DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
A1) The argument by the applicants states “Trichias discloses that the data value may be contained in a name of the message, whereas the measurement unit is in the content of the message” [Reply; page 7].
Response by the examiner: The newly added claim limitation, to the independent claims 1, 11, and 20, of “response comprises the measurement unit as part of the name of the signal” is a broad limitation The “name” is not further described in the claim. As shown in the previous 102 rejection, in the Non-Final Office Action, filed 11/14/25, the term “name” is not specifically described in the claim language as being within the header or payload of the message. The Trichias reference does disclose the unit of measurement is within a field in the response message, which can be seen as “name” [Trichias; para 0066, 0094, and 0121-0122]. These paragraphs weren’t not cited in the previous 102 rejection.
Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 02/05/2026, with respect independent claims 1, 11, and 20, to the previous 102 rejection, by Trichias, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the 103 rejections, below.
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 1, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trichias et al. (“Trichias”) [PGPUB 2021/0120098] in view of Li et al. (“Li”) [PGPUB 2021/0067613].
Regarding claim 1, the Trichias reference discloses a method at a computing device comprising: sending a request for data from a signal to a second entity [ie. transmit an interest message (“request for data”); Trichias; figure 4; paragraph 0024, 0058, and 0060-0061]; and
receiving a response providing the data, the response further specifying a measurement unit for the signal [ie. returned message (“receiving a response”) contains unit of measurement; Trichias; fig 4; para 0066 and 0072].
The Trichias reference does disclose the unit of measurement is within a field in the response message, which can be seen as the broad terminology of “name”, within the claim [Trichias; para 0066, 0094, and 0121-0122]. The Trichias reference does not specifically disclose wherein the response comprises the measurement unit as part of the name of the signal.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Li discloses wherein the response comprises the measurement unit as part of the name of the signal [ie. the header is a name; Li; fig 3 and 5; para 0034-0035 and 0066]. The Trichias and Li references are analogous art, since they have similar problem solving area in being able to manage labeling measurements. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the measurement unit within the name/header, taught by Li, into the system, taught by Trichias. The motivation for doing so would have been for the data to be automatically identified and analyzed [Li; para 0020].
Regarding claims 11, the apparatus of claim 11 performs the similar steps as the method of claim 1. The combination of Trichias-Li teaches the method of claim 1, as referenced above. The additional limitations of a “processor” and a “communication subsystem” are rejected with the citation of paragraphs 0040 and 0154 of Trichias. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, by the teachings of Trichias-Li.
Regarding claim 20, the article of manufacture of claim 20 performs the similar steps as the method of claim 1. The combination of Trichias-Li teaches the method of claim 1, as referenced above. The additional limitation of a “computer readable medium” is rejected with the citation of paragraphs 0036-0037 of Trichias. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, by the teachings of Trichias-Li.
Claims 1, 5, 11, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trichias et al. (“Trichias”) [PGPUB 2021/0120098] in view of Flynn, IV et al. (“Flynn”) [PGPUB 2019/0007513].
Regarding claim 1, the Trichias reference discloses a method at a computing device comprising: sending a request for data from a signal to a second entity [ie. transmit an interest message (“request for data”); Trichias; figure 4; paragraph 0024, 0058, and 0060-0061]; and
receiving a response providing the data, the response further specifying a measurement unit for the signal [ie. returned message (“receiving a response”) contains unit of measurement; Trichias; fig 4; para 0066 and 0072].
The Trichias reference does disclose the unit of measurement is within a field in the response message, which can be seen as the broad terminology of “name”, within the claim [Trichias; para 0066, 0094, and 0121-0122]. The Trichias reference does not specifically disclose wherein the response comprises the measurement unit as part of the name of the signal.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Flynn discloses wherein the response comprises the measurement unit as part of the name of the signal [Flynn; Table 4; para 0008-0009 and 0053-0054]. The Trichias and Flynn references are analogous art, since they have similar problem solving area in being able to manage labeling measurements. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the measurement unit within the name, taught by Flynn, into the system, taught by Trichias. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce complexity and overhead to have the measurement unit in the name [Flynn; para 0014].
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Trichias-Flynn further discloses the response includes using a separator after a signal name, the measurement unit being specified after the separator [ie “/” is a “separator”. Also “@” can be read as a separator; Trichias; para 0111 and 0124-0125].
Regarding claims 11 and 15, the apparatus of claims 11 and 15 perform the similar steps as the method of claims 1 and 5. The combination of Trichias-Flynn teaches the method of claims 1 and 5, as referenced above. The additional limitations of a “processor” and a “communication subsystem” are rejected with the citation of paragraphs 0040 and 0154 of Trichias. Therefore, claims 11 and 15 are rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of claims 1 and 5, by the teachings of Trichias-Flynn.
Regarding claim 20, the article of manufacture of claim 20 performs the similar steps as the method of claim 1. The combination of Trichias-Flynn teaches the method of claim 1, as referenced above. The additional limitation of a “computer readable medium” is rejected with the citation of paragraphs 0036-0037 of Trichias. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, by the teachings of Trichias-Flynn.
Claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trichias-Flynn as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of COVESA VSS documentation (“VSS”) [NPL: COVESA VSS specification “as captured by Archive.org on May 19, 2023”] (Cited on IDS, filed 8/29/24).
Regarding claim 2, the Trichias-Flynn reference does not specifically disclose the signal is part of a tree structure, wherein the response includes the measurement unit as part of a branch to the signal.
However, in the same field of endeavor, VSS discloses the signal is part of a tree structure, wherein the response includes the measurement unit as part of a branch to the signal [VSS; pages 2-3 and 17-18]. The Trichias-Flynn and VSS references are analogous art, since they have similar problem solving area in being able to manage vehicle signaling. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the tree structure of VSS, taught by VSS, into the system, taught by Trichias-Flynn. The motivation for doing so would have been to have common naming for data signals within a vehicle [VSS, page 2].
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Trichias-Flynn-VSS further discloses the response further includes a data type specified as a branch to the signal [Trichias; para 0060-0061] [VSS; pg 17-18 and 24].
Regarding claim 6, the Trichias-Flynn reference does not specifically disclose the measurement unit is defined in an enumerated list of measurement units for the signal.
However, in the same field of endeavor, VSS discloses the measurement unit is defined in an enumerated list of measurement units for the signal [VSS; pages 13-15 and 33]. The Trichias-Flynn and VSS references are analogous art, since they have similar problem solving area in being able to manage vehicle signaling. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of a list for VSS, taught by VSS, into the system, taught by Trichias-Flynn. The motivation for doing so would have been to have naming structure for a list of data signals within a vehicle [VSS, page 2].
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Trichias-Flynn-VSS further discloses the request does not specify the measurement unit, the response includes a first measurement unit from the enumerated list [Trichias; para 0066] [VSS; pages 13-15 and 31].
Regarding claim 10, the Trichias-Flynn reference does not specifically disclose the signal is a connected Vehicle Systems Alliance (COVESA) Vehicle Signal Specification (VSS) signal.
However, in the same field of endeavor, VSS discloses the signal is a connected Vehicle Systems Alliance (COVESA) Vehicle Signal Specification (VSS) signal [VSS; pg 8-9]. The Trichias-Flynn and VSS references are analogous art, since they have similar problem solving area in being able to manage vehicle signaling. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of a COVESA VSS, taught by VSS, into the system, taught by Trichias-Flynn. The motivation for doing so would have been to have a defined naming structure from one group.
Regarding claims 12, 13, 16, and 17, the apparatus of claims 12, 13, 16, and 17 perform the similar steps as the method of claims 2, 3, 6, and 7. The combination of Trichias-Flynn-VSS teaches the method of claims 2, 3, 6, and 7, as referenced above. The additional limitations of a “processor” and a “communication subsystem” are rejected with the citation of paragraphs 0040 and 0154 of Trichias. Therefore, claims 12, 13, 16, and 17 are rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of claims 2, 3, 6, and 7, by the teachings of Trichias-Flynn-VSS.
Claims 8, 9, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trichias-Flynn as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Alvarez Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”) [PGPUB 20130151671] (Cited on IDS, filed 2/28/25).
Regarding claim 8, the Trichias-Flynn reference does not specifically disclose determining that the response is in different measurement units than specified in the request; and converting the measurement units at the computing device.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Rodriguez discloses determining that the response is in different measurement units than specified in the request; and converting the measurement units at the computing device [Rodriguez; fig 6a-6b; para 0026, 0045-0049, and 0058]. The Trichias-Flynn and Rodriguez references are analogous art, since they have similar problem solving area in being able to manage vehicle signaling. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of a converting units, taught by Rodriguez, into the system, taught by Trichias-Flynn. The motivation for doing so would have been to have the measurements to be easily readable by a user.
Regarding claim 9, the Trichias-Flynn reference does not specifically disclose the request includes a first request for data in a first measurement unit, the method further comprising, prior to the receiving: receiving an error message from the second entity in response to the first request; and sending a second request to the second entity, the second request comprising the request for data using the measurement unit for the signal; and after receiving the response, converting the data in measurement unit to the first measurement unit.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Rodriguez discloses the request includes a first request for data in a first measurement unit, the method further comprising, prior to the receiving: receiving an error message from the second entity in response to the first request; and sending a second request to the second entity, the second request comprising the request for data using the measurement unit for the signal; and after receiving the response, converting the data in measurement unit to the first measurement unit [ie. data error and then resolve query; Rodriguez; para 0121-0131 and 0211-0218] The Trichias-Flynn and Rodriguez references are analogous art, since they have similar problem solving area in being able to manage vehicle signaling. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of an error message and converting units, taught by Rodriguez, into the system, taught by Trichias-Flynn. The motivation for doing so would have been to have the measurements to be easily readable by a user.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, the apparatus of claims 18 and 19 perform the similar steps as the method of claims 8 and 9. The combination of Trichias-Flynn-Rodriguez teaches the method of claims 8 and 9, as referenced above. The additional limitations of a “processor” and a “communication subsystem” are rejected with the citation of paragraphs 0040 and 0154 of Trichias. Therefore, claims 18 and 19 are rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of claims 8 and 9, by the teachings of Trichias-Flynn-Rodriguez.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON D CARDONE whose telephone number is (571)272-3933. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8am-4pmEST.
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/JASON D CARDONE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights