DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Interpretation
Observation 1: Claim 1 recites “a vehicle communication system comprising a frame conversion unit…., the frame conversion unit includes a processor”. The system claim does not invoke 101 software per se because the system comprises a frame conversion unit and the unit comprises at least one processor.
Observation 2: Applicant introduces in the claim the terms slaves and masters. Examiners interpret these terms as any network device/node that communicate in a network with another network device.
Observation 3: Applicant introduces in the claim the terms time synchronization frame and communication frames. Examiner interprets these frames as two different frames under BRI in light of specification. The prior art presented below provides two different frames and the device is converting one frame to another frame.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation 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.
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 “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
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.
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.
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.
Regarding Claim 2: Claim 2 recites “A communication relay device for relaying communication between a plurality of masters that comply with a communication protocol that does not support a VLAN (Virtual Local Area Network) function and a plurality of slaves that comply with a communication protocol that supports the VLAN function, via a communication network, the relay device comprising
a frame conversion unit configured to convert a time synchronization communication frame transmitted from the plurality of masters into a communication frame that supports the VLAN function”.
A claim limitation invokes 112(f) if it meets the three-prong analysis: (1) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term as a substitute for “means” as a generic placeholder; (2) the term
“means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language; and (3) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. MPEP 2181(I). Under the first prong, “device, unit are used as a generic placeholder. There are functions of “relaying, converting” coupled to the means. The structure of the relay device and frame conversion unit in the specification of the instant application is outlined in Fig 10 wherein the relay device and the frame conversion unit have a processor [paragraph 0024] corresponding description in the specification and algorithm for performing the functions as shown in the fig. 4 and in the paragraphs [0028-0029]. Therefore, the claim limitations invoke 112(f), however having a defined structure in the specification along with the algorithms of these functions would not invoke 112(a) and 112(b) rejections.
Regarding Claim 5: Claim 5 recites “A communication network system comprising:
a relay device for relaying communication between a plurality of masters that comply with a communication protocol that does not support a VLAN (Virtual Local Area Network) function and a plurality of slaves that comply with a communication protocol that supports the VLAN function, via a communication network, the relay device including a frame conversion unit configured to convert a time synchronization communication frame transmitted from the plurality of masters into a communication frame that supports the VLAN function; the plurality of masters; and the plurality of slaves”.
A claim limitation invokes 112(f) if it meets the three-prong analysis: (1) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term as a substitute for “means” as a generic placeholder; (2) the term
“means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language; and (3) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. MPEP 2181(I). Under the first prong, “device, unit are used as a generic placeholder. There are functions of “relaying, converting” coupled to the means. The structure of the relay device and frame conversion unit in the specification of the instant application is outlined in Fig 10 wherein the relay device and the frame conversion unit have a processor [paragraph 0024] corresponding description in the specification and algorithm for performing the functions as shown in the fig. 4 and in the paragraphs [0028-0029]. Therefore, the claim limitations invoke 112(f), however having a defined structure in the specification along with the algorithms of these functions would not invoke 112(a) and 112(b) rejections.
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.
Claims 2, 5, 6, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Solomon et al. (“Solomon”, US 20040252717 A1) hereinafter Solomon.
Regarding claim 2, Solomon teaches a communication relay device ([0033-0040] Fig. 2, edge device 26, Fig. 1) for relaying communication between a plurality of masters that comply with a communication protocol that does not support a VLAN (Virtual Local Area Network) function ([0033-0040] Fig. 2, Fig. 1, native circuit, client nodes)([0048-0052] Table 2, 3, 4, VLAN tag, No VLAN tag) and a plurality of slaves that comply with a communication protocol that supports the VLAN function ([0033-0040] Fig. 2, Fig. 1, native circuit, client nodes, network devices 30iom the network 22, ethernet devices 26) via a communication network (Fig. 1, network element 22),
the relay device comprising
a frame conversion unit configured to convert a time synchronization communication frame transmitted from the plurality of masters into a communication frame that supports the VLAN function ([0033-0053] Fig. 2, Fig. 3, edge device has converter, adding VLAN TAG when converting frames).
Regarding claim 5, Solomon teaches a communication network system comprising (Fig. 1, System with client nodes, edge devices, ethernet CE devices, switches):
a relay device for relaying communication between a plurality of masters that comply with a communication protocol that does not support a VLAN (Virtual Local Area Network) function and a plurality of slaves that comply with a communication protocol that supports the VLAN function ([0033-0040] Fig. 2, Fig. 1, native circuit, client nodes)([0048-0052] Table 2, 3, 4, VLAN tag, No VLAN tag), via a communication network (Fig. 1, network element 22),
the relay device including a frame conversion unit configured to convert a time synchronization communication frame transmitted from the plurality of masters into a communication frame that supports the VLAN function ([0033-0053] Fig. 2, Fig. 3, edge device has converter, adding VLAN TAG when converting frames);
the plurality of masters ([0033-0040] Fig. 2, edge device 26, Fig. 1); and
the plurality of slaves ([0033-0040] Fig. 2, Fig. 1, native circuit, client nodes, network devices 30 in the network 22, ethernet devices 26).
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim 2.
Regarding claim 9, Solomon teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program executed by a computer constituting a device for relaying communication Fig. 1, System with client nodes, edge devices, ethernet CE devices, switches) between a plurality of masters that comply with a communication protocol that does not support a VLAN (Virtual Local Area Network) function and a plurality of slaves that comply with a communication protocol that supports the VLAN function ([0033-0040] Fig. 2, Fig. 1, native circuit, client nodes)([0048-0052] Table 2, 3, 4, VLAN tag, No VLAN tag), via a communication network (Fig. 1, network element 22), the program causing the computer to:
convert a time synchronization communication frame transmitted from the plurality of masters into a communication frame that supports the VLAN function ([0033-0053] Fig. 2, Fig. 3, edge device has converter, adding VLAN TAG when converting frames) ([0033-0040] Fig. 2, Fig. 1, native circuit, client nodes, network devices 30 in the network 22, ethernet devices 26, edge devices); and
transmit the time synchronization communication frame to a destination slave ([0048-0056] Fig. 3, send the frame over the packet network based on the destination address).
Regarding claim 12, Solomon teaches the communication relay device according to claim 2, further comprising:
an input port corresponding to each of the plurality of masters ([0010-0012, 0019, 0032] Fig. 1, plurality of ports connecting the edge device to both the clients nodes and packet network devices),
an output port corresponding to each of the plurality of slaves ([0010-0012, 0019, 0032] Fig. 1, plurality of ports connecting the edge device to both the clients nodes and packet network devices),, a storage that stores:
a frame determination rule for determining whether the time synchronization communication frame transmitted from at least one of the plurality of masters supports the VLAN function (Tables 1-8); and
a VLAN function confirmation information indicating whether an address of an input source and an output destination of the frame conversion unit support the VLAN function (Tables 1-8),
wherein
the frame conversion unit determines a destination of the converted frame based on the address and the VLAN function confirmation information, and transmits the converted frame to a slave that is the determined destination among the plurality of slaves ([0048-0056] Fig. 3, send the frame over the packet network based on the destination address).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable by Solomon et al. (“Solomon”, US 20040252717 A1) hereinafter Solomon, in view of Lee et al. (“Lee”, US 20250168037 A1) hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claim 1, Solomon teaches a frame conversion unit that is between the plurality of master ECUs and the plurality of slave ECUs ([0033-0053] Fig. 2, Fig. 3, edge device has converter, adding VLAN TAG when converting frames).
in the communication network (Fig. 1, network element 22),
, and
wherein
the plurality of master ECUs transmit a time synchronization communication frame to the frame conversion unit via the communication network ([0033-0053] Fig. 2, Fig. 3, edge device has converter, adding VLAN TAG when converting frames)([0043] converting Layer 2 Frame to ethernet Frames, or Converting ethernet Frames to layer 2 Frames) ([0033-0040] Fig. 2, Fig. 1, native circuit, client nodes, network devices 30iom the network 22, ethernet devices 26),
the frame conversion unit includes at least one processor and at least one memory storing a computer program code executed by the at least one processor ([0042] protocol converter has microprocessor, which is programmed in software to perform the functions described herein.), and
the computer program code causes the frame conversion unit to:
allocate a value of a domainNumber field in a message header of the time synchronization communication frame to a VLAN ID field to convert the time synchronization communication frame into a communication frame that support the VLAN function ([0060] To convert the Frame Relay frame to an Ethernet frame, converter 44 translates the Network Level Protocol ID (NLPID) field into the corresponding Ethernet type using a translation table, similar to that shown in Table II. For example, for IPv4, NPLID=0xCC, while for IPv6 NPLID=0x8E. For each Frame Relay Data Link Connection Identifier (DLCI), which is identified by its Q.922 address, converter 44 adds a unique VLAN tag to the Ethernet header. The mapping between VLAN tags and Q.922 addresses is typically specified in a configuration table held by the converter)([0057, 0069, 0071]); and
transmit the converted communication frame to the plurality of slave ECUs ([0033-0040] Fig. 2, Fig. 1, native circuit, client nodes)([0048-0052] Table 2, 3, 4, VLAN tag, No VLAN tag)([abstract, 0014, 0017-0018, 0024], The incoming data frames are transmitted in the second format via the network to the hub)(Tables 2-4).
Solomon does not teach, but Lee teaches
a vehicle communication system (Fig. 6, Vehicle with ECUs, Sensors, Actuators and Network devices and converters/switches ) comprising;
a plurality of master ECUs (electronic control units) that are mounted in a vehicle, and are configured not to support a VLAN (Virtual Local Area Network) function (Fig. 6, Sensors and Actuators);
a plurality of slave ECUs that are mounted in the vehicle, are configured to control the vehicle, and are configured to support the VLAN function (Fig. 6, SDN switches 1-4);
a communication network that is mounted in the vehicle, is configured to communicably connect the plurality of master ECUs and the plurality of slave ECUs ([0231, 0329] Fig. 6, CAN converter to convert CAN signals {NOT VLAN support} to ethernet signal {VLAN support});
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Solomon in view of Lee in order to have a vehicle system with sensors and SDN switches and converter between these devices because it would allow to provide a software-defined networking based (SDN-based) in-vehicle network and control method therefor to eliminate latency and transmission uncertainty when controller area network (CAN) signals are converted to Ethernet signals and transmitted within a vehicle network (Lee [0007]).
Claims 3-4, 7-8, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable Solomon et al. (“Solomon”, US 20040252717 A1) hereinafter Solomon, in view of GOGOLEV et al. (“GOGOLEV”, US 20210258264 A1) hereinafter GOGOLEV.
Regarding claim 3, Solomon teaches the communication relay device according to claim 2,
Solomon teaches the frame conversion unit is configured to allocate a value of a domainNumber field in a message header of the time synchronization communication frame to a VLAN ID field ([0060] To convert the Frame Relay frame to an Ethernet frame, converter 44 translates the Network Level Protocol ID (NLPID) field into the corresponding Ethernet type using a translation table, similar to that shown in Table II. For example, for IPv4, NPLID=0xCC, while for IPv6 NPLID=0x8E. For each Frame Relay Data Link Connection Identifier (DLCI), which is identified by its Q.922 address, converter 44 adds a unique VLAN tag to the Ethernet header. The mapping between VLAN tags and Q.922 addresses is typically specified in a configuration table held by the converter)([0057, 0069, 0071]);.
Solomon does not explicitly teach, but GOGOLEV teaches
wherein the plurality of masters comply with IEEE (registered trademark) 802.1AS-2020 ([0017, 0036] This may be done according to the IEEE 802.1AS-2011 and/or IEEE 802.1AS-2020 (“.1AS”) specification. The .1AS clock synchronization (clock sync) is sometimes considered as an evolution of the Precision Time Protocol according to IEEE1588, and thus has compatible time format.)([0060-0063] Fig. 1, NON TSN devices {non VLAN support}, and TSN devices {VLAN support}),
the plurality of slaves comply with IEEE 802.1AS-2011 ([0017, 0036] This may be done according to the IEEE 802.1AS-2011 and/or IEEE 802.1AS-2020 (“.1AS”) specification. The .1AS clock synchronization (clock sync) is sometimes considered as an evolution of the Precision Time Protocol according to IEEE1588, and thus has compatible time format.)([0060-0063] Fig. 1, NON TSN devices {non VLAN support}, and TSN devices {VLAN support}),
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Solomon in view of GOGOLEV in order to utilize network nodes according to IEEE 802.1AS-2011, and IEEE 802.1AS-2020 with TSN devices and non-TSN devices because it would allow non TSN devices be compatible to ethernet and or field bus protocol and allow to synch clocks between different devices with different standards (GOGOLEV [0016-0017]).
Regarding claim 4, Solomon and GOGOLEV teach the communication relay device according to claim 3,
Solomon teaches Wherein the frame conversion unit initializes the value of the domainNumber field and converts the time synchronization communication frame to in a case where allocation to the VLAN ID field is completed ([0060] To convert the Frame Relay frame to an Ethernet frame, converter 44 translates the Network Level Protocol ID (NLPID) field into the corresponding Ethernet type using a translation table, similar to that shown in Table II. For example, for IPv4, NPLID=0xCC, while for IPv6 NPLID=0x8E. For each Frame Relay Data Link Connection Identifier (DLCI), which is identified by its Q.922 address, converter 44 adds a unique VLAN tag to the Ethernet header. The mapping between VLAN tags and Q.922 addresses is typically specified in a configuration table held by the converter)([0057, 0069, 0071]).
Solomon does not explicitly teach, but GOGOLEV teaches
a version that supports the IEEE 802.1AS-2011 ([0060] To convert the Frame Relay frame to an Ethernet frame, converter 44 translates the Network Level Protocol ID (NLPID) field into the corresponding Ethernet type using a translation table, similar to that shown in Table II. For example, for IPv4, NPLID=0xCC, while for IPv6 NPLID=0x8E. For each Frame Relay Data Link Connection Identifier (DLCI), which is identified by its Q.922 address, converter 44 adds a unique VLAN tag to the Ethernet header. The mapping between VLAN tags and Q.922 addresses is typically specified in a configuration table held by the converter)([0057, 0069, 0071]).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Solomon in view of GOGOLEV in order to utilize network nodes according to IEEE 802.1AS-2011, and IEEE 802.1AS-2020 with TSN devices and non-TSN devices because it would allow non TSN devices be compatible to ethernet and or field bus protocol and allow to synch clocks between different devices with different standards (GOGOLEV [0016-0017]).
Regarding claim 7, Solomon teaches the communication relay method according to claim 6, wherein
Solomon teaches allocating a value of a domainNumber field in a message header of the time synchronization communication frame to a VLAN ID field ([0060] To convert the Frame Relay frame to an Ethernet frame, converter 44 translates the Network Level Protocol ID (NLPID) field into the corresponding Ethernet type using a translation table, similar to that shown in Table II. For example, for IPv4, NPLID=0xCC, while for IPv6 NPLID=0x8E. For each Frame Relay Data Link Connection Identifier (DLCI), which is identified by its Q.922 address, converter 44 adds a unique VLAN tag to the Ethernet header. The mapping between VLAN tags and Q.922 addresses is typically specified in a configuration table held by the converter)([0057, 0069, 0071]).
Solomon does not explicitly teach, but GOGOLEV teaches
the plurality of masters comply with IEEE (registered trademark) 802.1AS-2020 ([0060] To convert the Frame Relay frame to an Ethernet frame, converter 44 translates the Network Level Protocol ID (NLPID) field into the corresponding Ethernet type using a translation table, similar to that shown in Table II. For example, for IPv4, NPLID=0xCC, while for IPv6 NPLID=0x8E. For each Frame Relay Data Link Connection Identifier (DLCI), which is identified by its Q.922 address, converter 44 adds a unique VLAN tag to the Ethernet header. The mapping between VLAN tags and Q.922 addresses is typically specified in a configuration table held by the converter)([0057, 0069, 0071]), and
the method includes, when the plurality of slaves comply with IEEE 802.1AS-2011 ([0060] To convert the Frame Relay frame to an Ethernet frame, converter 44 translates the Network Level Protocol ID (NLPID) field into the corresponding Ethernet type using a translation table, similar to that shown in Table II. For example, for IPv4, NPLID=0xCC, while for IPv6 NPLID=0x8E. For each Frame Relay Data Link Connection Identifier (DLCI), which is identified by its Q.922 address, converter 44 adds a unique VLAN tag to the Ethernet header. The mapping between VLAN tags and Q.922 addresses is typically specified in a configuration table held by the converter)([0057, 0069, 0071]),
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Solomon in view of GOGOLEV in order to utilize network nodes according to IEEE 802.1AS-2011, and IEEE 802.1AS-2020 with TSN devices and non-TSN devices because it would allow non TSN devices be compatible to ethernet and or field bus protocol and allow to synch clocks between different devices with different standards (GOGOLEV [0016-0017]).
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim 4.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim 7.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FADI HAJ SAID whose telephone number is (571)272-2833. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST. 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, John Follansbee can be reached on 571-272-3964. 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 PAIR. 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 571-272-1000.
/FADI HAJ SAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights