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
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/29/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 11-14, 19, and 20 are directed to an abstract idea of: (i) a fundamental economic practice, (ii) a method of organizing human activities, (iii) an idea of itself, or (iv) a mathematical relationship or formula. For instance, in Alice Corp. the court found that “intermediated settlement” was a fundamental economic practice, which is an abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because:
Determining whether a claimed invention is patent-eligible subject matter requires determining whether the claim is directed toward a patent-ineligible concept and, if so, determining whether the claim's elements, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible Application. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int 7, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2350 (2014). The present claims recite the abstract idea of a mathematical relationship or formula of “x + y = n”, “sum of the data lengths of x/y response information”, “sum of the data lengths of x”, “sum of the data lengths of y”, “a difference between the sum of data lengths of the x/y response information and a data length of the command information”, “a difference between the sum of the data lengths of the x response information and the data length of the command information”, “a difference between the sum of the data lengths of the y response information and the data length of the command information” do not include any element which transforms the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application. As stated in Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2358, the mere recitation in the Applicants' claimed communication system/method with operation(s) of manipulating with information/data do not transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter, wherein claims recite (iii) an idea of itself and/or (iv) a mathematical relationship or formula, such as steps/limitations of manipulating with data without having structure to implement the data by machine. It should be noted that collecting data and recognizing certain data within the collected data set and organizing information through mathematical correlations have been examples of ineligible subject matter. See, e.g., Content Extraction & Transmission v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Moreover claims 11-14, 19, and 20 recite set of steps of merely manipulations with data/information/instructions, such as: performing operation(s) of summing, dividing, and subtracting on lengths of information. Moreover the claimed steps/limitations taken individually or as a whole are not meaningfully different than a generalized formulation for programs to solve mathematical problems of converting one form of numerical representation to another and subsequent similar to limitations/concepts found by the Court to be abstract idea (see Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 U.S.P.Q. 673 (1972)). Moreover the claimed steps/limitations taken individually or as a whole are not meaningfully different than using categories to organize, store and transmit information (see Cyberfone Sys. v. CNN Interactive Grp., 558 Fed. Appx. 988 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Moreover viewed as a whole (Claims 11-14, 19, and 20), no additional claim element(s) are recited, which would provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, such as at least one of: (i)Improvements to another technology or technical field; (ii)Improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (iii)Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (iv)Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (v)Adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; or (vi)Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241/Tuesday, December 16, 2014/ Rules and Regulations), wherein, for example, on Page 74624 stated that “Limitations that were found not to be enough to qualify as ‘‘significantly more’’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: Adding the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer”. Therefore no active functional steps/limitations were found in the body of claim 9 as evidence of improvement, such as, for example: (i)Improvements to another technology or technical field and/or (vi)Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See also [See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International et al., 573 U.S.__, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1976 (2014); See July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility – Federal Register Notice /Vol. 80, No. 146/Thursday, July 30, 2015/ Rules and Regulations; See May 2016 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility; See May 2016 Update Memorandum – Formulating a Subject Matter Eligibility Rejection and evaluating the Applicant’s Response to a Subject Matter Eligibility Rejection – Federal Register Notice/Vol. 81, No. 88/ Friday May 6, 2016/ Proposed Rules].
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
In claim 1, line 12, “itself” is not clear. Similar problems exist in claims 4, 6, 7, and 16.
In claim 1, line 13, “fake data” is unclear. The term “fake data” is ambiguous and subjective. The specification fails to provide objective boundaries or criteria for determining what qualifies as “fake data” compared to other forms of data. The claim does not recite how such data is generated, validated, or distinguished from real or empirical data. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter are unclear. Similar problems exist in claims 4, 9, 10, 13, and 16-18.
In claim 9, line 4, “its” is indefinite. Similar problems exist in claims 10, 13, 17, and 18.
In claim 9, line 6, “other slave controllers” lack proper antecedent basis since it was not mentioned previously. Similar problems exist in claims 10, 13, 17, and 18.
In claim 20, line 5, it is not clear what is meant by “based on a maximum value in x and y”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kain et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0083720 A1), hereafter referred to as Kain’720.
Referring to claim 1, Kain’720 as claimed, a daisy chain communication system (ring-type, daisy-chain of slave nodes with a first slave node in the chain being coupled to a master node that is coupled to the controller, see paras. [0022] and [0086]), comprising: a master controller (master node 504, see Figs. 5A-D); a daisy chain (ring-type inter-block communication network, see Figs 5A-D) including a first slave controller and a plurality of second slave controllers (plurality of slave nodes 506A-506N+1, see para. [0066], Figs. 5A-D), the first slave controller being coupled to the master controller; wherein the master controller is configured to transmit command information to the plurality of second slave controllers through the first slave controller (master node to send a command to slave node 506B, via slave node 506A, see para. [0074] and Fig. 5A), and receives network response information from the daisy chain for the command information, the daisy chain is configured to perform an operation function including: dividing a network response period into a plurality of sub phases (during a reply phase of the network, the direction of the bus communication move in both directions along the chain, see para. [0079] and Fig. 5D-E), and each of the second slave controller transmitting transmission data with a consistent data length to a slave controller of an upstream node cascaded therewith at each sub phase, wherein the transmission data includes one of response information of the second slave controller itself, response information of a slave controller of a downstream node and a first fake data; in a transfer order of the command information, the slave controller of the upstream node is a slave controller close to a side of the master controller; the slave controller of the downstream node is a slave controller away from the side of the master controller; and the first slave controller transmitting the transmission data from the second slave controller cascaded therewith at each sub phase to the master controller until all the response information of the plurality of second slave controllers is transmitted to the master controller (each of the slave nodes 506 replicate command data up the chain, until the command data reaches a last node or a final node 506N+1 and at which point exits the network back to master 504 and also down the chain until the command data reaches initial node 506A and at which point exits the network back to master 504, see para. [0079] and Fig. 5D; each of the slave nodes 506 transmit the same quantity of bits, see para. [0080]; all commands and responses through the system have an equal bit length, see para. [0065]).
As to claim 2, Kain’720 also discloses the first slave controller is configured to receive the command information from the master controller; and transmit the command information sequentially to each second slave controller in a cascading order of the daisy chain (master node to send a command to slave node 506B, via slave node 506A, see para. [0074] and Fig. 5A; each of the slave nodes 5-6 may replicate command data up the chain, until the command data reaches a last node or a final node 506N+1 and at which point exits the network back to master 504 and also down the chain until the command data reaches initial node 506A and at which point exits the network back to master 504, see para. [0079] and Fig. 5D).
As to claim 3, Kain’720 also discloses each second slave controller is configured to transmit the transmission data to the slave controller of the upstream node cascaded therewith in a case that the command information or a response request is received at each sub phase (each of the slave nodes 506 may replicate command data up the chain, until the command data reaches a last node or a final node 506N+1 and at which point exits the network back to master 504 and also down the chain until the command data reaches initial node 506A and at which point exits the network back to master 504, see para. [0079] and Fig. 5D).
As to claim 4, Kain’720 also discloses each second slave controller is configured, so that in a case that the command information is received, the transmission data transmitted to the slave controller of the upstream node cascaded therewith is the response information of the second slave controller itself (slave node 406B receive the forwarded command and in response, forward the command and reply to the command further up the chain to the slave nodes 406N and 406N+1, see paras. [0056], [0059], [0060]; also note: transmitting replies up and down the chain, see para. [0069] and Figs 5A-C); in a case that the response request is received, the transmission data transmitted to the slave controller of the upstream node cascaded therewith is one of the response information of the slave controller of the downstream node and the first fake data (each of the slave nodes 5-6 may replicate command data up the chain, until the command data reaches a last node or a final node 506N+1 and at which point exits the network back to master 504 and also down the chain until the command data reaches initial node 506A and at which point exits the network back to master 504, see para. [0079] and Fig. 5D).
As to claim 5, Kain’720 also discloses the first slave controller is further configured to generate the response request at each sub phase after transmitting the transmission data from the second slave controller cascaded therewith to the master controller, and to transmit the response request sequentially to each second slave controller (During a reply phase of the network, the direction of the bus communication may be inverted. The addressed node may reply to the command by transmitting reply data via the high-side bus interface and back down the chain. Each subsequent slave node in the network below the addressed node 206 my replicate the reply data received via the high side bus interface to the low side bus interface until the reply data reaches the master node, see paras. [0039], [0063], [0064], [0079] and Fig. 5D).
As to claim 6, Kain’720 also discloses the first slave controller is further configured to transmit the response information of the first slave controller itself to the master controller after receiving the command information (During an initial command addressed to slave node 206A, slave node 206A may receive 16 bits of data from master 204 and in response transmit 64 bits of data, see para. [0041]).
As to claim 7, Kain’720 also discloses each of the first slave controller and the plurality of second slave controllers includes a first data buffer and a second data buffer, wherein, in each slave controller, the second data buffer is configured to cache the transmission data from the slave controller of the downstream node, the first data buffer is configured to store data of the slave controller itself, or to extract data from the second data buffer of the slave controller itself and transmit it to the slave controller of the upstream node or the master controller (Tx and Rx in slaves 406A-N+1 or 506A-N+1 have buffers, see Figs. 4C-D and 5D; also note: each of the slave nodes 506 may replicate command data up the chain, until the command data reaches a last node or a final node 506N+1 and at which point exits the network back to master 504 and also down the chain until the command data reaches initial node 506A and at which point exits the network back to master 504, see para. [0079]).
As to claim 8, Kain’720 also discloses a common protocol is adopted for communication between the master controller and the first slave controller (master node to send a command to slave node 506B, via slave node 506A, see para. [0074] and Fig. 5A).
As to claim 9, Kain’720 also discloses two interfaces are arranged in each slave controller, and each interface has a transmitting and receiving function (Tx and Rx in slaves 406A-N+1 or 506A-N+1, see Figs. 4C-D and 5D; also note: each of the slave nodes 506 may replicate command data up the chain, until the command data reaches a last node or a final node 506N+1 and at which point exits the network back to master 504 and also down the chain until the command data reaches initial node 506A and at which point exits the network back to master 504, see para. [0079]); the second slave controller located last in a cascading order is further configured to transmit a second fake data through its own idle interface after receiving the command information, wherein the second fake data has a same data length as the command information; the idle interface is an interface that is not coupled to other slave controllers (each of the slave nodes 506 transmit the same quantity of bits, see para. [0080]; all commands and responses through the system have an equal bit length, see para. [0065]).
As to claim 10, Kain’720 also discloses two interfaces are arranged in each slave controller, and each interface has a transmitting and receiving function (Tx and Rx in slaves 406A-N+1 or 506A-N+1, see Figs. 4C-D and 5D; also note: each of the slave nodes 5-6 may replicate command data up the chain, until the command data reaches a last node or a final node 506N+1 and at which point exits the network back to master 504 and also down the chain until the command data reaches initial node 506A and at which point exits the network back to master 504, see para. [0079]); the first slave controller is further configured to transmit a plurality of first fake data that has the same number as the plurality of second slave controllers through its own idle interface during the network response period; the idle interface is an interface that is not coupled to other slave controllers (each of the slave nodes 506 transmit the same quantity of bits, see para. [0080]; all commands and responses through the system have an equal bit length, see para. [0065]).
As to claim 11, Kain’720 also discloses the daisy chain includes n second slave controllers, n being a positive integer greater than 1, when a communication interruption is in any two adjacent second slave controllers, n second slave controllers are divided into x second slave controllers and y second slave controllers based on a position of the communication interruption, both x and y being positive integers greater than or equal to 1, and x + y = n; the x second slave controllers and the first slave controller form a first daisy chain network; the y second slave controller and the first slave controller form a second daisy chain network (slave nodes 406A-N+1 or 506A-N+1, see Figs. 4A-E and 5A-D; also note: bit lengths, see paras. [0065], [0081]-[0083]).
As to claim 12, Kain’720 also discloses when x is equal to y, the first daisy chain network and the second daisy chain network are configured to perform a same operation as the operation function (slave node 406B receive the forwarded command and in response, forward the command and reply to the command further up the chain to the slave nodes 406N and 406N+1, see paras. [0056], [0059], [0060]; also note: transmitting replies up and down the chain, see para. [0069] and Figs 5A-C); a total data length of the response information transmitted by each second slave controller in the first daisy chain network and the second daisy chain network is a sum of data lengths of x/y response information; when x is greater than y, the first daisy chain network is configured to perform the same operation as the operation function; a total data length of the response information transmitted by each second slave controller in the second daisy chain network is a sum of data lengths of x response information; when y is greater than x, the second daisy chain network is configured to perform the same operation as the operation function; a total data length of the response information transmitted by each second slave controller in the first daisy chain network is a sum of data lengths of y response information (slave nodes 406A-N+1 or 506A-N+1, see Figs. 4A-E and 5A-D; also note: bit lengths, see paras. [0065], [0081]-[0083]).
As to claim 13, Kain’720 also discloses two interfaces are arranged in each slave controller, and each interface has a transmitting and receiving function (Tx and Rx in slaves 406A-N+1 or 506A-N+1, see Figs. 4C-D and 5D; also note: each of the slave nodes 506 may replicate command data up the chain, until the command data reaches a last node or a final node 506N+1 and at which point exits the network back to master 504 and also down the chain until the command data reaches initial node 506A and at which point exits the network back to master 504, see para. [0079]); in the first daisy chain network or the second daisy chain network, the second slave controller located last in the cascading order is further configured to transmit a second fake data through its own idle interface after receiving the command information, wherein the second fake data has a same data length as the command information. the idle interface is an interface that is not coupled to other slave controllers (each of the slave nodes 506 transmit the same quantity of bits, see para. [0080]; all commands and responses through the system have an equal bit length, see para. [0065]).
As to claim 14, Kain’720 also discloses when x is equal to y, a total data length of the response information transmitted by the first slave controller is a difference between the sum of the data lengths of the x/y response information and a data length of the command information;
when x is greater than y, the total data length of the response information transmitted by the first slave controller is a difference between the sum of the data lengths of the x response information and the data length of the command information (slave node 406B receive the forwarded command and in response, forward the command and reply to the command further up the chain to the slave nodes 406N and 406N+1, see paras. [0056], [0059], [0060]; also note: transmitting replies up and down the chain, see para. [0069] and Figs 5A-C); When y is greater than X, the total data length of the response information transmitted by the first slave controller is a difference between the sum of the data lengths of the y response information and the data length of the command information (slave nodes 406A-N+1 or 506A-N+1, see Figs. 4A-E and 5A-D; also note: bit lengths, see paras. [0065], [0081]-[0083]).
As to claim 15, Kain’720 also discloses a battery management system, comprising: a battery pack including a plurality of battery modules (battery management systems configured with battery stacks, see paras. [0037], [0046], [0066], Figs. 4A-D, 5A-D); and the daisy chain communication system (ring-type, daisy-chain of slave nodes with a first slave node in the chain being coupled to a master node that is coupled to the controller, see paras. [0022] and [0086], Figs. 5A-D).
Note claim 16 recites similar limitations of claim 1. Therefore it is rejected based on the same reason accordingly.
Note claim 17 recites the corresponding limitations of claim 9. Therefore it is rejected based on the same reason accordingly.
Note claim 18 recites the corresponding limitations of claim 10. Therefore it is rejected based on the same reason accordingly.
Note claim 19 recites the corresponding limitations of claim 11. Therefore it is rejected based on the same reason accordingly.
Note claim 20 recites similar limitations of claim 12. Therefore it is rejected based on the same reason accordingly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Sporck et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0347003 A1) discloses master-slave multi-phase charging.
Estes (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0001945 A1) discloses solar power generation, distribution, and communication with daisy-chained solar panels.
KESSLER et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0220502 A1) discloses GPIO-to-GPIO communication on a multi-node daisy-chained network.
Kessler et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0222829 A1) discloses synchronous slave-to-slave communication in a multi-node daisy-chained network without need for data slots to route through the master node.
Cella et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0121342 A1) discloses systems for data collection utilizing relative phase detection.
YUN (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0365792 A1) discloses battery management system including slave controllers couple to respective battery modules.
CHO et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0227863 A1) discloses integrated circuit and battery management system capable of detecting a failed voltage-detecting IC or communication route.
The examiner requests, in response to this office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application. When responding to this office action, applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37 C.F.R. 1.111(c).
In amending in reply to a rejection of claims in an application or patent under reexamination, the applicant or patent owner must clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. The applicant or patent owner must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TITUS WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1627. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10am-6pm.
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 on (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.
/TITUS WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2181
Prosecution Insights