DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/961,963 has a total of 20 claims pending in the application; there are 2 independent claims and 18 dependent claims, all of which are ready for examination 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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
INFORMATION CONCERNING DRAWINGS
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
INFORMATION CONCERNING THE SPECIFICATION
Specification
The applicant’s specification submitted is acceptable for examination purposes.
REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART
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)(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.
Claims 1-7, 11-12, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102() as being anticipated by Radjabi et al. (Patent Number US 5,721,737).
As per claim 1, Radjabi et al. discloses “An electronic control unit comprising: a plurality of digital drivers (remote units 16; Column 3, lines 54-63; FIG. 1), each digital driver being configured for controlling at least one load (there exist two types of remote units 16 – output remote units and input remote units; Column 4, lines 46-54).” Radjabi et al. discloses “a central microcontroller configured for controlling the digital drivers (master unit 12; Column 3, lines 54-63; FIG. 1).” Radjabi et al. discloses “and an interconnection for communication between the central microcontroller and the digital drivers, the interconnection comprising: at least one serial bus configured for transmitting digital signals between the central microcontroller and the digital drivers (serial link 14; Column 3, lines 54-63; FIG. 1).” Radjabi et al. discloses “and at least one communication protocol comprising a set of commands (Column 2, lines 58-63) and a set of addresses for communication (Column 2, lines 48-58).”
As per claim 2, Radjabi et al. discloses “The electronic control unit of claim 1 (as disclosed by Radjabi et al. above), wherein the electronic control unit comprises a plurality of networks, wherein the interconnection comprises a plurality of serial busses and interconnects the networks (Column 7, lines 16-24), wherein each network comprises the central microcontroller, a serial bus and at least one digital driver (Column 3, lines 54-63; FIG. 1).”
As per claim 3, Radjabi et al. discloses “The electronic control unit of claim 1 (as disclosed by Radjabi et al. above), wherein the electronic control unit is arranged on a printed circuit board (PCB) (see the example of a plug-in card; Column 7, lines 62-65).”
As per claim 4, Radjabi et al. discloses “The electronic control unit of claim 1 (as disclosed by Radjabi et al. above), wherein the communication protocol is a standardized communication protocol (Column 2, lines 48-63).”
As per claim 5, Radjabi et al. discloses “The electronic control unit of claim 1 (as disclosed by Radjabi et al. above), wherein the communication protocol is a network protocol (Column 7, lines 16-24).”
As per claim 6, Radjabi et al. discloses “The electronic control unit of claim 1 (as disclosed by Radjabi et al. above), wherein the digital drivers are network compatible (Column 7, lines 16-24).”
As per claim 7, Radjabi et al. discloses “The electronic control unit of claim 1 (as disclosed by Radjabi et al. above), wherein the interconnection further comprises: at least one point-to-point connection from the central microcontroller to at least one digital driver of the plurality of digital drivers (as shown by the presence of unique primary address for each remote unit 16 with the reply expected from the selected remote unit 16; Column 5, lines 20-27).”
As per claim 11, Radjabi et al. discloses “The electronic control unit of claim 1 (as disclosed by Radjabi et al. above), wherein the central microcontroller is configured for sending at least one command via the serial bus to at least one digital driver, wherein the digital driver is configured for receiving and executing the command, wherein the command is defined in the communication protocol, wherein the command is a general command, wherein the general command is transmitted to all digital drivers (under the section ‘Operation’ where a master unit 12 is involved in command transmissions; Column 6, lines 59-67 to Column 7, lines 1-49).”
As per claim 12, Radjabi et al. discloses “The electronic control unit of claim 1 (as disclosed by Radjabi et al. above), wherein the central microcontroller is configured for assigning an address from the set of addresses defined in the communication protocol to at least one digital driver (as shown by the presence of unique primary address for each remote unit 16 with the reply expected from the selected remote unit 16; Column 5, lines 20-27).”
As per claim 18, Radjabi et al. discloses “A method for controlling a load by using an electronic control unit, the method comprising: a) generating a command (Column 2, lines 58-63) by using a central microcontroller of the electronic control unit (master unit 12; Column 3, lines 54-63; FIG. 1).” Radjabi et al. discloses “b) sending the command to a digital driver of the electronic control unit by transmitting a digital signal via a serial bus of the electronic control unit (serial link 14; Column 3, lines 54-63; FIG. 1).” Radjabi et al. discloses “and c) executing the command in the digital driver for controlling the load (Column 2, lines 58-63).”
As per claim 19, Radjabi et al. discloses “The method of claim 18 (as disclosed by Radjabi et al. above), further comprising: d) generating at least one piece of information by using the digital driver (as shown by the presence of unique primary address for each remote unit 16 with the reply expected from the selected remote unit 16; Column 5, lines 20-27).” Radjabi et al. discloses “e) sending the piece of information to the central microcontroller by transmitting a digital signal via the serial bus (serial link 14; Column 3, lines 54-63; FIG. 1).” Radjabi et al. discloses “and f) processing the piece of information by using the central microcontroller (as shown by the presence of unique primary address for each remote unit 16 with the reply expected from the selected remote unit 16; Column 5, lines 20-27).”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 8-10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Radjabi et al. (Patent Number US 5,721,737) in view of Di Guilio et al. (Patent Number US 5,452,419).
As per claim 8, Radjabi et al. discloses “The electronic control unit of claim 7 (as disclosed by Radjabi et al. above). However, Radjabi et al. does not disclose “wherein the point-to-point connection is configured for transmitting analog signals.”
Di Guilio et al. discloses “wherein the point-to-point connection is configured for transmitting analog signals (see the use of the digital to analog function [Column 26, lines 56-57] and analog to digital function; Column 26, lines 58-65).”
Radjabi et al. and Di Guilio et al. are analogous art in that they in the field of device communications.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of Radjabi et al. and Di Guilio et al. to allow for simple incorporation of additional modules into a system [Column 1, lines 42-44].
As per claim 9, Di Guilio et al. discloses “The electronic control unit of claim 8 (as disclosed by Radjabi et al. and Di Guilio et al. above), wherein the point-to-point connection is configured for transmitting digital signals (see the use of the digital to analog function [Column 26, lines 56-57] and analog to digital function; Column 26, lines 58-65).”
As per claim 10, Di Guilio et al. discloses “The electronic control unit of claim 9 (as disclosed by Radjabi et al. and Di Guilio et al. above), wherein the central microcontroller is configured for transmitting at least one of an ON signal, an OFF signal and a pulse width modulation (PWM) signal via the at least one point-to-point connection to at least one digital driver of the plurality of digital drivers (Column 5, lines 43-53).”
As per claim 20, Radjabi et al. discloses “The method of claim 18 (as disclosed by Radjabi et al. above). However, Radjabi et al. does not disclose “further comprising: using the method for an automotive application.”
Di Guilio et al. discloses “further comprising: using the method for an automotive application (Column 1, lines 11-14).”
Radjabi et al. and Di Guilio et al. are analogous art in that they in the field of device communications.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of Radjabi et al. and Di Guilio et al. to allow for simple incorporation of additional modules into a system [Column 1, lines 42-44].
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Radjabi et al. (Patent Number US 5,721,737) in view of Kaloi et al. (Patent Number US 5,511,000).
As per claim 13, Radjabi et al. discloses “The electronic control unit of claim 1 (as disclosed by Radjabi et al. above). However, Radjabi et al. does not disclose “wherein the communication protocol comprises at least one safety concept.”
Kaloi et al. discloses “wherein the communication protocol comprises at least one safety concept (example is a safe shutdown; Column 13, lines 48-50).”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of Radjabi et al. and Kaloi et al. to allow for exchange of message and other information without degradation [Column 3, lines 66-67 to Column 4, lines 1-2].
As per claim 14, Radjabi et al. discloses “The electronic control unit of claim 1 (as disclosed by Radjabi et al. above).” However, Radjabi et al. does not disclose “wherein the safety concept comprises at least one watchdog.”
Kaloi et al. discloses “wherein the safety concept comprises at least one watchdog (example is a safe shutdown; Column 13, lines 48-50).”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of Radjabi et al. and Di Guilio et al. to allow for simple incorporation of additional modules into a system [Column 1, lines 42-44].
As per claim 15, Radjabi et al. discloses “The electronic control unit of claim 1 (as disclosed by Radjabi et al. above).” However, Radjabi et al. does not disclose “wherein the safety concept comprises at least one safe state for at least one digital driver.”
Kaloi et al. discloses “wherein the safety concept comprises at least one safe state for at least one digital driver (example is a safe shutdown; Column 13, lines 48-50).”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of Radjabi et al. and Di Guilio et al. to allow for simple incorporation of additional modules into a system [Column 1, lines 42-44].
As per claim 16, Radjabi et al. discloses “The electronic control unit of claim 1 (as disclosed by Radjabi et al. above).” However, Radjabi et al. does not disclose “wherein the communication protocol comprises a sleep command for at least one digital driver.”
Kaloi et al. discloses “wherein the communication protocol comprises a sleep command for at least one digital driver (sleep mode where user defined criteria causes the shutdown of all unnecessary circuitry and the micro-controller waits for a trigger; Column 13, lines 34-40).”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of Radjabi et al. and Di Guilio et al. to allow for simple incorporation of additional modules into a system [Column 1, lines 42-44].
As per claim 17, Radjabi et al. discloses “The electronic control unit of claim 1 (as disclosed by Radjabi et al. above). However, Radjabi et al. does not disclose “wherein the communication protocol comprises a wake-up command for at least one digital driver.”
Kaloi et al. discloses “wherein the communication protocol comprises a wake-up command for at least one digital driver (Column 14, lines 17-20).”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of Radjabi et al. and Di Guilio et al. to allow for simple incorporation of additional modules into a system [Column 1, lines 42-44].
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF REFERENCES CITED BY APPLICANT
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(c), the applicant's submission of the Information Disclosure Statement dated March 5, 2026, is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P 609 C(2), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed and dated by the examiner is attached to the instant office action.
RELEVENT ART CITED BY THE EXAMINER
The following prior art made of record and relied upon is citied to establish the level of skill in the applicant’s art and those arts considered reasonably pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See MPEP 707.05(c).
The following references teach device communications.
U.S. PATENT NUMBERS:2010/0064081 A1 – [FIG. 2]
2018/0143935 A1 – [FIG. 2; Paragraph 0019]
2021/0291849 A1 – [Paragraphs 0005, 0022, and 0063]
CLOSING COMMENTS
Conclusion
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 no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Henry Yu whose telephone number is (571)272-9779. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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.
/H.W.Y/Examiner, Art Unit 2181 March 6, 2026
/IDRISS N ALROBAYE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2181