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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2022-0001206, filed on 01/04/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/05/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 filed on 06/04/2024 are presently examined. Claims 1-5, 8-13, and 16 have been preliminarily amended.
Response to Arguments
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 112(f), Applicant states since the claims do not use means plus function language, 112(f) is not invoked. Examiner respectfully disagrees. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Examiner kindly reminds Applicant that 112(f) interpretation invocation is not a rejection, but rather merely additional clarity for the record. If the structure described in Applicant’s specification were recited in the claims, the invocation would no longer be necessary.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 112(a), amendments result in the withdrawal of the rejection.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 112(b), amendments result in the withdrawal of the rejection.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant's arguments filed 12/08/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Further, after additional consideration, there is no identifiable abstract idea in the independent claims.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant's arguments filed 12/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues Takhashi does not teach the limitation the set time delay is set based on an amount of time required for the controller to acquire data of the set size unit from the first module and an amount of time required for the controller to transmit the data of the set size unit to the second module. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Takahashi receives data from a first module and transmits data from a second module. Takashi uses a buffer delay to delay receiving additional data until the slower transmission module completes its transmission. Therefore, Takashi teaches the time delay is set based on the amount of time required for the first module to acquire data of a size and also the amount of time it takes for the second module to transmit said data. This is obvious in combination with Lightner, who uses a generic preset time delay between receiving vehicle data of set sizes. It would be obvious to specify that Lightner’s generic preset time delay is based on Takahashi’s teaching for the determination of the buffer delay time amount.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“first module configured to manage state data of a vehicle” in claims 1-5, 8-13, and 16. First module is described in Applicant’s specification as [0040] “the first module 20 includes a microcontroller unit (MCU) for obtaining and managing state data of the vehicle via sensors in the vehicle” [0053] “the first module 20 may be a vehicle MCU such as ESP32-WROOM32”
“second module configured to communicate with an external device outside the vehicle” in claims 1-2, 4, 8-10, 12, and 16. Second module is described in Applicant’s specification as [0044] “The second module 30 (e.g., an LTE module such as EC25-E) may receive the vehicle data via the communication apparatus 10 and transmit the data to the external server 31 through long-distance communication.” [0053] “the second module 30 may be an LTE module such as EC25-E.”
“a communication unit configured to perform a first communication … and to perform a second communication” in claim 1. Communicator is closest described in Applicant’s specification as [0056] “a communication apparatus according to an example embodiment may include a communication unit for communicating with other modules and a controller for controlling the operation of acquiring or transmitting data from or to other modules. In addition, by dividing the components into hardware and software, the communication apparatus may be composed of an integrated circuit device (e.g., an SPI-to-UART bridge IC) for communication interface conversion and a driver for controlling the operation thereof.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 5-6, 8-9, 13-14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lightner (US 6732031 B1) in view of Takahashi et al. (JP 2013131934 A), hereinafter referred to as Lightner and Takahashi, respectively.
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.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Lightner discloses An in-vehicle communication apparatus, comprising:
a communication unit ([FIG. 2] data collector/router 35) configured to perform a first communication via a first communication interface with a first module configured to manage state data of a vehicle ([FIG. 2] first module is OBD-OII connector 120) and to perform a second communication via a second communication interface with a second module configured to communicate ([FIG. 2] second module is wireless transmitter 106 and antenna 108 ) with an external device the outside the vehicle ([FIG. 2] transmitting externally 38 [column 5, lines 45-48] “collector/router 35a, 35b, 35n receives data from the host vehicle 32a, 32b, 32n and sends it as a data packet over a wireless airlink 38 to the wireless communication system 15.” [column 2, line 57] “remotely characterizing a vehicle's performance”), the second communication interface being different from the first communication interface ([claim 3] OBD uses J1850, ISO 9141-2, or J2284. [column 7, lines 45-59] Wireless transmitting antenna uses an Airlink and Mobitex network.); and
a controller ([column 7, lines 21-22] “data processor 104 (e.g., a microprocessor)”) configured to:
acquire the state data of the vehicle in a set size unit from the first module and to transmit the state data of the vehicle in the set size unit to the second module ([column 8, lines 21-26] “data is passed to the data processor 104 (e.g., a microprocessor) that processes and formats it to form a data packet … data describing the host vehicle is contained in the 516-byte data” [column 7, lines 45-47] “Once properly formatted as described in Table 1, the data packet is passed from the data processor 104 to the wireless transmitter 106.” [Table 1: column 7, lines 30-44]).
acquire next data after a set time delay upon acquiring the data in units of the set size from the first module ([column 6, lines 23-27] “Data is typically sent from the host vehicle 32a, 32b, 32n to each data collector/router 35a, 35b, 35n at a predetermined time interval (e.g. a random or periodic time interval) that is programmed in either the data collector/router or the actual vehicle.” [claim 1] “retrieving data representative of the vehicle's performance, through the vehicle's OBD or OBD-II connector, according to a communication protocol, at a predetermined time interval”).
Lightner fails to disclose the set time delay is set based on an amount of time required for the controller to acquire a unit of data of the set size from the first module and an amount of time required for the controller to transmit the unit of data of the set size to the second module.
However, Takahashi teaches the set time delay is set based on an amount of time required for the controller to acquire a unit of data of the set size from the first module and an amount of time required for the controller to transmit the unit of data of the set size to the second module ([0019] “a high-speed packet speed conversion buffer that stores high-speed packets that are input to a higher-speed port of two ports with different transmission speeds and output from a lower-speed port of the two ports … the wait time of the high-speed packets in the high-speed packet speed conversion buffer using the transmission speed of the high-speed packets, the transmission speed of the low-speed packets, and the size of the high-speed packets”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lightner with Takahashi’s teaching of a speed conversion relay device which utilizes a calculated delay time when converting data packets. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to use a delay time in a multi-device network having different speeds in order to synchronize the time between devices ([0002] “communication is carried out between a PTP master that has an accurate time and a PTP slave that operates on a time different from that of the PTP master, and by communicating multiple information packets between the PTP master and the PTP slave, the time on the PTP slave can be synchronized with the time on the PTP master”).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Lightner fails to disclose The apparatus of claim 4, further comprising a transmission buffer, wherein a size of the transmission buffer of the in-vehicle communication apparatus is set based on the set time delay and an additional time delay caused by a size of a transmission buffer of the first module.
However, Takahashi teaches a transmission buffer, wherein a size of [[a]] the transmission buffer of the in-vehicle communication apparatus is set in consideration of based on the set time delay and an additional time delay caused by a size of a transmission buffer of the first module ([0026] “The time from when a high-speed packet is written into the high-speed packet rate conversion buffer 11 until when it is read out is the waiting time of the high-speed packet.” [0029] “the waiting time of a high-speed packet in the speed conversion buffer for high-speed packets 11 is calculated using the transmission speed of the high-speed packet and the size of the high-speed packet measured by the packet size measurement unit 1” [0035] “the high-speed packet rate conversion buffer 11 transmits a signal to the packet size measurement unit 13 at the timing when the first bit and the last bit of the packet are stored.” [0034] “Once it is confirmed that the packet has been completely stored, the high-speed packet rate conversion buffer 11 instantly outputs the packet at the processing rate (100 Mbps) of port p2.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lightner with Takahashi’s teaching of a transmission buffer based on the time delay and size of the transmission buffer. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to use a delay time in a multi-device network having different speeds in order to synchronize the time between devices (Takahashi [0002] “communication is carried out between a PTP master that has an accurate time and a PTP slave that operates on a time different from that of the PTP master, and by communicating multiple information packets between the PTP master and the PTP slave, the time on the PTP slave can be synchronized with the time on the PTP master”).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Lightner discloses The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first communication is faster in data transmission rate per second (The OBD-II is the first communication. [column 11, lines 45-49] “the data collector/router is configured to serially transfer data through an OBD-II connector to the data collector/router, and wherein the data collector/router is configured to transfer data using a J1850, ISO 9141-2, or J2284 protocol.” Per at least the J1850 non-patent literature documentation attached in this Office Action, it is under stood in the art that at least J1850 data transmission speeds are faster than that of the second communication, Mobitex. J1850 is at least 10.4 kbps.) than the second communication ([column 7, lines 50-52] “The data processor 104 formats the data packet according to the wireless communications system that transmits it.” [column 8, lines 25-26] “data packet has a format shown, e.g., in Table 1 above” Table 1 is located at column 7 lines 30 through 44. The data format and protocol used by the wireless transmitter for external transmission, the second communication, is Mobitex. Per the Mobitex standard documentation, which can be read in the attached non-patent literature of this Office Action, it is understood in the art that Mobitex delivers at 8 kbps. This is slower than the first communication rate.).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Lightner discloses The apparatus of claim 1, wherein: the first module comprises a microcontroller unit (MCU) configured to acquire and manage the state data of the vehicle via in-vehicle sensors ([FIG. 2] OBD-II connector 120 and system 100 along with OBD-II interface 102, OBDs manage vehicle state data with in-vehicle sensors. [column 1, lines 46-47] “OBD systems (e.g., computer, microcontrollers, and sensors)”), and the second module comprises a communication module configured to perform communication with the external device via a wireless broadband communication network ([FIG. 2] Wireless transmitter 106 and antenna 108. [column 2, lines 57-65] “remotely characterizing a vehicle's performance … transmitting a data packet representing the data with the wireless transmitter over an airlink, to a wireless communications system”).
Regarding claim 17, Lightner discloses The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the communication unit is an integrated circuit device ([column 2, lines 60-63] “transferring the data through an OBD, OBD-II or equivalent electrical connector to a data collector/router that includes a microprocessor and an electrically connected wireless transmitter” where a microprocessor is an integrated circuit.).
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lightner in view of Takahashi as applied to claims 6 and 14 above, further in view of Kim (US 11190957 B2), hereinafter referred to as Kim.
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Lightner discloses The apparatus of claim 6, wherein the first communication interface uses serial data transfer ([column 11, lines 45-49] “the data collector/router is configured to serially transfer data through an OBD-II connector to the data collector/router, and wherein the data collector/router is configured to transfer data using a J1850, ISO 9141-2, or J2284 protocol.”) and the second communication interface has data formatted according to the wireless protocol that transmits it ([column 7, lines 50-52] “The data processor 104 formats the data packet according to the wireless communications system that transmits it.” [column 8, lines 25-26] “data packet has a format shown, e.g., in Table 1 above”) both of which can include different types of networks or data formats, and adjustments can be made to accomplish the method of the invention [column 9, lines 24-29] “the format of the data packet may also be adjusted for transmission over different types of networks. In general, any components in the data collector/router, and any format of the data packet, can be used to accomplish the general method of the invention.”).
Lightner fails to explicitly disclose that the communication paths are SPI and UART.
However, Kim teaches an interface of the first communication is a Serial Peripheral Interconnect (SPI), and an interface of the second communication interface is a Universal Asynchronous Receiver/Transmitter (UART) ([column 6, lines 59-64] “the plurality of communication paths may be … Serial Peripheral Interface (SPI) … or a Universal Asynchronous Receiver/Transmitter (UART).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the clamed invention to modify Lightner with Kim’s teaching of a vehicle’s communication paths including SPI and UART. Lightner states explicitly that the method of the invention can be accomplished by adjusting for different types of networks and formats. There are a finite number of communication paths, formats, and networks to choose from, and the combination of SPI and UART would be obvious to try, and would yield predictable results.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lightner in view of Takahashi and Kim as applied to claim 7 above, further in view of Kulkarni et al. (AU 2021106414 A4), hereinafter referred to as Kulkarni.
Regarding claim 18, Lightner discloses the communication unit is at least an OBD-to-Mobitex wireless transmission bridge integrated circuit; and the controller is an OBD-to-Mobitex driver configured to control operation of the OBD-to-Mobitex bridge integrated circuit ([column 2, lines 60-63] “transferring the data through an OBD, OBD-II or equivalent electrical connector to a data collector/router that includes a microprocessor and an electrically connected wireless transmitter” where a microprocessor is an integrated circuit.).
Lightner fails to explicitly disclose the communication unit is an SPI-to-UART bridge integrated circuit; and the controller is an SPI-to-UART driver configured to control operation of the SPI-to-UART bridge integrated circuit.
However, Kulkarni teaches the communication unit is an SPI-to-UART bridge integrated circuit; and the controller is an SPI-to-UART driver configured to control operation of the SPI-to- UART bridge integrated circuit ([claim 1] “UART-to-SPI bridge” controlled by the CPU or MCU microcontroller.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lightner with Kulkarni’s teaching of a CPU or MCU controlling an SPI-to-UART bridge communication device. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to use a CPU or MCU to control an SPI-to-UART bridge communication device in order to fill the need to bridge SPI to UART communications to enable fast and efficient communication between devices (Kulkarni [background of the present invention] “there is need to develop and introduce a protocol bridge for effective and fast data communications. Hence the present invention provides an UART SPI protocol bridge which enable communication between devices efficiently.”).
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 MARK R HEIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0120. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
/M.R.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights