25 & 26, and meet these requirements. Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments are unconvincing and the rejections of amended new independent claims 15, 25 & 26, and dependent claims 16-24, which depend from and incorporate the limitations of amended new independent claim 15, are respectively maintained. Rejections based on the newly cited prior art reference(s) follow.
In response to applicant's argument(s), see pp. 10-11 of Applicant’s remarks, with respect to canceled claim 4, and referring back to new independent claims 15, 25 & 26 (similar claim language), that the prior art reference(s), Ohashi and Nowicki (US2018/0143250), as cited by the Applicant, fail to teach, show or disclose, individually or in combination, certain features of the invention, “fail to disclose or suggest at least limitations (a)-(c)”.
In light of the amended new independent claims 15, 25 & 26, new ground(s) of rejection(s) is/are made over Ohashi, in view of Holger, and further in view of Wendt. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s contentions that Ohashi, and now in light of new prior art reference(s) Holger, and further in view of Wendt, fail to disclose, teach, and/or suggest individually or in combination, the “….at least limitations (a)-(c)”, for the above stated amended new independent claims. Ohashi, in view of Holger, and further in view of Wendt, further disclose the additional limitations that have been amended and included in the new independent claims 15, 25 & 26, and meet these requirements. Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments are unconvincing and the rejections of amended new independent claims 15, 25 & 26, and dependent claims 16-24, which depend from and incorporate the limitations of amended new independent claim 15, are respectively maintained. Rejections based on the newly cited prior art reference(s) follow.
In response to applicant's argument(s), see pp. 11-13 of Applicant’s remarks, with respect to canceled claims 5-6, and referring back to new independent claims 15, 25 & 26 (similar claim language), that the prior art reference(s), Ohashi, in view of Nowicki, and further in view of Fink (US2014/0246902), as cited by the Applicant, fail to teach, show or disclose, individually or in combination, certain features of the invention, “fail to disclose or suggest at least limitations (a)-(c)”.
In light of the amended new independent claims 15, 25 & 26, new ground(s) of rejection(s) is/are made over Ohashi, in view of Holger, and further in view of Wendt. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s contentions that Ohashi, and now in light of new prior art reference(s) Holger, and further in view of Wendt, fail to disclose, teach, and/or suggest individually or in combination, the “….at least limitations (a)-(c)”, for the above stated amended new independent claims. Ohashi, in view of Holger, and further in view of Wendt, further disclose the additional limitations that have been amended and included in the new independent claims 15, 25 & 26, and meet these requirements. Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments are unconvincing and the rejections of amended new independent claims 15, 25 & 26, and dependent claims 16-24, which depend from and incorporate the limitations of amended new independent claim 15, are respectively maintained. Rejections based on the newly cited prior art reference(s) follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 15-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 15 recites “determine which one of the at least two groups the connector associated with the peripheral is among according to the electrical measurement.” ll. 11-12, where the claim limitations are not previously disclosed, present in the disclosure or drawings, or disclosed in the paragraph(s) or claims indicated by the Applicant’s remarks, pp. 6-13. A POSITA would not “determine which one of the at least two groups the connector associated with the peripheral is among according to the electrical measurement”, unless explicitly described in the disclosures provided. Instead canceled claim 1 and [0006] mention using an electrical measurement value to determine a “group of one or more positions…”. Claims 16-24 are rejected by virtue of dependence to independent claim 15, which do not rectify the defect.
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.
Claims 15-17, 21 & 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi et al. (US 2022/0194307 A1, Fil. Date Feb. 26, 2020, hereinafter, Ohashi), in view of Holger (EP 3028890 A1, Pub. Date Sep. 28, 2015, hereinafter, Holger), and further in view of Wendt (US 2016/0172851 A1, Pub. Date Jun. 16, 2016, hereinafter, Wendt).
Regarding independent claim 15, Ohashi, teaches:
A system comprising (Figs. 1 & 2; [0001]-[0002], [0006], [0016]-[0018], & [0021]: describes a system for registering the mounting position of electronic devices in a vehicle):
Ohashi, is silent in regard to:
a central power supply comprising connectors, each of which is in a different position among predetermined positions in a vehicle;
at least two groups, each of which comprises at least one of the connectors;
However, Ohashi, in combination with Holger, further teach:
a central power supply comprising connectors, each of which is in a different position among predetermined positions in a vehicle (Ohashi: Fig. 2; [0018]-[0019] & [0039]-[0040]: teaches routing central vehicle power supply to connectors at different predetermined vehicle positions (E1, E2, E3, etc.) where devices connect; Holger: Fig. 2; [0019]: teaches a central power supply (battery 3) distributing power to decentralized units);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Ohashi’s terminal-based automatic position registration technique into the grouped, vehicle power network taught by Holger. The motivation would be to further optimize Holger’s objective to reducing assembly effort and manufacturing costs. Integrating Ohashi’s teachings, a vehicle manufacturer could deploy identically manufactured peripheral units across Holger’s various groups. The system would rely on the specific electrical polarity and connection state of the local connector, as taught by Ohashi, to automatically determine which group the peripheral belongs to upon installation. This combination would yield a predictable streamlined plug-and-play vehicle electrical system that avoids the need for distinct, location-specific hardware variants, advancing the cost-saving and error-reducing objectives of both Ohashi and Holger (KSR).
However, Holger, further teaches:
at least two groups, each of which comprises at least one of the connectors (Fig. 2; [0006] & [0019]: discloses dividing peripheral connectors into at least two groups);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize Holger’s grouped power distribution network, which is ready for improvement, into Ohashi’s terminal-based automatic position registration technique into the grouped, vehicle power network taught by Holger. A POSITA would be motivated to make the connectors within these groups “smart” to automate the peripheral grouping process. When a generic peripheral is plugged into one of Holger’s grouped connectors, the system would immediately determine which group it belong to by reading the polarity and electrical state of that specific connector. This combination would yield an efficient, plug-and-play vehicle architecture that aligns with the cost-saving and error-reducing objectives of modern automotive electrical engineering (KSR).
Ohashi, in combination with Holger, are silent in regard to:
a peripheral connected to the central power supply via a connector among the connectors of one of the at least two groups, wherein the connector defines a polarity of connection between the peripheral and the central power supply; and
a processor configured to:
determine an electrical measurement of the polarity of connection between the peripheral and the central power supply, and
determine which one of the at least two groups the connector associated with the peripheral is among according to the electrical measurement.
However, Ohashi, in combination with Holger, and Wendt, further teach:
determine which one of the at least two groups the connector associated with the peripheral is among according to the electrical measurement (Ohashi: [0019]-[0021]: determines which predetermined position/group the connector belongs to based on the electrical state/polarity (B+/GND) measurement; Holger: [0019]; Wendt: [0065]: teaches using electrical measurements to classify the peripheral into a group/class).
It is recognized that the citations and evidence provided are derived from potentially different embodiments of a single reference. Nevertheless, it 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, to employ combinations and sub-combinations of these complementary embodiments, and otherwise motivate experimentation and optimization. Combining the active polarity measurement and classification techniques of Wendt with the position-registration system of Ohashi, and the at least two groups of Holger, according to known methods. The motivation is to improve the safety, reliability, and fault-tolerance of Ohashi’s plug-and-play position determination. Incorporating Wendt’s active electrical measurement technique, a POSITA could upgrade Ohashi’s system so that the processor actively measures the polarity of the connection to verify the peripheral’s orientation and class while simultaneously using that data to determine which specific predetermined vehicle group/connection the connector belongs to. This combination predictably yields (KSR) a self-configuring vehicle network, with Ohashi’s goal of a simplified assembly, while incorporating Wendt’s goals of electrical safety and connection verification.
However, Wendt, further teaches:
a peripheral connected to the central power supply via a connector among the connectors of one of the at least two groups, wherein the connector defines a polarity of connection between the peripheral and the central power supply ([0048]-[0050], [0053]-[0054] & [0065]: teaches connecting a peripheral device (electrical device 11) via a connector that establishes and defines a polarity for the DC power distribution); and
a processor configured to:
determine an electrical measurement of the polarity of connection between the peripheral and the central power supply ([0059]: discloses a processor (controller 115) measuring current to determine the polarity of the connection), and
It is recognized that the citations and evidence provided are derived from potentially different embodiments of a single reference. Nevertheless, it 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, to employ combinations and sub-combinations of these complementary embodiments, and otherwise motivate experimentation and optimization. A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Wendt’s polarity measurement and classification technique into the vehicle networks of Holger and Ohashi. The motivation is to upgrade the system from a plug-and-play network into a robust, fault-tolerant system. By applying Wendt’s teachings, the vehicle’s processor would actively measure the polarity of the connection. Allowing the system to safely verify the electrical integrity and orientation of the plug to prevent short circuits and corrosion, and using the same electrical measurement to determine which predetermined group or vehicle position the connector belongs to. Integrating Wendt’s teachings predictably yields (KSR) a safer, vehicle power architecture, which is a design choice for an engineer looking to improve the reliability and safety of the automotive electrical systems.
Regarding dependent claim 16, Ohashi, teaches:
The system according to claim 15 (Fig. 1; [0001]-[0002], [0006], [0016]-[0018], & [0021]),
Ohashi, in combination with Holger, are silent in regard to:
wherein each of the connectors has a connection interface, the peripheral has a connection interface, and the connection interface of one of the connectors is connectable to the connection interface of the peripheral according to a predetermined arrangement.
However, Ohashi, in combination with Wendt, further teach:
wherein each of the connectors has a connection interface (Ohashi: Fig. 4; [0018]-[0019] & [0039]-[0040]: ports (e.g., 21 a, 21b, 22a, 22b) constitute the connection interface on the vehicle/connector side; Wendt: [0050]: the ports in Ohashi and the connection device contact 5 in Wendt serve as the connection interface for the system-side connectors), the peripheral has a connection interface (Ohashi: [0006] & [0018]-[0019]: the peripheral (electronic device 2) comprises a connector 11 and specific terminals (e.g., 9, 12, 13), where the connector is the connection interface on the peripheral; Wendt: [0050]; electrical device 11 also includes its own connection interface, device contacts 19/59), and the connection interface of one of the connectors is connectable to the connection interface of the peripheral according to a predetermined arrangement (Ohashi: [0018]-[0022] & [0039]-[0040]: teaches ports on the vehicle side are arranged in “correspondence” with the terminals on the device side; Wendt: [0011]: utilizes known mating connectors to join the system and peripheral interfaces).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement Ohashi’s predetermined port-to-terminal arrangement using the physical connection interfaces (e.g., electrical connectors) taught by Wendt, according to known methods. The motivation is to ensure that the predetermined electrical alignment required by Ohashi’s position-registration logic is enforced on an assembly line. Ohashi provides the electrical mapping (predetermined arrangement), and Wendt provides the mechanical means to execute it via connection interfaces. Combining Wendt’s physical connectors with Ohashi’s predetermined port arrangement predictably yields (KSR) a standard connection interface that physically guides the connection interface of the connectors and peripherals into the correct alignment, preventing miswiring and ensuring the automated registration system functions as intended.
Regarding dependent claim 17, Ohashi, teaches:
The system according to claim 16 (Fig. 1; [0001]-[0002], [0006], [0016]-[0018], & [0021]),
the connection interface of each of the connectors comprises a set of connection points (Fig. 1; [0018]-[0020] & [0039]-[0040]), and each of the set of poles is electrically connected to a respective connection point among the set of connection points of each of the connectors according to a unique correspondence of each of the at least two groups (Fig. 3 & Table 16; [0019]-[0023] & [0025]-[0029]: teaches that the physical wiring arrangement, which pole (GND) is connected to which connection point (terminal 9a or 9b), configured depending on which mounting position/group the connected is in. The unique wiring correspondence (e.g., OPEN/OPEN vs. OPEN/GND) allows the system to determine the peripheral’s group).
Ohashi, in combination with Holger, are silent in regard to:
wherein the central power supply comprises a set of poles,
However, Ohashi, in combination with Wendt, further teach:
wherein the central power supply comprises a set of poles (Ohashi: [0018]-[0019]: +B (Positive) and GND (Negative) are standard poles of a DC central power supply in a vehicle; Wendt: [0053]-[0054] & [0058]: both references disclose a central power supply utilizing a set of electrical poles (a positive voltage line and a negative/ground line) to deliver power),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Ohashi’s pin-wiring methodology with Wendt’s centralized pole-based power distribution system, according to known methods. The motivation is to enhance Wendt’s active measurement system with spatial awareness. Wendt provides the centralized poles (voltage and ground) and the processor logic to measure the electrical state at the connector. By applying Ohashi’s technique of wiring the connector pins to those specific poles depending on the group/location, a POSITA creates a system where Wendt’s processor can read the unique signature (e.g., OPEN/GND vs. GND/GND) to determine the physical mounting location. This combination predictably yields (KSR) a self-configuring, location-aware power network, merging Wendt’s goals of safe power distribution with Ohashi’s goa of reducing manufacturing complexity and assembly errors.
Regarding dependent claim 21, Ohashi, teaches:
The system according to claim 15 (Fig. 1; [0001]-[0002], [0006], [0016]-[0018], & [0021]),
Ohashi, is silent in regard to:
wherein each of the at least two groups corresponds to a respective position in the vehicle.
However, Ohashi, in combination with Holger, further teach:
wherein each of the at least two groups corresponds to a respective position in the vehicle (Ohashi: Figs. 2, 3, & 5; [0018]-[0019], [0039]-[0040], [0042], [0045]-[0049]: Figures 2 & 5 show distinct mounting positions (E1, E2, E3) physically separated and corresponding to different locations (front right, front left, etc.) around the vehicle body, ensuring that each group of connection ports physically corresponds to a respective position); Holger: [0019]: teaches diving the vehicle’s electrical consumers into at least two groups that are tied to spatial positions in the vehicle (Group 11 for the front light system; Group 12 for the rear light system)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the spatial mounting-position logic of Ohashi with the grouped power distribution network of Holger, according to known methods. The motivation is to optimize the manufacturing efficiencies proposed by Holger. By ensuring that Holger’s power groups correspond to Ohashi’s respective mounting positions, a POSITA creates a self-configuring plug-and-play architecture. This combination predictably yields a modular vehicle network, merging Holger’s goal of reducing copper wiring weight with Ohashi’s goal of eliminating part-number proliferation and reducing assembly errors, and yielding predictable spatial grouping results (KSR).
Regarding independent claim 25, Ohashi, teaches:
A method of locating a peripheral, the method comprising (Figs. 1 & 2; [0001]-[0002], [0006], [0016]-[0018], & [0021]: describes a method of determining the location/mounting position of a peripheral (electronic device 2)):
Ohashi, in combination with Holger, are silent in regard to:
determining, using a processor, an electrical measurement of a polarity of connection between the peripheral and a central power supply that the peripheral is connected to via a connector of the central power supply; and
determining, using the processor, which one of at least two groups the connector associated with the peripheral is among according to the electrical measurement.
However, Wendt, further teaches:
determining, using a processor, an electrical measurement of a polarity of connection between the peripheral and a central power supply that the peripheral is connected to via a connector of the central power supply ([0048]-[0050], [0053]-[0054], [0059] & [0065]: discloses the method step of a processor (controller 115/polarity determining unit) taking an electrical measurement (measured detection test current) to determine the polarity of the connection between the peripheral and the centralized power supply); and
It 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, to incorporate Wendt’s active polarity measurement step into the position-determining method taught by Ohashi and Holger, according to known methods. The motivation is to upgrade the procedural safety and fault tolerance of the vehicle’s auto-configuration method. Instead of the processor executing Ohashi’s group-determination step based on passive pin layouts, applying Wendt’s teachings requires the processor to first actively measure the polarity of the connection. This allows the method to safely verify the electrical integrity and orientation of the plug to prevent short circuits, Wendt’s primary goal, and use the same electrical measurement data to execute Ohashi’s step of determining which predetermined group or vehicle position the connector belongs to. Integrating Wendt’s active measurement step predictably yields (KSR) a safer, polarity-protected method for auto-configuring vehicle power architectures.
However, Ohashi, in combination with Holger, and Wendt, further teach:
determining, using the processor, which one of at least two groups the connector associated with the peripheral is among according to the electrical measurement (Ohashi: [0019]-[0021]: teaches the processor (mounting position registration unit 15) determining which group (mounting position) the connector belongs to based on the electrical state/polarity (B+/GND) of those connections; Holger: [0019]: provides the method baseline of distributing power to at least two groups; Wendt: [0059] & [0065]: teaches using electrical data to classify the peripheral into a group/class).
It is recognized that the citations and evidence provided are derived from potentially different embodiments of a single reference. Nevertheless, it 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, to employ combinations and sub-combinations of these complementary embodiments, and otherwise motivate experimentation and optimization. A POSITA would be motivated to execute Ohashi’s method for determining a peripheral’s position using Wendt’s active polarity-measuring steps with Holger’s grouped vehicle architecture, according to known methods. The motivation is to upgrade the system from a plug-and-play network into a robust, fault-tolerant system. Applying Wendt’s active measuring step prevents the system from trusting passive pin states, verifying electrical integrity while simultaneously executing Ohashi’s step of determining the predetermined vehicle group or position the connector belongs to. Integrating Wendt’s teachings predictably yields (KSR) a safer, vehicle power architecture, which is a design choice for an engineer looking to improve the method of auto-configuring a decentralized vehicle power network.
Regarding independent claim 26, Ohashi, teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions thereon that [0069], when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform steps comprising ([0019], [0021] & [0069]):
Ohashi, in combination with Holger, are silent in regard to:
determining an electrical measurement of a polarity of connection between a peripheral and a central power supply that the peripheral is connected to via a connector of the central power supply; and
determining which one of at least two groups the connector associated with the peripheral is among according to the electrical measurement.
However, Wendt, further teaches:
determining an electrical measurement of a polarity of connection between a peripheral and a central power supply that the peripheral is connected to via a connector of the central power supply ([0048]-[0050], [0053]-[0054], [0059] & [0065]: discloses processor executing instructions to take an electrical measurement (measured detection test current) to determine the polarity of the connection between the peripheral and the centralized power supply); and
It 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, to modify the computer instructions stored on Ohashi’s non-transitory medium to include Wendt’s active polarity measurement steps and instructions, into the position-determining method taught by Ohashi and Holger, according to known methods. The motivation is to upgrade the software’s fault tolerance and diagnostic safety of the vehicle’s auto-configuration method. Instead of the processor executing Ohashi’s group-determination step based on passive pin layouts, applying Wendt’s teachings requires the processor to first measure the polarity of the connection. This allows the integrated computer program to execute a programmed safety check to verify electrical integrity and prevent short circuits, Wendt’s primary goal, and use the same electrical measurement data to execute Ohashi’s instructions for determining which predetermined group or vehicle position the connector belongs to. Integrating Wendt’s programmed measurement steps predictably yields (KSR) a self-diagnostic software for auto-configuring vehicle power architectures, a standard and desirable programming practice in automotive control systems.
However, Ohashi, in combination with Holger, and Wendt, further teach:
determining which one of at least two groups the connector associated with the peripheral is among according to the electrical measurement (Ohashi: [0019]-[0021]: teaches the processor executing instructions to determine which group (mounting position) the connector belongs to based on the measured electrical state/polarity (B+/GND) of those localized connections; Holger: [0019]: provides the base architecture of distributing power to at least two groups; Wendt: [0059] & [0065]: teaches using the measured electrical data to classify the peripheral).
It is recognized that the citations and evidence provided are derived from potentially different embodiments of a single reference. Nevertheless, it 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, to employ combinations and sub-combinations of these complementary embodiments, and otherwise motivate experimentation and optimization. A POSITA would be motivated to integrate Ohashi’s spatial position-determining logic and Wendt’s active polarity-measuring steps as executable software instructions stored on a non-transitory memory medium within a vehicle’s central processor, along with Holger’s grouped vehicle architecture, according to known methods. Ohashi’s vehicle auto-configuration logic is designed to be executed via a computer program stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and would be a design choice to integrate with Wendt’s active measurement steps, and Holger’s grouped architecture. This would allow vehicle manufacturers to safely and automatically configure the vehicle’s electrical network while being able to update the measurement threshold or grouping logic via software upgrades, predictably yielding (KSR) an adaptable and safe power architecture.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi, in view of Nowicki et al. (US 2018/0143250 A1, Pub. Date May 24, 2018, hereinafter Nowicki), in view of Holger, in view of Wendt, in view of Sun et al. (US 2013/0063116 A1, Pub. Date Mar. 14, 2013, hereinafter, Sun), and further in view of Dunge (US 2022/0247189 A1, Fil. Date Feb. 22, 2019, hereinafter, Dunge).
Regarding dependent claim 18, Ohashi, teaches:
The system according to claim 17 (Fig. 1; [0001]-[0002], [0006], [0016]-[0018], & [0021]),
wherein the set of poles comprises a power supply pole and a ground pole ([0018]-[0020]: discloses system with power supply (+B) and ground (GND) poles), the peripheral comprises an electrical circuit comprising sub-circuits, each of which comprises ([0018]-[0020] & [0038]-[0041]: discloses electrical circuit containing sub-circuits (switching elements 20a/20b) with distinct connection terminals):
a distinct respective connection terminal (Figs. 5-7; [0018]-[0019] & [0038]-[0041]: discloses with distinct terminals (9a/9b) linked to common paths),
a first common pole (Figs. 5-7; [0018]-[0019] & [0038]-[0041]), and
a second common pole (Figs. 5-7; [0018]-[0019] & [0038]-[0041]),
the peripheral is adapted so that, for each of the connectors, the distinct respective connection terminal of each of the sub-circuits is connected to a distinct respective connection point of the connection interface of each of the connectors (Fig. 3; [0018]-[0020], [0025]-[0028] & [0039]-[0040]: teaches adapting the peripheral so that each connection terminal routes to distinct connection points on the interface ports),
Ohashi, in combination with Holger, are silent in regard to:
with at least the distinct respective connection terminal of one of the sub-circuits connected to the distinct respective connection point connected to the power supply pole and the distinct respective connection terminal of another of the sub-circuits connected to the distinct respective connection point connected to the ground pole.
However, Ohashi, in combination with Wendt, further teach:
with at least the distinct respective connection terminal of one of the sub-circuits connected to the distinct respective connection point connected to the power supply pole and the distinct respective connection terminal of another of the sub-circuits connected to the distinct respective connection point connected to the ground pole (Ohashi: Figs 3 & 5-7; [0018]-[0020], [0025]-[0028], [0039]-[0041], [0046]-[0049] & [0054]-[0055]: teaches routing the distinct respective connection terminals 9a/9b of the peripheral to specific connection points on the vehicle connector. One distinct terminal is hardwired to the ground pole (GND) and another terminal can be hardwired to the power supply pole (+B)); Wendt: [0010]-[0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the electronic device connection system of Ohashi to include the polarity adaptation interface taught by Wendt, according to known methods. The motivation for this modification would be to eliminate the need for a user to verify connection polarity, thereby preventing reverse-polarity damage and increasing the ease of use of the connection. This combination applies a known technique for adaptive polarity routing (Wendt) to a known peripheral interface (Ohashi) to yield the predictable result (KSR) of a reversible connection system.
Ohashi, in combination with Holger, and Wendt are silent in regard to:
each of the sub-circuits is configured to stop current from flowing from the first common pole to the distinct respective connection terminal and to stop current from flowing from the distinct respective connection terminal to the second common pole,
However, Sun, further teaches:
each of the sub-circuits is configured to stop current from flowing from the first common pole to the distinct respective connection terminal and to stop current from flowing from the distinct respective connection terminal to the second common pole (Fig. 2; [0012] & [0015]-[0016]: teaches TRCB utilizing PMOS sub-circuits configured to stop bidirectional reverse current flow between poles and terminals),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the sub-circuits of the electronic device connection system of Ohashi to include the True Reverse Current Blocking (TRCB) configuration taught by Sun, according to known methods. The motivation for this modification would be to maximize power transfer efficiency and minimize thermal dissipation at the connection interface by shorting out the p-n junction during forward conduction, ensuring the distinct connection terminal and the common pole operate at the same voltage potential. This combination involves the substitution of a standard switching or blocking element with a known active TRCB switching element (Sun) within a known peripheral connection circuit (Ohashi) to yield the predictable result (KSR) of a bidirectional reverse-current protected interface.
Ohashi, in combination with Holger, Wendt, and Sun, are silent in regard to:
and so that, when the current flows from the distinct respective connection terminal to the first common pole, then the distinct respective connection terminal and the first common pole are at a first same potential,
and when the current flows from the second common pole to the distinct respective connection terminal, then the second common pole and the distinct respective connection terminal are at a second same potential, and
However, Sun, in combination with Dunge, further teach:
and so that, when the current flows from the distinct respective connection terminal to the first common pole, then the distinct respective connection terminal and the first common pole are at a first same potential (Sun: Fig. 2; [0015]-[0016]: teaches using active MOSFET switching (TCRB) instead of passive diodes, the p-n junction is shorted out, during forward conduction the terminal and the pole are at the same potential (zero drop voltage)); Dunge: [0013]), and when the current flows from the second common pole to the distinct respective connection terminal, then the second common pole and the distinct respective connection terminal are at a second same potential (Sun: Fig. 2; [0015]-[0016]; Dunge: [0009]: similar to first pole, secondary routing path utilizes the active switching state to equalize the potential between the second pole and terminal during current flow), and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the electronic device connection system of Ohashi to include the True Reverse Current Blocking (TRCB) circuitry taught by Sun in combination with the reverse polarity protection switching circuitry taught by Dunge, according to known methods. The motivation for this modification would be to provide bidirectional electrical fault protection, preventing both reverse current feedback and reverse polarity damage, while eliminating thermal inefficiencies and voltage drops inherent to diode protection. This combination involves combining known active switching protection schemes (Sun and Dunge) with a known peripheral power routing circuit (Ohashi) to yield the predictable result (KSR) of a connection interface where the input terminals and common poles safely operate at the same voltage potential.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi, in view of Nowicki, in view of Fink (US 2014/0246902 A1, Pub. Date Sep. 4, 2014, hereinafter, Fink), in view of Holger, in view of Wendt, in view of Sun, and further in view of Dunge.
Regarding dependent claim 19, Ohashi, teaches:
The system according to claim 18 (Fig. 1; [0001]-[0002], [0006], [0016]-[0018], & [0021]),
Ohashi, is silent in regard to:
wherein each of the sub-circuits comprises:
a first diode configured to stop current from flowing from the first common pole to the distinct respective connection terminal, and
a second diode configured to stop current from flowing from the distinct respective connection terminal to the second common pole.
However, Nowicki, in combination with Fink, further teach:
wherein each of the sub-circuits comprises (Nowicki: [0037]-[0039] & [0042]; Fink: [0025]-[0027]: establishes sub-circuit (bridge rectifier 9) connected to the distinct respective connection terminal (locating connection 3)):
a first diode configured to stop current from flowing from the first common pole to the distinct respective connection terminal (Fig. 1; [0025]-[0027] & [0029]), and
a second diode configured to stop current from flowing from the distinct respective connection terminal to the second common pole (Figs. 1 & 19; [0025]-[0027] & [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate, a dual-diode sub-circuit structure of Fink into the distinct connection terminals of the location-aware peripheral taught by Ohashi, according to known methods. The motivation is to protect the peripheral’s internal processing circuitry from reverse polarity damage. Ohashi’s system inherently subjects the peripheral’s input pins to different polarity combinations (+B and GND) to establish a location signature. Providing Fink’s diode-based polarity protection is a necessary upgrade to handle the polarity connections at different locations required by Ohashi. This combination yields a self-configuring automotive peripheral that can safely decode its physical location without risking electrical failure from reverse polarity, as performed by the rectifying/blocking action of diodes 10a-10d in Fink, thus yield predictable expected results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 20, Ohashi, teaches:
The system according to claim 18 (Fig. 1; [0001]-[0002], [0006], [0016]-[0018], & [0021]),
Ohashi, is silent in regard to:
wherein each of the sub-circuits comprises a respective resistor, and
the electrical measurement comprises, for the respective resistor of the sub-circuits, a respective measurement of voltage across terminals of the respective resistor.
However, Nowicki, further teaches:
wherein each of the sub-circuits comprises a respective resistor (Fig. 3; [0020]-[0023]), and
the electrical measurement comprises, for the respective resistor of the sub-circuits, a respective measurement of voltage across terminals of the respective resistor (Table 1; [Abstract], [0005], [0024]-[0025], [0028],[ 0033], [0046], [0050], [Claim 1] & [Claim 15]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the resistor-based sub-circuits and voltage measurement techniques taught by Nowicki into the location-aware automotive peripheral taught by Ohashi and Wendt, according to known methods. The motivation is to improve the diagnostic efficiency and reduce the wiring complexity of the system. By assigning respective resistors to the peripheral’s sub-circuits, as taught by Nowicki, the central processor can utilize a voltage measurement across the terminals to simultaneously decode multiple complex electrical states or physical locations from a single connection line. This combination yields a multi-state location detection system that requires fewer physical pins/wires, optimizing the vehicle’s electrical harness, provide diagnostics, detecting open/short faults as taught by Nowicki, yielding predictable expected results (KSR).
Claims 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi, in view of Holger, and in view of Wendt, and further in view of Smith et al. (US 2020/0196095 A1, Pub. Date Jun. 18, 2020, hereinafter, Smith).
Regarding dependent claim 22, Ohashi, teaches:
The system according to claim 15 (Fig. 1; [0001]-[0002], [0006], [0016]-[0018], & [0021]),
Ohashi, in combination with Holger, and Wendt, are silent in regard to:
further comprising a reference peripheral at a reference position, and
wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine a relative location of the peripheral relative to the reference peripheral; and determine the different position of the peripheral according to the relative location and the reference position.
However, Smith, further teaches:
further comprising a reference peripheral at a reference position ([0065], [0070], [0073]-[0075] & [0082]-[0083]: teaches a system utilizing reference peripherals (sensors 40/anchors) that are physically stationed at fixed, known reference positions around the vehicle), and
wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine a relative location of the peripheral relative to the reference peripheral ([0065], [0070] & [0073]-[0076]: discloses a processor configured to measure the range (relative physical distance or location) of the targeted peripheral (remote device 20) relative to the reference peripheral (sensor 40)); and determine the different position of the peripheral according to the relative location and the reference position ([0065], [0070], [0073]-[0076] & [0082]-[0083]: teaches determining the differential final position (absolute position estimate) of the peripheral by mathematically processing the relative locations (ranges) against the known reference positions of the sensors using a lateration algorithm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate Smith’s anchor-based multilateration positioning logic into the decentralized vehicle network taught by Ohashi and Holger, according to known methods. The motivation is to upgrade the vehicle’s spatial awareness from basic hardwired grouping to high-precision, dynamic relative tracking. By applying Smith’s teachings, the vehicle processor can designate specific nodes to calculate a precise differential position estimate. This combination predictably yields a smart, spatially-aware vehicle architecture capable of tracking both hardwired and wireless peripherals with accuracy, advancing the automation and localization goals in the base prior art teachings, yielding predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 23, Ohashi, teaches:
The system according to claim 22 (Fig. 1; [0001]-[0002], [0006], [0016]-[0018], & [0021]),
Ohashi, in combination with Holger, and Wendt, are silent in regard to:
wherein the relative location comprises a measurement of distance between the peripheral and the reference peripheral.
However, Smith, further teaches:
wherein the relative location comprises a measurement of distance between the peripheral and the reference peripheral ([0075]-[0076], [0091] & [0162]: teaches that the relative location (the range/localization output) comprises a calculated measurement of distance between the transmitter (the peripheral) and the receiver/sensor (the reference peripheral)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate Smith’s anchor-based multilateration positioning logic into the decentralized vehicle network taught by Ohashi and Holger, according to known methods. The motivation to measure a physical distance aligns with the multilateration rationale previously established. A POSITA combining Ohashi’s absolute hardwired position with Smith’s dynamic RTLS network would inherently configure the processor to calculate the relative location as a specific measurement of distance (e.g., via time-of-flight or RSSI decay). Calculating the actual numerical distance between the peripheral and the reference anchors is the fundamental mathematical prerequisite to execute the lateration functions taught by Smith to yield the expected predictable final differential results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 24, Ohashi, teaches:
The system according to claim 23 (Fig. 1; [0001]-[0002], [0006], [0016]-[0018], & [0021]),
Ohashi, in combination with Holger, and Wendt, are silent in regard to:
wherein the measurement of distance is a time-of-flight measurement.
However, Smith, further teaches:
wherein the measurement of distance is a time-of-flight measurement ([0075]-[0076], [0078] & [0081]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate Smith’s anchor-based multilateration positioning logic into the decentralized vehicle network taught by Ohashi and Holger, according to known methods. The motivation to utilize a time-of-flight measurement integrates into the rationale established previously for utilizing Smith’s positioning network. Basic distance estimations can be made using signal strength (RSSI). RSSI is susceptible to environmental fading, reflection, and attenuation inside a vehicle. A POSITA would be motivated to implement Smith’s time-of-flight (TOF) measurement technique via UWB to determine the relative distance. The motivation is to enhance the accuracy and stability of the localization estimate. Time-of-flight measures the actual physical travel time of the radio waves, making it immune to the signal-attenuation issues of RSSI, predictably yielding (KSR) a precise differential position calculation for the vehicle’s spatial network.
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 HUGO NAVARRO whose telephone number is (571)272-6122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 08:30-5:00 pm EST.
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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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.
/HUGO NAVARRO/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858 May 11, 2026
/EMAN A ALKAFAWI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 5/15/2026
Prosecution Insights