DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
Claims 19-36 are pending in the present application.
The Preliminary Amendment filed 10/17/2024 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 10/17/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed on 10/17/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/25/2024 and 10/17/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 .
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: “tamper check module configured to” in claims 19 and 35 and “checking, using the tamper check module” in claim 36.
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
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.
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.
Claim(s) 19-21, 31, 34, 35, and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molter et al (hereinafter Molter), DE 102012224234 A1, in view of Rambo, US 20200162361 A1.
Referring to claims 19, 35, and 36, taking claim 19 as exemplary, Molter discloses a subscriber station for a serial bus system, comprising:
communication of the subscriber station with at least one other subscriber station of the bus system and to generate a transmit signal according to a frame [p. 1, Description, “in a bus system, the sending of data frames of a bus subscriber to all other bus subscribers”];
receive at least one signal from a bus of the bus system [p. 2, first paragraph continued from p. 1, “A bus subscriber receiving a data frame”]; and
a tamper check module configured to check whether at least one predetermined field of a frame which the receiving device created and received from the at least one signal received from the bus has at least one pulse having a second bit value, which is inverse to a predetermined first bit value, in a received bit which has the predetermined first bit value and a predetermined duration, wherein the tamper check module is also configured to discard the received frame after the at least one pulse is present which has the second bit value, which is inverse to the predetermined first bit value [p. 3, 2nd paragraph, “If an erroneous transmission of a data frame is detected by a receiving bus subscriber, the latter sends an error frame in a manner known per se. An error frame initially consists of five individual, dominant 0 bits and therefore overwrites any communication on the CAN bus. After four equal bits on the CAN bus, a so-called inverse bit stopper is often inserted, whereby each receiving bus participant recognizes the error frame and discards the data frame received up to that point in time”].
Molter does not explicitly disclose a communication control device configured to control the communication;
a receiving device configured to serially receive.
However, Rambo discloses a communication control device configured to control the communication [fig. 1 showing bus subscribers 115, 120, 135, 125, 130; paragraph 19, “Each of the above-listed systems interacting with each other over the communication system 100 may include dedicated processing circuitry including an electronic control unit for receiving, processing, and transmitting data associated with the functions of each system. For example, the engine control system 115 may include an electronic control unit that receives messages, checks that there are no potentially harmful anomalies associated with the received messages, and sends messages”];
a receiving device configured to serially receive [fig. 1 showing bus subscribers 115, 120, 135, 125, 130; paragraph 19, “Each of the above-listed systems interacting with each other over the communication system 100 may include dedicated processing circuitry including an electronic control unit for receiving, processing, and transmitting data associated with the functions of each system. For example, the engine control system 115 may include an electronic control unit that receives messages, checks that there are no potentially harmful anomalies associated with the received messages, and sends messages”; also see fig. 1 showing serial messages A-C].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Rambo in the subscriber station of Molter to implement, a communication control device configured to control the communication; a receiving device configured to serially receive in order to avoid undesired outcomes including driver annoyance, driver distraction, or changes in vehicle behavior [Rambo, paragraph 4].
Referring to claim 20, the modified Molter discloses the subscriber station according to claim 19, wherein the tamper check module is configured to check the at least one predetermined field of the received frame [Molter, [p. 3, 2nd paragraph, inverse bit stopper field] in addition to comparing the received frame to a valid frame format for the bus system [Rambo, paragraph 5, The message received from the vehicle bus has a format and plurality of signals. The method also includes testing the message, with the electronic processor, by…detecting an anomaly in the format of the message].
Referring to claim 21, the modified Molter discloses the subscriber station according to claim 19, wherein the tamper check module is configured to discard the received frame after a number of the at least one pulse having the second bit value inverse to the predetermined first bit value has exceeded a predetermined upper limit [Molter, p. 3, 2nd paragraph, “If an erroneous transmission of a data frame is detected by a receiving bus subscriber, the latter sends an error frame in a manner known per se. An error frame initially consists of five individual, dominant 0 bits and therefore overwrites any communication on the CAN bus. After four equal bits on the CAN bus, a so-called inverse bit stopper is often inserted, whereby each receiving bus participant recognizes the error frame and discards the data frame received up to that point in time”].
Referring to claim 31, the modified Molter discloses the subscriber station according to claim 19, wherein the at least one predetermined field of the received frame includes at least one of the following fields or bits: (i) an acknowledgment delimiter bit (ACK delimiter) in an acknowledgment field of the received frame which follows an acknowledgment bit (ACK slot), (ii) an end field of the received frame, and (iii) an error delimiter of the error frame [Molter, p. 3, 2nd paragraph, inverse bit stopper of the error frame].
Referring to claim 34, the modified Molter discloses the subscriber station according to claim 19, wherein, in a first communication phase, it is negotiated which of subscriber station of the bus system will be given an at least temporarily exclusive, collision-free access to the bus in a subsequent second communication phase [Molter, p. 3, “After both bus subscribers have transmitted the part "01011" of their respective identifier, the first bus user sends a dominant "0" and the second bus user sends a recessive "1". The second bus user reads a "0" on the bus and stops sending the data frame while the first bus user continues sending the data frame”].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-30, and 32, and 33 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record taken alone or in combination fails to teach and/or fairly suggest wherein the tamper check module is configured to check whether, in a received recessive bit having a duration, at least one dominant pulse occurs which has a shorter duration than the received recessive bit, in combination with other recited limitations in claim 22.
The prior art of record taken alone or in combination fails to teach and/or fairly suggest wherein the tamper check module is configured to check whether, in a bit sequence of at least two received recessive bits each having a duration, at least one dominant pulse occurs which has a shorter duration than the received recessive bit, in combination with other recited limitations in claim 23.
The prior art of record taken alone or in combination fails to teach and/or fairly suggest wherein the tamper check module has a first counter configured to count a number of falling edges which occur from a beginning of the predetermined field of the received frame to an end of the predetermined field of the received frame, in combination with other recited limitations in claim 24.
Claims 25-30 are objected to by virtue of their dependency.
The prior art of record taken alone or in combination fails to teach and/or fairly suggest wherein the tamper check module is configured to check for dominant pulses in order to detect on the bus a predetermined idle condition having a predetermined number of bits of the same value, which number cannot otherwise occur in a communication on the bus, in combination with other recited limitations in claim 32.
The prior art of record taken alone or in combination fails to teach and/or fairly suggest wherein the communication control device is configured to serially generate the transmit signal for transmission to the bus in such a way that, for the frame, a bit time of the transmit signal transmitted to the bus in a first communication phase can differ from a bit time of the transmit signal transmitted in a second communication phase, in combination with other recited limitations in claim 33.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Antonsson, US 20210120017 A1, discloses for a manipulated frame, the ISO-11898-1 approach of invalidating a received frame is in an embodiment used also by the enhanced CAN transceiver 150 to discard a possibly manipulated received CAN frame. This invalidation is internal in the CAN transceiver 150 and CAN node 110 and is not transmitted on the CAN bus 14. When the received CAN frame is detected to have been tampered with by the CAN frame decoder 102 cooperating with the impedance detection component 101, the CAN frame decoder 102 controls the first switch 114 to discard the received CAN frame [paragraph 126].
Chong et al, US 20070248226 A1, discloses For example, if the tampered file is a P-frame in the MPEG-4 system, the file may be discarded [paragraph 125].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARLEY J ABAD whose telephone number is (571)270-3425. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30 AM - 7 PM.
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, Idriss Alrobaye can be reached at (571) 270-1023. 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.
/Farley Abad/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2181