CTNF 18/832,011 CTNF 74408 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claim 1-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. As claims 1, 7-9, a recitation “a second PHY unit” is vague and indefinite because it is unclear if the fourth ECU includes a first PHY unit. As claim 3, a recitation “a third PHY unit” is vague and indefinite because it is unclear if the relay device includes a first and second PHY unit. As claim 7, “the relay device according claim1” is vague and indefinite because it is unclear if all the claim or only body of claim is included in claim 7. For this action, the examiner includes all claim 1 into claim 7. Please clarify, so metes and bound of the claims can be determined. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 8-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because a single claim which claims both an apparatus and a method, is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim is directed into both a "process" and a "machine" and overlaps two different statutory classes. Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because Applicant has claimed a “a computer program” for causing a computer to “execute” instructions in the preamble to these claims; this implies that Applicant is claiming a system of software, per se, lacking the hardware necessary to realize any of the underlying functionality. Therefore, claim 9 is directed to non-statutory subject matter as computer programs, per se, i.e. the descriptions or expressions of the programs, are not physical “things.” They are neither computer components nor statutory processes, as they are not “acts” being performed. Such claimed computer programs do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and other claimed elements of a computer, which permit the computer program’s functionality to be realized. In contrast, a claimed computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program is a computer element which defines structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and the rest of the computer which permit the computer program’s functionality to be realized, and is thus statutory. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 The claims 8-9 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. 07-30-06 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: step of in claims 8-9. 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 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue [US 2020/0204397] in view of Kim [US 2019/0361711] . As claims 1 and 7-9, Inoue [US 2020/0204397] discloses a relay device [Fig 2, Ref 5] to be provided in a vehicle and arranged as a node on a communication line connected to a first ECU provided in the vehicle [Fig 2, Ref 2A], the first ECU being bus-connected to a plurality of second ECUs via the communication line [Fig 2, Ref 2B], the communication line having a first region on a side of the relay device corresponding to the first ECU [Fig 2, Ref 2A], and a second region on a side of the relay device opposite to the first ECU [Fig , 2C and 2D], the relay device [Fig 2, Ref 5 and Fig 5] being configured to, in a case where a first control message, which is a control message addressed to the second ECU connected to the second region, is transmitted from the first region to the relay device, relay the first control message to the second region [Fig 5, ECU2A to ECU2C via relay] , and the relay device being further configured to, in a case where a second control message, which is a control message not addressed to the second ECU connected to the second region, is transmitted from the first region to the relay device, not relay the second control message to the second region [Fig 5, relay is not forward message from first region to second region when message is addressed to ECU2B from ECU2A]. However, Inoue fails to disclose what Kim [US 2019/0361711] discloses each of the second ECUs being switchable, based on a control message broadcast to the communication line, from a sleep mode to a normal mode, the sleep mode being a mode in which functionality is restricted to achieve lower power consumption than in the normal mode [Fig 1 discloses nodes such as ECU which can transition between the normal and sleep after receiving a message from another node, Par. 0007-0009], the second ECUs including a third ECU including a first PHY unit configured to switch the third ECU from the sleep mode to the normal mode in a case of receiving a control message addressed to the third ECU, and to not switch the third ECU from the sleep mode to the normal mode in a case of receiving a control message not addressed to the third ECU [The examiner does not give patentable weight for context environment of the preamble because third ECU is not recite in the body of the claim, Fig 7, Fig 6] , and a fourth ECU including a second PHY unit configured to switch the fourth ECU from the sleep mode to the normal mode in a case of receiving a control message regardless of a destination of the received control message, at least one third ECU being connected to the first region, at least one fourth ECU being connected to the second region [The examiner does not give patentable weight for context environment of the preamble because fourth ECU is not recite in the body of the claim, Fig 6]. As claim 2, Inoue [US 2020/0204397] discloses a control unit [Fig 2, Ref 50, Par. 0043 discloses ref 50 determines if the control message must forward to another network or not] configured to determine whether or not a control message transmitted from the first region to the relay device is the first control message, and, in a case where the control message transmitted from the first region is the first control message, relay the first control message to the second region [Fig 5, ECU2A to ECU2C via relay] . As claim 3, Inoue [US 2020/0204397] discloses a third PHY unit [Fig 2, Ref 51 and 55] configured to receive a control message transmitted from the first region to the relay device; and a control unit configured [Fig 2, Ref 50, Par. 0043] to relay the control message output from the third PHY unit to the second region [Fig 2, Ref 2D via Ref 52], wherein the third PHY unit outputs the first control message to the control unit, and does not output the second control message to the control unit [Fig 2 and Ref 50-51 and SW1 and SW2 is output the first control message to control unit in order to the control unit to determine if it need to relay to second region or not, it yes then relay and does not output the second control message to SW1 and SW2, Fig 5]. As claim 4, Inoue [US 2020/0204397] discloses the control unit is further configured to switch between a supply state in which power is supplied to a hardware device connected to the relay device via a power supply line, and a stopped state in which supply of power to the hardware device is stopped, the hardware device is connected to the second ECU connected to the second region [Par. 0041-0043 discloses when Ref 50 configurates to switch between normal and Ref 52 is connects to BUS 12 where second ECU coupled], and the control unit switches from the stopped state to the supply state in a case where a first control message addressed to the second ECU connected to the hardware device is transmitted from the first region to the relay device [Par. 0041-0043 discloses when Ref 50 send message to Ref for forward to Ref 12, it will turn on power of 52 in order to forward message]. As claim 5, Inoue [US 2020/0204397] discloses the relay device is a non-branching node not branching the communication line [Fig 2 discloses Ref 5 is not branching node between BUS 11 and 12 which is communication line]. As claim 6, Inoue [US 2020/0204397] discloses the relay device is housed in a junction box [Fig 2, Ref 5] . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wu [US 2017/0054574] discloses a virtual controller area network system includes first, second third controller area network (CAN) buses. A first CAN controller is coupled to the first and second CAN buses and is configured to route messages to and from the first and second CAN buses. A second CAN controller is coupled to the third CAN bus and is configured to route messages to and from the third CAN bus. A network bridging system is configured to route messages over a local area network between the first CAN controller and the second CAN controller. Mizutani [US 2018/0367335] discloses A relay device transmits a frame received from any of a plurality of external devices that are connected via a plurality of communication lines. The external device is connected to one of the communication lines and to another one of the communication lines by searching a relay information table for specifying a relay destination of the frame. In the relay information table, information for identifying a frame type is stored in association with relay destination identifying information for identifying a communication line serving as a relay destination of a frame. The relay information table is partitioned into a plurality of sub-tables in accordance with priority based on the type identifying information or the relay destination identifying information. The relay device searches the sub-tables in descending order of priority using the type identifying information contained in the frame received from the external device as a search key specifying the relay destination. Kwon [US 2020/0195468] discloses A gateway processor of a vehicle includes a controller area network (CAN) message receiver, an Ethernet message receiver, a vehicle state monitoring and recognition unit configured to receive a signal from the CAN message receiver and the Ethernet message receiver, and a power management determination unit for each state configured to receive a signal from the vehicle state monitoring and recognition unit. The gateway processor also includes an electronic control unit (ECU) power control application execution unit configured to receive a signal from the power management determination unit for each state. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN HIEU D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3159. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5. 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, Edan Orgad can be reached at 571-272-7884. 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. /STEVEN HIEU D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2414 Application/Control Number: 18/832,011 Page 2 Art Unit: 2414 Application/Control Number: 18/832,011 Page 3 Art Unit: 2414 Application/Control Number: 18/832,011 Page 4 Art Unit: 2414 Application/Control Number: 18/832,011 Page 5 Art Unit: 2414 Application/Control Number: 18/832,011 Page 6 Art Unit: 2414 Application/Control Number: 18/832,011 Page 7 Art Unit: 2414 Application/Control Number: 18/832,011 Page 8 Art Unit: 2414 Application/Control Number: 18/832,011 Page 9 Art Unit: 2414 Application/Control Number: 18/832,011 Page 10 Art Unit: 2414 Application/Control Number: 18/832,011 Page 11 Art Unit: 2414 Application/Control Number: 18/832,011 Page 12 Art Unit: 2414
Prosecution Insights