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 19/076,306 last filed on March 11th, 2026.
Claims 1-5 are pending and have been examined, directed to IN-VEHICLE NETWORK SYSTEM AND ELECTRONIC CONTROL UNIT.
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 claim limitations in claim 1, such as:
“…the master electronic control unit configured to…execute/acquire/receive/allocate…
“…the slave electronic control unit configured to transmit…”
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.
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.
Claim limitations in claim 1, such as:
“…the master electronic control unit configured to…execute/acquire/receive/allocate…
“…the slave electronic control unit configured to transmit…”
invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, 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.
More specifically, the ECUs are “units” interpreted as generic black boxes. Filed Specifications ¶ [0005] uses the same language and ¶¶ [0072-74] mentions about hardware circuits like processor, but lacks the algorithm and/or the details about the claimed steps.
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. Dependent claims 2 and 3 are rejected due to dependency.
The applicant is encouraged to amend and add the corresponding structure like the processor within the ECUs, similar to claims 4 and 5.
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 1-3 are indicated as allowable, due to the specified details directed towards differentiating between master and slave ECUs (i.e., one of the ECUs is a master ECU…and [one] other than the master ECU is a slave ECU…) and their different functionalities (i.e., …slave ECU is configured to transmit, to the master ECU…[various requested information on dynamic messages]…. and the master ECU is configured to [receive…/allocate.../transmit…various types of data and/or messages…to the plurality of slave ECUs…), and to communicate back and forth either static and/or dynamic messaging while working within defined bandwidth constraints (i.e., “…total sum of data lengths of static messages to be transmitted per unit of time…is set…[within] a first bandwidth…of the communication bus…”, while another established bandwidth “…excluding the first bandwidth within the bandwidth of the communication bus…” is directed to the dynamic messages..), as well as considering the ordering of dynamic messages based on different priorities within the group of dynamic messages, to be sent (i.e., first priority versus second priority of dynamic messages).
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 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2014/0022912 A1 to Kim et al. (referred to hereafter as “Kim”).
As to claim 4, Kim discloses an electronic control unit that is configured to transmit and receive a static message and a dynamic message via a communication bus and that constitutes an in-vehicle network system including a plurality of the electronic control units (e.g., Kim: ¶¶ 10-12), the electronic control unit comprising a processing circuit, wherein:
a total sum of data lengths of the static messages to be transmitted per unit of time to the communication bus is set not to exceed a first bandwidth within a bandwidth of the communication bus (Kim discloses that a time cycle includes a static segment and a dynamic segment and each segment can have multiple slots. In other words, there is a total allotted amount of slots for the static messages portion, within one cycle or unit of time, e.g., Kim: ¶ 12);
a bandwidth excluding the first bandwidth within the bandwidth of the communication bus is a second bandwidth (Once again, there is an amount for static messages and an allotted amount for dynamic messages, so there are two bandwidth amounts, e.g., Kim: ¶ 12); and
the processing circuit is configured to execute:
acquiring first request information that is information including the number of dynamic messages of a first priority and the number of dynamic messages of a second priority that is a lower priority than the first priority, among the dynamic messages to be transmitted from the processing circuit to the communication bus (Kim discloses that the ECUs can acquire and/or transmit or receive dynamic messages with different priorities. In one example, when the system receives at least two different dynamic messages with different priorities, the system can acquire and make the determination on which dynamic message to prioritize and send first, whether it’s in one cycle or more, e.g., Kim: ¶¶ 23, 25-26 and Fig. 2);
receiving second request information that is information to be transmitted from another electronic control unit that constitutes the in-vehicle network system, the information including the number of dynamic messages of the first priority and the number of dynamic messages of the second priority, among the dynamic messages to be transmitted from the other electronic control unit to the communication bus (Similar to the above step(s), using the same scenario or another similar scenario, an ECU on the receiving end would have received the dynamic message(s) depending on the priorities, in one cycle or more, e.g., Kim: ¶¶ 23, 25-26 and Fig. 2);
allocating, based on the first request information and the second request information, the second bandwidth to the electronic control units such that an allocation amount to an electronic control unit with a greater number of dynamic messages of the first priority is larger than an allocation amount to an electronic control unit with a smaller number of dynamic messages of the first priority, among the electronic control units that constitute the in-vehicle network system (Following the above step(s), under the same scenario, the system can determine and allocate the amount of dynamic slots to the dynamic message with the higher priority, e.g., Kim: ¶¶ 23, 25-26 and Fig. 2);
transmitting, to the other electronic control unit, bandwidth information that is information regarding an allocation amount to the other electronic control unit within the second bandwidth (Following the above step(s), under the same scenario, the messages would be transmitted after determining which message(s) are prioritized while staying within the allowed limits for the dynamic messages portion, per cycle, e.g., Kim: ¶¶ 23, 25-26 and Fig. 2); and
adjusting the number of dynamic messages to be transmitted per unit of time to the communication bus such that a total sum of data lengths of the dynamic messages to be transmitted per unit of time to the communication bus does not exceed an allocation amount to the processing circuit within the second bandwidth (Following the above step(s), the system would allocate and then send the plurality of allowed dynamic messages within the allocated bandwidth that’s allowed for dynamic messages, e.g., Kim: ¶¶ 23, 25-26 and Fig. 2).
As to claim 5, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 4, as the processing circuit is performing in a similar fashion with respect to adjusting and transmitting the dynamic messages while working with the bandwidth constraints of the dynamic messages portion (e.g., Kim: ¶¶ 12, 23, 25-26, 33 and Fig. 2)
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