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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the amendment filed on 4/22/26. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-9, 11-13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being
anticipated by Lloyd et al., US. No. 20100299401.
As to claim 1, Lloyd discloses a method for assigning an address to an electronic device
, the method comprising:
starting a test system (master device 102 fig.1b) for performing a test of a circuit
arrangement comprising the electronic device (106A or 106B of fig. 1B, implementing a
communication protocol between the circuit arrangement and the test system, reading
out a predetermined unique identifier (UID) of the electronic device by using the test
system (broadcasting packet/configuration request message that is sent from the slave
device 106A, 106B to the master device 102 includes a global unique identifier, see
fig. 1B, [0023]);
assigning the UID to at least one property of the electronic device within a lookup table
, wherein the property is determined by using the test system, and wherein the property of the electronic device comprises a position of the electronic device in the circuit arrangement (GUIDs, see [0024]). It is also inherent that the GUID of the salve devices (106A or 106b) including Globally Unique Identifiers (GUIDs) assigned to a specific location or entity in a system for ensuring the devices can be uniquely identified across platforms and databases), and
assigning an address to the electronic device by using the lookup table (the master device 102 to create a lookup table relating the GUID to an assigned network address unique among the devices, see [0023]).
As to claim 3, Lloyd discloses wherein the circuit arrangement comprises a plurality of
electronic devices , wherein the method comprises assigning an individual address to
each of the plurality of electronic devices (106A, 106B fig. 1B of the circuit arrangement
(assigning addresses for devices, see [0023] to [0024]).
As to claim 4, Lloyd discloses wherein at least two of the plurality of electronic devices
are of the same type, wherein the at least two electronic devices of the same type are
assigned different addresses (a device type identifier may also be provided by the slave
device 106A, 106B in the broadcast packet for assistance in ID assignment, see
[0023]).
As to claim 6, Lloyd discloses the electronic device is a part of a network and wherein
the address is a network address (constructing an address table of all connected
devices on the network medium 104 based on the received broadcast messages and
assigned network addresses, see [0024] to [0025]).
As to claim 7, Lloyd discloses the communication protocol determines at least a set of
addresses, wherein the set of addresses comprises at least a set of available
addresses, wherein assigning the address step comprises assigning at least one of the
UID and the property of the electronic device determined by using the test system to an
available address (constructing an address table of all connected devices on the
network medium 104 based on the received broadcast messages and assigned network
addresses, see [0024]).
As to claim 8, Lloyd discloses the communication protocol determines at least a set of
commands for communication between the circuit arrangement and the test system,
wherein the set of commands comprises at least one general command sent out to all
electronic devices comprised by the circuit arrangement (issuing a command over the
network medium using the selected network address, directly addressed to the selected
network address, see [0026] to [0027]).
As to claim 9, Lloyd discloses wherein the readout of the UID in step is triggered by
detecting a predetermined logical state of the electronic device with the test system,
wherein the logical state is determined in the communication protocol (The slave
devices are operative in a slave mode/master mode, see [0035]}.
As to claim 11, Lloyd discloses wherein at least one of step d) and step e) assigning the
UID to at least one property of the electronic device within a lookup table and assigning
an address to the electronic device by using the lookup table is at least partially
performed by using the test system (providing a look-up mechanism to translate the
name or GUID into the appropriate network address, see [0024] to [0025]).
As to claim 12, Lloyd discloses at least one of step d) and step assigning the UID to at
least one property of the electronic device within a lookup table and assigning an
address to the electronic device by using the lookup table is at least partially performed
by using a controller (providing a look-up mechanism to translate the name or GUID
into the appropriate network address, see [0024] to [00025]).
As to claim 13, Lloyd discloses wherein at least one of step d) and step e) assigning the
UID to at least one property of the electronic device within a lookup table and assigning
an address to the electronic device by using the lookup table is performed at an initial
power-on of the circuit arrangement ( configured to be in the pseudo-master mode
automatically upon applying power to the slave device, see [0043]).
Claims 15-16 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in claims 1, 1 respectively.
As to claim 19, Lloyd discloses least one circuit arrangement , wherein the circuit
arrangement (110) comprises at least one electronic device and at least one interface,
wherein the test system is further configured for reading out a predetermined unique
identifier (UID) of the electronic device, wherein the test system is further configured for
determining at least one property of the electronic device (providing a look-up
mechanism to translate the name or GUID into the appropriate network address, see
[0024] to [0025]), wherein the property is determined by using the test system, and wherein the property of the electronic device comprises a position of the electronic device in the circuit arrangement (GUIDs, see [0024]). It is also inherent that the GUID of the salve devices (106A or 106b) including Globally Unique Identifiers (GUIDs) assigned to a specific location or entity in a system for ensuring the devices can be uniquely identified across platforms and databases).
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) 5, 10, 14, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Lloyd as in above and in view of Spica et al. US Pub.
No.20200191869.
As to claim 5 Lloyd does not specifically disclose at least one printed circuit board
(PCB), wherein the test of the circuit arrangement is an in-circuit testing (ICT), wherein
the test system is an ICT system. However, Spica discloses at least one printed circuit
board (PCB), wherein the test of the circuit arrangement is an in-circuit testing (ICT),
wherein the test system is an ICT system (path placement on the printed circuit board
(PCB) to provide access to the ICT device to facilitate testing on devices, see [0012],
[0028]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary in the art before the effective
filing date of the invention was made to implement Spica's teachings into the computer
system of Lloyd to test devices because it would have reduced potential redundant
efforts made in developing test coverage via firmware implementation with system
constraints (see Spica's [0013]).
As to claims 10 and 14, Lloyd discloses the predetermined logical state comprises a
predetermined voltage applied to at least one pin of the electronic device and starting
the test system comprises connecting the test system with an interface of the circuit
arrangement y using an adapter of the test system, wherein step starting the test
system further comprises contacting a pin of the electronic device by using the adapter.
However, Spica discloses the predetermined logical state comprises a predetermined
voltage applied to at least one pin of the electronic device and starting the test system
comprises connecting the test system with an interface of the circuit arrangement y
using an adapter of the test system, wherein step starting the test system further
comprises contacting a pin of the electronic device by using the adapter (using test pin
for testing devices, see [0022] to [0026]). It would have been obvious to one of the
ordinary in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to
implement Spica's teachings into the computer system of Lloyd to test devices because
it would have reduced potential redundant efforts made in developing test coverage via
firmware implementation with system constraints (see Spica's [0013]).
As to claim 17, Spica further discloses the interface (116) is a serial interface (universal
serial bus (USB) interface, see [0015]). It would have been obvious to one of the
ordinary in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to
implement Spica's teachings into the computer system of Lloyd to test devices because
it would have reduced potential redundant efforts made in developing test coverage via
firmware implementation with system constraints (see Spica's [0013]).
Claim 18 rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim 5.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lloyd as
in above and in view of Spero, US Pub. No.20160195856.
As to claim 20, Lloyd does not specifically the method is performed in an automotive
application. However, in a similar network environment, Spiro discloses the method is
performed in an automotive application (automotive application, see [0170]). It would
have been obvious to one of the ordinary in the art before the effective filing date of the
invention was made to implement Spero's teachings into the computer system of Lloyd
to process data information because it would have provided different individuals with a
localized environment of energy and mass flows to maintain them in thermal comfort
(see Spero's [0176]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/22/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the cited references do not discloses wherein the property is determined by using the test system, and wherein the property of the electronic device comprises a position of the electronic device in the circuit arrangement.
Examiner respectfully disagree. Examiner respectfully point out that the Lloyd discloses that the property is determined by using the test system, and wherein the property of the electronic device comprises a position of the electronic device in the circuit arrangement (GUIDs including the network address configuration of the devices, see [0024]-[0025]). It is also inherent that the GUID of the salve devices (106A or 106b) including Globally Unique Identifiers (GUIDs) assigned to a specific location or entity in a system, ensuring the devices can be uniquely identified across platforms and databases) as rejected above.
As a result, cited prior art does disclose a system and method for assigning an address to an electronic device, as broadly claimed by the Applicants. Applicants clearly have still failed to identify specific claim limitations that would define a clearly patentable distinction over prior art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Khanh Dinh whose telephone number is (571) 272-3936. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8:00 A.m. to 5:00 P.m.
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, Cheema Umar, can be reached on (571) 270-3037. 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.
/KHANH Q DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights