Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This Office Action is an answer to a communication on 7/30/2025. Claims 1-6 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
3. Applicant filed an IDS on 11/07/2024; it is considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC§ 112
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.
4. Claim 1 is 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. The claimed term “an abnormality has occurred in the onboard device” (see pending claim 1, lines 12-13); it is unclear what is an abnormality (e.g., can be many different things).
In addition, the claimed language of “an “electronic” control unit ” or , “onboard” control unit ” (they are made by combinations of electronic parts) have similar meanings in a structure claim 1.
5. Dependent claims 2-6 are objected because they are depended on a rejected claim 1.
Claim interpretations
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.
6. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) 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.
7. 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 “...a data capturing unit...” (see claims 1, 7 or 13-14).
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
8. 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.
9. 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
10. 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.
11. 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 onboard device.. ” (see pending claim 1 line 2); “an electronic control unit”. (see pending claim 1 line 4); and it is unclear about a claimed limitation of “the onboard control unit feeding power supplied to the electronic control unit to the onboard device”
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 “unique” structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
12. 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.
13. If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function..
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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.
14. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being taught by Komatsu’108 (US Pub 20220017108 A1)
Komatsu’108 teaches an “onboard” device that controls traveling of a vehicle (see Komatsu’108 para. [0005]);and an “electronic” control unit that collects information of the onboard device (e.g., a sensor/detector/receiver- see Komatsu’108 para, [0051]),
the “onboard” control unit feeding power supplied to the “electronic” control unit to the onboard device (see Komatsu’108 para, [0064], [0068]) wherein the electronic” control unit includes a current measurement unit that measures a value of a current flowing through a power-feeding path (e.g., an ammeter) see Komatsu’108 para, [0002], [0011], [0147]-[0148]) that feeds power to the onboard device, and a control unit that monitor/determines (see Komatsu’108 para, [0128]).whether an abnormality has occurred in the onboard device based on the current value measured by the current measurement unit (e.g., using an ammeter, see Komatsu’108 para, [0010]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
15. 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.
16. Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu’108 (US Pub 20220017108 A1).
A, Per dependent claim 2: The rationales and reference for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Applicant claims a data wire through which data is exchanged between the electronic control unit and the onboard device (e.g., for a communication between two electronic components – see Komatsu FIG. 6), wherein the electronic control unit includes a superimposition circuit that superimposes power supplied to the electronic control unit on data to be transmitted to the onboard device, and transmits the data on which the power is superimposed, the data being transmitted from the superimposition circuit, to the onboard device using the data wire (see Komatsu’108 para, [0057], and claim 10).
B. Per dependent claim 3: The rationales and reference for a rejection of claim 2 are incorporated.
Applicant claims an integrated electronic control unit , wherein when the control unit has detected that an abnormality has occurred in the onboard device (e.g., a current overload), the control unit transmits information indicating that the abnormality has occurred to the integrated electronic control unit – which has been a fundamental function of a sensor/detector.
C. Per dependent claim 4: The rationales and reference for a rejection of claim 3 are incorporated.
Applicant claims the control unit associates data acquired by the onboard device with the current value at a timing when the onboard device has acquired the data (e.g., using a sensor to detect a discreet signal), and then timely transmitting that data to a control unit (see Komatsu’108 para, [0067], [0106]).
17. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu’108, in view of Chi’292 (US Pat 11912292B2)
The rationales and reference(s) for a rejection of claim 4 are incorporated
Komatsu’108 does not disclose an onboard device with a thermometer that measures a temperature at a time of data acquisition, and the electronic control unit selects data to be transmitted to the integrated electronic control unit using temperature information measured by the thermometer as a parameter for determining credibility of the data; however, Chi’292 suggests that claimed idea (see Chi’292 col. 3 lines 32-36, and col. 14 lines 23-37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Komatsu’108 with Chi’292 to measures a temperature at a time of data acquisition with a thermostat, and integrating that measured data to detect a circuit abnormality – the use of temperature measurement on an object to detect a change of condition has been expected for onboard circuitry.
18. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu’108, in view of Schluetter’216 (US Pub 20210035216 A1).
The rationales and reference(s) for a rejection of claim 3 are incorporated
Komatsu’108 do not disclose a cycle of data received by the electronic control unit from the onboard device is 1/2 or less of a cycle of data transmitted from the electronic control unit to the integrated electronic control unit; however, this is a familiar concept of reducing data travel/transmit/receive time (see Schluetter’216 para. [0045]-[0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Komatsu’108 with Schluetter’216 to reducing data travel time to ensure that the data is sent nearly simultaneously at the time to release, the local sender may access synchronized clocks to accurately control the clock time between time to release and to send the data.
Conclusion
19. Claims 1-6 are rejected.
20. The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
21. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cuong H Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-6759 (email address is cuong.nguyen@uspto.gov). The examiner can normally be reached on M - F: 10:00AM- 6:00PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, Bendidi Rachid can be reached on (571) 272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PATER. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only, For more information about the PAIR system, see https//ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll- free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or S71-272- 1000
/CUONG H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights