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 .
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 12 – 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 8,645,580 (hereinafter Koudar).
As per claim 1, Koudar teaches a method of assigning a respective controller area network (CAN) ID to each of a plurality of devices (Koudar; Figure 1 Items 110, 120, and 130), wherein the each of the plurality of devices is coupled with a CAN bus (Koudar; Figure 1 Item 108, Col 1 Lines 27 – 35, Col 2 Lines 29 – 31) and comprises at least one input (Koudar; Figure 1 Items 116, 126, and 136) and at least one output (Koudar; Figure 1 Items 118, 128, and 138) by which the plurality of devices are connected (Koudar; Figure 1), in a chain (Koudar; Col 2 Lines 31 – 35), to a controller (Koudar; Figure 1 Item 102) of the CAN bus having at least one output (Koudar; Figure 1 Item 106), the method comprising: resetting the CAN ID of the each of the plurality of devices to a same initial value (Koudar; Col 3 Lines 13 – 16); using the at least one output of the controller to set the at least one input of a first device (Koudar; Figure 1 Item 110) of the plurality of devices to a first value (Koudar; Col 3 Line 63 – Col 4 Line 3); using the first value to set the CAN ID of the first device (Koudar; Col 3 Line 63 – Col 4 Line 3); using the at least one output of the first device to set the at least one input of a second device (Koudar; Figure 1 Item 120) of the plurality of devices to a second value (Koudar; Col 4 Lines 3 – 9), wherein the second device is connected to the first device (Koudar; Figure 1 Items 118 and 126); and using the second value to set the CAN ID of the second device (Koudar; Col 4 Lines 3 – 9).
As per claims 2 and 13, Koudar also teaches wherein the at least one input of the each of the plurality of devices is configured as a CAN ID port (Koudar; Col 3 Lines 28 – 38, Col 3 Line 63 – Col 4 Line 11).
As per claims 3 and 14, Koudar also teaches wherein the first device is nearest to the controller in the chain (Koudar; Figure 1 Item 110).
As per claim 4, Koudar also teaches wherein the second value is different from the first value (Koudar; Col 4 Lines 9 – 11).
As per claim 12, Koudar teaches a system of assigning a respective controller area network (CAN) ID to each of a plurality of devices (Koudar; Figure 1 Items 110, 120, and 130), the system comprising: the each of the plurality of devices being coupled with a CAN bus (K Koudar; Figure 1 Item 108, Col 1 Lines 27 – 35, Col 2 Lines 29 – 31); and a controller (Koudar; Figure 1 Item 102) of the CAN bus having at least one output (Koudar; Figure 1 Item 106), wherein the each of the plurality of devices comprises at least one input (Koudar; Figure 1 Items 116, 126, and 136) and at least one output (Koudar; Figure 1 Items 118, 128, and 138) by which the plurality of devices are connected, in a chain (Koudar; Col 2 Lines 31 – 35), to the controller (Koudar; Figure 1 Item 102); wherein the CAN ID of the each of the plurality of devices is reset to a same initial value after the system is powered on (Koudar; Col 3 Lines 13 – 16); wherein the at least one output of the controller is used to set the at least one input of a first device (Koudar; Figure 1 Item 110) of the plurality of devices to a first value (Koudar; Col 3 Line 63 – Col 4 Line 3), and the first value is used to set the CAN ID of the first device (Koudar; Col 3 Line 63 – Col 4 Line 3); wherein the at least one output of the first device is used to set the at least one input of a second device (Koudar; Figure 1 Item 120) of the plurality of devices to a second value, and the second value is used to set the CAN ID of the second device (Koudar; Col 4 Lines 3 – 9), wherein the second device is connected to the first device (Koudar; Figure 1 Items 118 and 126).
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 8,645,580 (hereinafter Koudar) in view of US Patent No. 9,146,866 (hereinafter Fujimoto).
As per claims 5 and 15, Koudar teaches the invention as described per claims 1 and 12 (see rejections of claims 1 and 12 above).
Koudar does not teach wherein setting the CAN ID of the first device and setting the CAN ID of the second device each further comprises the controller instructing any devices having the same initial value of CAN ID to reset.
However, Brower a CAN based device identifier assignment method in which devices with a same value are instructed to reset (Brower; Col 8 Lines 56 – 59).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Koudar to include the reset because doing so allows for each device to obtain unique identifiers (Brower; Col 8 Lines 56 – 59).
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 8,645,580 (hereinafter Koudar) in view of US Patent No. 9,146,866 (hereinafter Fujimoto).
As per claims 8 and 18, Koudar teaches the invention as described per claims 1 and 12 (see rejections of claims 1 and 12 above).
Koudar does not teach wherein the at least one input is a first input and the at least one output is a first output, and wherein the each of the plurality of devices comprises a plurality of further outputs and a plurality of further inputs, and each of the plurality of further outputs is electrically connected to a respective one of the plurality of further inputs.
However, Fujimoto teaches a daisy-chain device topology wherein a device (Fujimoto; Figure 9 Item 12) has multiple inputs and outputs connected to each other (Fujimoto; Figure 9 Item 12 – Output is connected to input through device 4-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Koudar to include the multiple inputs and outputs because doing so allows for device communication without requiring topology recognition by the host (Fujimoto; Col 11 Lines 6 – 12).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7, 9 – 11, 16, 17, 19, and 20 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:
Claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims because the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest alone or in combination wherein the at least one input of the each of the plurality of devices is a respective plurality of M ID ports configured to receive an M-bit value corresponding to a binary value at each ID port, the at least one output of the each of the plurality of devices is a respective plurality of M general-purpose input/output (GPIO) terminals configured to output an M-bit value corresponding to a binary value at each GPIO terminal, and wherein, using the at least one output of the first device to set the at least one input of a second device of the plurality of devices to a second value comprises the controller instructing the first device to output, at the M GPIO terminals, a value which is one greater than the value of the CAN ID of the first device, as required by dependent claims 6 and 16, in combination with the other claimed limitations. The prior art of record teaches an ID port to receive a value corresponding to a binary value, an output port for outputting a binary value to a next device, and the output value being an incremented value based on the ID of a first device, but does not teach the specific arrangement of ports combined with the controller instructing the first device to output the value, as required by dependent claims 6 and 16.
Claims 7 and 17 would also be allowable because of their dependence, either directly or indirectly, upon allowable dependent claims 6 and 16.
Claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims because the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest alone or in combination wherein setting the CAN ID of the first device further comprises: after using the at least one output of the controller to set the at least one input of a first device of the plurality of devices to a first value, the controller instructing any devices having the same initial value of CAN ID to reset, the controller instructing any devices having the first value of the first input to output a third value at its plurality of further outputs, thereby applying the third value to its plurality of further inputs, and the controller instructing any devices having the first value of the first input to reset; and setting the CAN ID of the second device comprises: after using the at least one output of the first device to set the at least one input of a second device of the plurality of devices to a second value, the controller instructing any devices having the same initial value of CAN ID to reset, the controller instructing any devices having the second value of the first input to output a fourth value at its plurality of further outputs, thereby applying the fourth value to its plurality of further inputs, and the controller instructing any devices having the second value of the first input to reset, as required by dependent claims 9 and 19, in combination with the other claimed limitations. The prior art of record teaches setting CAN IDs of first and second devices, but does not teach the specific methodology required by dependent claims 9 and 19.
Claims 10 and 20 would also be allowable because of their dependence, either directly or indirectly, upon allowable dependent claims 9 and 19.
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims because the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest alone or in combination wherein each of the plurality of further outputs is connected to a respective one of the plurality of further inputs by way of a latch, as required by dependent claim 11, in combination with the other claimed limitations. The prior art of record teaches devices with a plurality of further inputs and outputs connected to each other but does not teach that such a connection is done by way of a latch, as required by dependent claim 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD B FRANKLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0669. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm.
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.
/RICHARD B FRANKLIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2181