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 .
This Office Action is in response to the communications for the present US application number 19/013,695 last filed on January 08th, 2025.
Claims 1-22 are pending and have been examined, directed to DATA COMMUNICATION DEVICE AND DATA COMMUNICATION SYSTEM.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 8, 12, 15, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The first instance of the acronym “TC 10 specification” should be spelled out to avoid any misinterpretations.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Interpretation
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such examples were found in each independent claim 1, 4, 8, 12, 15 and 19.
For claims 1, 4, and 8, the limitation(s) in question were:
a transmission and reception unit that invalidates a transmission function…, executes a forced sleep …, and later validates the transmission function…
The transmission and reception unit is treated as a nonstructural term without any clear structural modifiers, that’s performing the three functions (or two in claims 4 and 8), all without clearly linking to any corresponding structure.
In claims 12, 15, and 18, the limitation(s) in question were:
a data communication device, that performs similar functionalities like in claim 1 (i.e., invalidating a transmission function, executing a forced sleep, and later validating the transmission function), on a transmission and reception unit.
The data communication device is now interpreted as the nonstructural term without any clear structural modifiers, that’s performing the three functions (or two in claims 15 and 18) without linking to any corresponding structure.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the filed Specifications shows that each described “section” were non-limiting, and terms like device were interchangeable with module or means. (e.g., ¶¶ [0054] and [0060]).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-22 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.
Claim limitations in claim 1 contained:
the transmission and reception unit that is performing various functions (i.e., invalidating a transmission function…, executing a forced sleep …, and later validating the transmission function…), invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Similarly, claim limitations in claim 12 contained:
the data communication device that similarly performs the same functions (i.e., invalidating a transmission function…, executing a forced sleep …, and later validating the transmission function…).
The other independent claims are all similar in variation to these two.
The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
A review of the filed Specifications shows that each described “section” were non-limiting, and terms like device were interchangeable with module or means. (e.g., ¶¶ [0054] and [0060]).
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The other independent claims 4, 8, 15, and 19 are all similar in variation to these two mentioned above, and all of the corresponding dependent claims are similarly rejected following the same rationale.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2022/0191058 A1 to Ishii et al. (referred to hereafter as “Ishii”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 20220329358 A1 to Fung et al. (referred to hereafter as “Fung”).
As to claim 1, Ishii further discloses a data communication device connected to an Ethernet comprising:
a data transmission and reception unit in which at least one of a data transmission side and a data reception side… (Ishii discloses of a similar system working with transmitting and receiving electronic control units (ECU) components within a system like a vehicle (e.g., Ishii: ¶ 29 and Fig. 2)), wherein:
the data transmission and reception unit executes a forced sleep process to force the data transmission and reception unit to be in a sleep state after a predetermined time has elapsed since invalidating a transmission function of the data transmission and reception unit (Ishii discloses of a similar system and scenario wherein the system can block or invalidate incoming user requests and force a sleeping process, e.g., Ishii: ¶¶ 39-40 and 49); and…
Ishii however does not expressly disclose of the various ECU components that adhere and conform to a Technical Committee 10 (or TC 10) specification.
And while Ishii discloses about blocking the sleep disabling requests and forcing a sleep period to finish (e.g., Ishii: ¶¶ 39-40 and 49), Ishii however does not explicitly elaborate on what happens after the forced sleep cycle, such as the data transmission and reception unit validates the transmission function of the data transmission and reception unit after completing the forced sleep process.
Presumably, it would be reasonable to one of ordinary skill in the art, to understand that after the break with the forced sleep and waiting for the discharge, then Ishii’s system can respond accordingly to the request afterwards.
Fung more expressly discloses of what Ishii lacks, disclosing of a similar system, with similar ECU/PHY components, that adheres to Technical Committee 10 (or TC10) protocol, (e.g., Fung: ¶¶ 4 and 16).
Additionally, Fung also more expressly discloses of a similar scenario wherein after receiving user requests or button presses, by the one or more ECU/PHY devices that handle the user presses/requests, Fung discloses of how the multiple ECU components can send each other requests, such that for example a slave device/ECU can trigger and send a wake up to a second master device/ECU. Once awaken, the second device/ECU can further execute or carry out some command or request (e.g., Fung: ¶¶ 20 and 23-24).
Based upon Fung’s more explicit teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and incorporate Fung’s teachings with the level of modular relationships between the ECU components, and while conforming to TC 10 specifications, altogether within Ishii’s overall system and teachings, as the TC 10 specification establishes the standards for sleep and wake-up mechanisms that are very pertinent to the specific functionalities that are being distinguished and fine-tuned, along with how in the resulting combined system, the relationship of the ECU components can further accommodate any forced sleep/wake cycles, as taught from Ishii’s teachings, before carrying out any subsequent requests, or respond to the user’s requests, and thus lead to an improved performance for the overall system.
As to claim 2, Ishii further discloses the data communication device according to claim 1, wherein: the predetermined time is a time required for disappearing a remaining transmission waveform on the Ethernet caused by signal transmission (Waiting out the remaining charge to drop below a certain threshold level, e.g., Ishii: ¶¶ 39 and 49).
As to claim 3, Ishii further discloses the data communication device according to claim 2, wherein: the predetermined time is variable (Following claims 1 and 2, the waiting period can include one or both or more conditions, for the time since the user’s button push request (or continually presses, emergency scenarios) and the remaining charge to dissipate, and so that time may not always be the same, depending on the situation scenario, e.g., Ishii: ¶¶ 39 and 49).
As to claim 4, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 1, as it’s broader with one less limitation feature and the invalidation step can be interpreted in a similar way, with the opposite perspective, whether it is from the transmission or reception perspective.
As to claim 5, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 1 covering the last section on validating the reception of the function/request, to be carried out.
As to claims 6 and 7, see the similar corresponding rejection of claims 2 and 3 respectively.
As to claim 8, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 1, as it’s broader with one less limitation feature and the invalidation step can be again interpreted in a similar way, especially since Ishii discloses of the “sleeping disabling requests” (or wake up signal) which are ignored and the system is still forced to sleep for a period of time.
As to claim 9, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 1 covering the last section on validating the reception of the function/request, to be carried out.
As to claims 10 and 11, see the similar corresponding rejection of claims 2 and 3 respectively.
As to claim 12, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 1, as the system can constitute the same set of modular devices and components as claim 1 established.
As to claims 13 and 14, see the similar corresponding rejection of claims 2 and 3 respectively.
As to claim 15, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 4 or 1.
As to claim 16, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 5 or 1.
As to claims 17 and 18, see the similar corresponding rejection of claims 2 and 3 respectively.
As to claim 19, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 4 or 1.
As to claim 20, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 5 or 1.
As to claims 22 and 23, see the similar corresponding rejection of claims 2 and 3 respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Xiang Yu whose telephone number is (571)270-5695. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-3:00 (PST/PDT).
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at (571)272-3865. 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.
/X.Y./Examiner, Art Unit 2455
/EMMANUEL L MOISE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights