DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Applicant’s Amendment filed 05/18/2026 has been entered. Claim 17 has been added. Claims 1-17 are pending in the Application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/18/2026 with respect to the prior art rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, the Applicant argues that the cited art fails to teach the newly amended limitation “after transmitting the first data to the second processing unit, transmitting the first data and a second data from the second processing unit to the first processing unit”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. At the outset, the Examiner submitted that the rejection mapped the 1st data as the status field 220 and the second data as the status field 218 as shown in figure 2 reproduced below. It is clear in figure 2 that the 1st data 220 is transmitted to the second processing unit 108 via data signal 114 first. After the 1st data 220 is transmitted to second processing unit 108, the 1st data 220 and the 2nd data 218 are transmitted to the first processing unit 102 via data signal 116 as shown on the timeline in figure 2. The Examiner further submitted that any other data field that is transmitted after the 1st data 220 can also be construed as the 2nd data.
PNG
media_image1.png
1206
769
media_image1.png
Greyscale
114: transmission from 3rd unit to 2nd unit
116: transmission from 2nd unit to 1st unit
220: 1st data
218: 2nd data
Based on the reasoning above, the rejection should be maintained. Please see below for the detailed rejection.
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.
Claim 17 is 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.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites the limitation “wherein the first processing unit is only directly communicatively coupled to the second processing unit.” The limitation is not supported by the originally filed Specification. The filed Specification explicitly shown that the first processing unit 1 is directly coupled with multiple processing units 2, 3 and 4 via a signal channel SK to communicate the claimed synchronization signals (see figure 2 and para 0090, The first processing unit 1 is connected to each processing unit 2, 3 and optionally 4 via a signal channel SK which is configured for transmitting synchronisation signals). For the purpose of claim mapping, the Examiner construes that the first processing unit is directly coupled to multiple processing units, including the second processing unit as disclosed in the Specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-11, 14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Raja et al US 20190188174.
Regarding claim 1, Raja teaches computer-implemented method for transmitting data (see figure 1 and figure 2), comprising the steps of:
transmitting a synchronisation signal via a first processing unit (select signal 118 transmitted via master device 102);
receiving the synchronisation signal by a second and/or a third processing unit, at a receiving timepoint in each case (select signal 118 is received by slave device 108 and slave device 106 and 108);
transmitting first data from the third processing unit to the second processing unit (see para 0026, the slave device 106 is transmitting a status field 220 in the data signal 114 e.g. to slave device 108), wherein the transmission of the first data takes place at a first transmission timepoint which depends on the respective receiving timepoint of the reception of the synchronisation signal by the second and/or third processing unit (see figure 2 shows that the transmission of 220 is depends on a reception timepoint of signal 118); and
after transmitting the first data to the second processing unit, transmitting the first data and a second data from the second processing unit to the first processing unit (see para 0026 and figure 2, the slave device 108 is transmitting the status field 220 and a status field 218 in the data signal 116 e.g. it is clear that first data 220 and second data 218 are transmitted from the second processing unit after the first data 220 is transmitted to the second processing unit as shown in the timeline in figure 2), wherein the transmission of the first data and the second data takes place at a second transmission timepoint which depends on the respective receiving timepoint of the reception of the synchronisation signal by the second and/or third processing unit (see figure 2 shows that the transmission of 220 and 218 are depends on a reception timepoint of signal 118, also see para 0021, The select signal 118 defines a frame interval (a time during which data is transferred between the master device 102 and the slave devices 104-108)).
Regarding claim 2, Raja further teaches the first transmission timepoint is a sum of the receiving timepoint of the receiving of the synchronisation signal by the second and/or third processing unit, a first time offset, and/or a time duration, and/or in that the second transmission timepoint is the sum of the receiving timepoint of the receiving of the synchronisation signal by the second and/or third processing unit, a second time offset, and/or a time duration (figure 2 shows that the transmission timepoints is a sum of receiving timepoint of select signal 118 and a time duration/offset before clock 120 start).
Regarding claim 3, Raja further teaches before transmitting of first data from the third processing unit to the second processing unit, of: collecting the first data by means of the third processing unit (see para 0054, The slave device retrieves the reply value from the storage 608).
Regarding claim 4, Raja further teaches before transmitting of the first data and the second data from the second processing unit to the first processing unit, of: collecting the second data by means of the second processing unit (see para 0054, The slave device retrieves the reply value from the storage 608).
Regarding claim 5, Raja further teaches the collecting of the first data takes place at a first collection timepoint, which is a sum of the receiving timepoint of the receiving of the synchronisation signal by the second and/or third processing unit, and of the first time offset, and/or in that the collecting of the second data takes place at a second collection timepoint, which is a sum of the receiving timepoint of the receiving of the synchronisation signal by the second and/or third processing unit, and of the second time offset (see figure 2 shows that the transmission/collection of 220 is depends on a reception timepoint of signal 118, also see para 0021, The select signal 118 defines a frame interval (a time during which data is transferred between the master device 102 and the slave devices 104-108)).
Regarding claim 6, Raja further teaches the transmission of the first data and/or of the second data from the second processing unit to the first processing unit takes place via exactly one data channel (see figure 1 shows that only one data channel is used).
Regarding claim 7, Raja further teaches the steps of the method are carried out multiple times (see para 0017, in some implementations, two transactions (two communication frames) are required).
Regarding claim 9, Raja further teaches system comprising a first, second and third processing unit, which are in each case configured so as to carry out a method according to claim 1 (see figure 1, communication system 100 comprising the master device 102, the slave device 108 and 106).
Regarding claim 10, Raja further teaches the first, second and/or third processing unit in each case comprise or constitute a processor (see para 0002, master device, such as a microcontroller, also see para 0004, the slave device includes execution control circuitry).
Regarding claim 11, Raja further teaches the first, second and/or third processing unit are connected directly or indirectly via a data channel (see figure 1, data channel of 110, 112, 114, and 116).
Regarding claim 14, Raja further teaches the steps of the method are carried out periodically (see para 0021, a frame interval e.g. transmission is periodically during the time defined by the frame interval).
Regarding claim 16, Raja further teaches the first, second and/or third processing unit are connected directly or indirectly via a high-speed data bus (see figure 1, the bus including 110, 112, 114, and 116).
Regarding claim 17, Raja teaches computer-implemented method for transmitting data (see figure 1 and figure 2), comprising the steps of:
transmitting a synchronisation signal via a first processing unit (select signal 118 transmitted via master device 102);
receiving the synchronisation signal by a second and/or a third processing unit, at a receiving timepoint in each case (select signal 118 is received by slave device 108 and slave device 106 and 108);
transmitting first data from the third processing unit to the second processing unit (see para 0026, the slave device 106 is transmitting a status field 220 in the data signal 114 e.g. to slave device 108), wherein the transmission of the first data takes place at a first transmission timepoint which depends on the respective receiving timepoint of the reception of the synchronisation signal by the second and/or third processing unit (see figure 2 shows that the transmission of 220 is depends on a reception timepoint of signal 118); and
transmitting the first data and a second data from the second processing unit to the first processing unit (see para 0026 and figure 2, the slave device 108 is transmitting the status field 220 and a status field 218 in the data signal 116), wherein the transmission of the first data and the second data takes place at a second transmission timepoint which depends on the respective receiving timepoint of the reception of the synchronisation signal by the second and/or third processing unit (see figure 2 shows that the transmission of 220 and 218 are depends on a reception timepoint of signal 118, also see para 0021, The select signal 118 defines a frame interval (a time during which data is transferred between the master device 102 and the slave devices 104-108)), and wherein the first processing unit is only directly communicatively coupled to the second processing unit (see figure 1 showing the coupling between the units 102, 108).
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 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raja as applied to claims above, and further in view of Zielbauer US 20030014680.
Regarding claim 8, Raja teaches all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
But Raja fails to teach the first and/or the second transmission timepoint is adjusted.
However, Zielbauer teaches adjusting device’s transmission timepoint (see figures 3B-3D and para 0079, each data source 3, 4, 5 sets a time delay ΔTi (i=1, 2, 3 . . .) for all its dispatched data to the value ΔTi=Tn−ti).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the method and system of Raja and further incorporate adjusting the transmission timepoint via a delay.
The motivation for doing so is to prevent synchronization losses caused by propagation delays in communication between the devices.
Regarding claim 15, Raja teaches all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
But Raja fails to teach the first and/or the second transmission timepoint is adjusted to a latency of the third and/or second processing unit in each case.
However, Zielbauer teaches adjusting device’s transmission timepoint to a latency of the third and/or second processing unit in each case (see figures 3B-3D and para 0079, each data source 3, 4, 5 sets a time delay ΔTi (i=1, 2, 3 . . .) for all its dispatched data to the value ΔTi=Tn−ti, also see para 0072, ti (i=1, 2, 3) is the measured signal propagation time between the control device 1 and the respective data source 3, 4, 5 e.g. latency of the device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the method and system of Raja and further incorporate adjusting the transmission timepoint via a delay.
The motivation for doing so is to prevent synchronization losses caused by propagation delays in communication between the devices.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raja as applied to claims above, and further in view of Esaki US 20180007408.
Regarding claim 12, Raja teaches all the features with respect to claim 9 as outlined above.
But Raja fails to teach the system is a component of a flight control of an aircraft.
However, Esaki teaches a communication synchronization system as a component of a flight control of an aircraft (see para 0031, a process synchronization control system 10 according to the embodiment is incorporated in, for example, a flight control system that performs flight control of an aircraft).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the method and system of Raja and further incorporate them into a flight control system of an aircraft.
The motivation for doing is to improve the communication reliability in the system.
Regarding claim 13, Raja teaches all the features with respect to claim 3 as outlined above.
But Raja fails to teach collecting the first data and collecting the second data includes reading out a sensor.
However, Esaki teaches collecting data by reading out a sensor (see figure 1 and para 0033, the three channels A to C acquire the respective input signals from the sensor 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the method and system of Raja and further incorporate sensor data collection.
The motivation for doing so is to obtain sensor data to further refining the control of the system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kessler et al US 20170222829 discloses synchronous slave-to-slave and master-to-slave communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHONG H DANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM - 6:00PM.
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, Henry Tsai can be reached at (571)272-4176. 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.
/PHONG H DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2184
Prosecution Insights