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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/30/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Conforms with 35 USC § 101
The presently examined claims were evaluated for a 101 Alice type rejection. The conclusion from going through the Alice/Mayo test is that the independent claims are integrated into a practical application (or cannot be performed merely with the human mind) and are therefore patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP §2106, subsection III and MPEP §2106.04, subsection II(A).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11, 13-14, 19-20, 22-23, 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by DE102005044236A1 hereinafter Lantzsch.
As to claim 29, similar claim 20, and included method claim 11, Lantzsch discloses a vehicle comprising [Lantzsch: abstract]:
a controller configured to connect to a signal network which represents a signal flow in the controller, the signal nework comprising at least one input signal and the at least one output signal [Lantzsch: 0021, Fig. 1]; and
a bus line connected to the controller [Lantzsch: #17 CAN bus, Fig. 1];
wherein the controller is further configured to determine whether at least one output signal of the controller is on-board diagnostics compliant by [Lantzsch: 0026, "During the automatically running simulation, non-protocol compliant reactions of the OED system 11 under test can be, if necessary, provoked and detected."]:
checking whether a signal connection exists between the at least one input signal and the at least one output signal [Lantzsch: Fig. 1, 0025, data traffic of the CAN bus];
checking whether the at least one input signal is on-board diagnostics compliant [Lantzsch: 0026. " During the automatically running simulation, non-protocol compliant reactions of the OED system 11 under test can be, if necessary, provoked and detected. Advantageously, all reactions of the communication system 5 or the OED system 11 of the vehicle 7 caused by the diagnostic device 1 are also logged and checked for correctness. In the event that all reactions or responses match the corresponding target responses pre-stored in the diagnostic device 1, the test is declared as passed."]; and
indicating that the at least one output signal is on-board diagnostics compliant when the signal connection exists between the at least one input signal and the at least one output signal and when the at least one input signal is on-board diagnostics compliant or, in the case of a plurality of input signals, when all of the input signals with a signal connection are on-board diagnostics compliant [Lantzsch: 0026, " In the event that all reactions or responses match the corresponding target responses prestored in diagnostic device 1, the test is declared as passed.", a indication or output of the test results is considered implicit].
As to claim 13 and claim 22, Lantzsch discloses wherein the at least one input signal is a bus signal which is applied to a signal input of the controller [Lantzsch: Fig. 1, CAN bus 17, 0009, 0021].
As to claim 14 and claim 23, Lantzsch discloses wherein the signal network has a plurality of input signals, and the at least one output signal is only indicated as on- board diagnostics compliant if the entire plurality of the input signals connected to the at least one output signal are on-board diagnostics compliant [Mauk: 0007].
As to claim 19 and claim 28, Lantzsch discloses wherein the at least one output signal is a signal which is output on a bus line connected to the controller [Lantzsch: Fig. 1, CAN bus 17, 0009, 0021].
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 12, 15-18, 21, 24-27, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lantzsch in view of DE102018117509A1 hereinafter Mauk.
As to claim 12, claim 21, and claim 30, Lantzsch does not explicitly disclose the configuration using a sensor. However, Mauk discloses wherein the at least one input signal is a sensor signal which is applied to a signal input of the controller [Mauk: 0008 see sensor]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling to modify the components used to check the bus inputs of Lantzsch to be a sensor as disclosed in Mauk as it merely uses a known device (Lantzsch with the input component sensor of Mauk) in a known way (Lantzsch’s method) with predictable results a good likelihood of success for the benefit using various input types to be used in the diagnostics method.
As to claim 15 and claim 24, wherein, Lantzsch does not explicitly disclose the configuration using controller output as input. However, Mauk discloses when the at least one input signal of the controller is an output signal of a further controller, it is iteratively determined whether the output signal of the further controller is on-board diagnostics compliant [Mauk: 0007 standard in operational networks]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling to modify the components used to check the bus inputs of Lantzsch to be a controller output as disclosed in Mauk as it merely uses a known device (Lantzsch with the input controller of Mauk) in a known way (Lantzsch’s method) with predictable results a good likelihood of success for the benefit using various input types to be used in the diagnostics method.
As to claim 16 and claim 25, wherein, Lantzsch does not explicitly disclose the configuration using controller output as input. However, Mauk discloses wherein it is furthermore iteratively determined whether a further output signal, which is applied to the further controller as an input signal, is on-board diagnostics compliant [Mauk: 0007 standard in operational networks]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling to modify the components used to check the bus inputs of Lantzsch to be a controller output as disclosed in Mauk as it merely uses a known device (Lantzsch with the input controller of Mauk) in a known way (Lantzsch’s method) with predictable results a good likelihood of success for the benefit using various input types to be used in the diagnostics method.
As to claim 17 and claim 26, Lantzsch does not explicitly disclose the configuration using controller output as input. However, Mauk discloses wherein the iterative determination is stopped as soon as all of the input signals used in this case are exclusively sensor signals [Lantzsch: Fig. 1, 0025]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling to modify the components used to check the bus inputs of Lantzsch to be a controller output as disclosed in Mauk as it merely uses a known device (Lantzsch with the input controller of Mauk) in a known way (Lantzsch’s method) with predictable results a good likelihood of success for the benefit using various input types to be used in the diagnostics method.
As to claim 18 and claim 27, Lantzsch does not explicitly disclose the configuration using controller output as input. However, Mauk discloses wherein the iterative determination is stopped as soon as an output signal of a controller which is only indirectly connected to the controller via the further controller is indicated as on-board diagnostics compliant [Lantzsch: Fig. 1, 0025]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling to modify the components used to check the bus inputs of Lantzsch to be a controller output as disclosed in Mauk as it merely uses a known device (Lantzsch with the input controller of Mauk) in a known way (Lantzsch’s method) with predictable results a good likelihood of success for the benefit using various input types to be used in the diagnostics method.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 8213321 B2 A method and system monitor a communications network, e.g., a controller area network (CAN), and more specifically, an in-vehicle communications network, by maintaining a count of each type of error code and a histogram of all network messages seen by each of the controllers during a measurement period; and by determining a bus health index of the communication bus based upon a percentage of a given type of error to the total count of all errors during a measurement period. An individual controller or controller area network bus segment can be indicated as having a communications problem as a result of the health index.
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDERICK M BRUSHABER whose telephone number is (313)446-4839. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272-7298. 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.
/FREDERICK M BRUSHABER/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3665
/FREDERICK M BRUSHABER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665