DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The instant First Office Action on the merits is in response to claims filed on 9/6/2024.
Claims 1, 3 and 6-12 are pending. Claims 1, 11 and 12 are the base independent claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted was filed before the mailing of a first Office action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97(b). Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copies of papers required under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) have been filed.
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: “an application processing unit configured to…”, “a relay processing unit configured to…” in claim 1.
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
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAN et al (US 2018/0076970) in view of Johnston (US 2023/0073618).
Regarding claim 1, HAN discloses an on-board communication apparatus to be mounted in a vehicle, comprising:
an application processing unit configured to execute an application program (fig. 2 & par 63; in one embodiment, a gateway 200 belonging to the vehicle network may support communications between the Ethernet-based network and the CAN; also see par 52, par 84); and
a relay processing unit configured to communicate with at least one on-board apparatus (fig. 2 & par 63; Ethernet-based network may include a switch), communicate with the application processing unit using a predetermined communication protocol, and relay transmission/reception of data between the on-board apparatus and the application processing unit (par 63-64; e.g. the end node may be connected to the switch; the communication nodes in the Ethernet-based network may perform communications by using the Ethernet messages, and communications between the gateway 200 and the Ethernet-based network may also be performed using the Ethernet messages),
perform communication using the predetermined communication protocol, the predetermined communication protocol is TCP (Transmission Control Protocol) or UDP (User Datagram Protocol) (fig. 8 & par 90; the IP middleware layer may support IPv4, internet control message protocol (ICMP), address resolution protocol (ARP), TCP, and UDP), and the application processing unit, the relay processing unit, and the modules transmit/receive data using the TCP or UDP communication protocol in accordance with ASIL (Automotive Safety Integrity Level) demanded for the data (par 67; the Ethernet message 300 may further include automotive safety integrity level (ASIL) authentication information 330).
The reference does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the application processing unit includes a plurality of modules that perform processing related to execution of the application program and the plurality modules for performing communication.
However, Johnston discloses:
In fig. 3 & par 72; the architecture includes a controller abstraction layer 308, which has access to Controller Area Network (CAN) 309, Serial Peripheral Interface (SPI) 310, Inter-Integrated Circuit (I2C) 311, Universal asynchronous receiver-transmitter (UART) 312, Local Interconnect Network (LIN) 313. Thus there are networking modules for performing communication.
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of communication protocol configured for the electronic system of Johnston with the electronic system of HAN. One is motivated as such to improve operation of a vehicle (Johnston, par 61).
Regarding claim 6, Johnston discloses:
wherein the data that is transmitted/received includes data related to handshake between a plurality of on-board apparatuses or data related to sequence control between a plurality of on-board apparatuses, and the application processing unit, the relay processing unit, and the modules transmit/receive the data related to handshake or the data related to sequence control using the TCP communication protocol (par 93; e.g. different hardware or software modules may need to exchange cryptographic key; also par 102; e.g. the communication may be performed over normal UDP or Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) messages, or any other suitable messages).
Regarding claim 7, HAN discloses:
wherein the data that is transmitted/received includes data related to message authentication or data related to a history of cyberattacks, and the application processing unit, the relay processing unit, and the modules transmit/receive the data related to message authentication or the data related to a history of cyberattacks using the TCP communication protocol (par 77; e.g. The ASIL authentication information for the CAN message 600 may be included in the payload 640; also par 90, The IP middleware layer may support IPv4, internet control message protocol (ICMP), address resolution protocol (ARP), TCP, and UDP).
Regarding claim 8, Johnston discloses:
wherein he data that is transmitted/received includes data related to an indoor condition of the vehicle, and the application processing unit, the relay processing unit, and the modules transmit/receive the data related to the indoor condition using the UDP communication protocol (par 74; e.g. the vehicle may communicate information, such as diagnostics or fault codes, between external test equipment and automotive control units (ECU) (using ECU peripheral Driver 326) over DoIP 323).
Regarding claim 9, Johnston discloses:
the data that is transmitted/received includes time-series data related to a travelling state of the vehicle, and the application processing unit, the relay processing unit, and the modules transmit/receive the time-series data related to the travelling state using the UDP communication protocol (par 74; e.g. the vehicle may communicate information, such as diagnostics or fault codes, between external test equipment and automotive control units (ECU) (using ECU peripheral Driver 326) over DoIP 323)
Regarding claim 10, Johnston discloses:
wherein the data that is transmitted/received between the application processing unit and the relay processing unit is encrypted (par 96; the pre-shared keys allow communication of a node with the server node and can also be leveraged to create ephemeral keys for use for encrypting communications between nodes).
Regarding claim 11, HAN discloses an on-board communication apparatus that is to be mounted in a vehicle (fig. 2 & par 63; in one embodiment, a gateway 200 belonging to the vehicle network may support communications between the Ethernet-based network and the CAN; also see par 52, par 84), comprising an application core that executes an application program (84; application program), wherein the application core executes a plurality of software modules related to the application program (par 51; modules), and transmit/receive data using a TCP or UDP communication protocol in accordance with ASIL demanded for the data (fig. 8 & par 90; the IP middleware layer may support IPv4, internet control message protocol (ICMP), address resolution protocol (ARP), TCP, and UDP; par 67; the Ethernet message 300 may further include automotive safety integrity level (ASIL) authentication information 330).
The reference does not explicitly disclose:
plurality of software modules for performing communication.
However, Johnston discloses:
In fig. 3 & par 72; the architecture includes a controller abstraction layer 308, which has access to Controller Area Network (CAN) 309, Serial Peripheral Interface (SPI) 310, Inter-Integrated Circuit (I2C) 311, Universal asynchronous receiver-transmitter (UART) 312, Local Interconnect Network (LIN) 313. Thus there are networking modules for performing communication.
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of communication protocol configured for the electronic system of Johnston with the electronic system of HAN. One is motivated as such to improve operation of a vehicle (Johnston, par 61).
Regarding claim 12, HAN in view of Johnston discloses an on-board communication system similar to the apparatus of claim 1 as shown in the mapping above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAOTANG WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4023. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-18:00 ET (M, W, TH & alternate F).
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, HADI ARMOUCHE can be reached at 571-270-3618. 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.
/YAOTANG WANG/SCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights