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 .
About The Invention
Claims 1-15 have been presented and pending in the application.
After careful consideration of the claimed invention (i.e., see the following discussions of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA )), the claimed invention is extremely broad & unclear; therefore, the examiner cannot properly determine the clear metes and bounds of the claimed invention. For example, as can be seen from the claim 1, there are too many interpretations that can be applied to the claimed invention of the claim 1. As in “simultaneously transmitting” step, since it does not define the transmitting timing, and/or the data “fields” & “frames” with respect to undetailed/undefined transmitting timing, the clear metes and bounds of the claimed invention cannot be properly determined. More importantly, the transmitted data frames are not utilized by the claimed invention; therefore, again, the clear metes & bounds of the claimed invention cannot be determined.
Examiner notes that when the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation, the claimed invention, for example the claim 1, reads on or appears to describe well-known one or more portions of bus lines that passes data (i.e., a bus lines that are used to transmit data) of any well-known computing devices (e.g., smart phone, PC, laptop, tablet…etc.); therefore, since the specification of the present application describes a subject matter different from the claimed invention, the clear metes and bounds of the claimed invention cannot be determined due to the level of the differences between the specification description & the claimed invention are enormous.
For the above reasons, the examiner applies the following rejection.
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 1-15 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.
In Claim 1;
In line 3, it is unclear and unstated as to who or what supports/performs the “receiving” function/operation/step (i.e., the claimed invention mentioned only a piece of bus line without more; consequently, receiving seems to be impossible in the context of the claimed invention. In addition, receiving without any sender seems to be more impossible); therefore, the claimed invention is vague and indefinite. The clear metes and bounds of the claimed invention cannot be properly determined.
In line 4, it is unclear and unstated as to who or what supports/performs the “inserting” function/operation/step (i.e., the claimed invention mentioned only a piece of bus line without more; consequently, inserting seems to be impossible in the context of the claimed invention. In addition, inserting without any sender seems to be more impossible); therefore, the claimed invention is vague and indefinite. The clear metes and bounds of the claimed invention cannot be properly determined (i.e., who or what inserts/generates/adds data fields?).
In line 7, it is unclear and unstated as to who or what supports/performs the “simultaneously transmitting” function/operation/step (i.e., the claimed invention mentioned only a piece of bus; consequently, simultaneously transmitting seems to be impossible in the context of the claimed invention); therefore, the claimed invention is vague and indefinite. The clear metes and bounds of the claimed invention cannot be properly determined (i.e., who or what supports simultaneously transmitting step/function?).
In lines 4 & 7, the claimed invention does not disclose any functional, structural, & operational relationship between the frames (line 4) & the frames (line 7); therefore; it is unclear as to whether the inserted frames or any other frames are transmitted; therefore, the claimed invention is vague and indefinite. The clear metes and bounds of the claimed invention cannot be properly determined.
In Claim 2;
In line 2, it is unclear and unstated as to who or what performs/supports the “three different voltage level is used” step/function/operation; in addition, the phrase “three different voltage level is used lacks proper and clear antecedent basis. The claimed invention does not support the limitations of the phrase “three different voltage level is used”; therefore, the clear metes and bounds of the claimed invention cannot be determined. The above unclarities of the claim 2 are similarly applied to claim 13
In Claim 3;
In lines 2-3, the phrase “calculated checksums of the data obtained in the respective data field” lacks proper and clear antecedent basis (i.e., the claimed invention lacks support for performing such function/operations).
In Claim 4;
In line 4, the phrase “total length of the checksum field” lacks proper and clear antecedent basis.
In line 3-4, the phrase “case of the data field with the same length” lacks proper and clear antecedent basis.
In claim 5;
In line 2, the phrase “checksum fields of the frames are of the same length” lacks proper and clear antecedent basis.
In claim 6;
In line 2, the phrase “CAN bus systems with only two different voltage levels or such backward-compatible with such CAN frames” lacks proper and functional antecedent basis.
In claim 8, “transmitted simultaneously by the at least three different voltage levels” lacks proper and clear antecedent basis.
In claims 9-11;
In line 2, the “data field” & “checksum field of two simultaneously transmitted” lack proper and clear antecedent basis.
In claim 10-11;
In line 2, “arbitration data and/or control data are transmitted” lacks proper and clear antecedent basis.
Ine claim 12;
In line 2, the functional/operational relationship between the “data” of the claim 11 and the claim 1 are unclear from the context of the claimed invention (i.e., it appears that the “data” can be consisted of fields/frames & vice versa).
In claim 15;
The unclarities of the claim 1 are similarly applied; and, in lines 3-4, it is unclear and unstated as to whether & how the voltage levels are utilized by the claimed “instructions” (i.e., how does the steps of lines 6-10 utilizes/applies/uses four different voltage levels?).
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.
(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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Keithley (US 7,707,349 B1).
As best understood by the examiner, due to the numerous unclarities & indefiniteness of the claimed invention, the claimed invention is a bus line/node/interface/structure for receiving and/or transmitting data, without utilizing such data. Clearly, in figures 1 & 2 with accompanying description, the Keithley reference teaches the claimed invention is a bus line/node/interface/structure for receiving and/or transmitting data, without utilizing such data. Therefore, the claimed invention is clearly anticipated by the claimed invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by ZEH ALEXANDER et al. (DE102018110252A1), See also the English Translation.
As best understood by the examiner, due to the numerous unclarities & indefiniteness of the claimed invention, the claimed invention is a bus line/node/interface/structure for receiving and/or transmitting data, without utilizing such data. Clearly, in figures 1-7 with accompanying description, the ALEXANDER reference teaches the claimed invention is a bus line/node/interface/structure for receiving and/or transmitting data, without utilizing such data. Therefore, the claimed invention is clearly anticipated by the claimed invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by JULIATO et al. (US 2020/0127848 A1).
As best understood by the examiner, due to the numerous unclarities & indefiniteness of the claimed invention, the claimed invention is a bus line/node/interface/structure for receiving and/or transmitting data, without utilizing such data. Clearly, in figures 1-7 with accompanying description, the JULIATO reference teaches the claimed invention is a bus line/node/interface/structure for receiving and/or transmitting data, without utilizing such data. Therefore, the claimed invention is clearly anticipated by the claimed invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Fredriksson (US 2017/0126679 A1)).
As best understood by the examiner, due to the numerous unclarities & indefiniteness of the claimed invention, the claimed invention is a bus line/node/interface/structure for receiving and/or transmitting data, without utilizing such data. Clearly, in figures 1-6 & 12-13 with accompanying description, the Fredriksson reference teaches the claimed invention is a bus line/node/interface/structure for receiving and/or transmitting data, without utilizing such data. Therefore, the claimed invention is clearly anticipated by the claimed invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Antonsson (US 2022/0376948 A1) or (US 2022/0376947 A1).
As best understood by the examiner, due to the numerous unclarities & indefiniteness of the claimed invention, the claimed invention is a bus line/node/interface/structure for receiving and/or transmitting data, without utilizing such data. Clearly, in figures 1-8 with accompanying description, the Antonsson reference teaches the claimed invention is a bus line/node/interface/structure for receiving and/or transmitting data, without utilizing such data. Therefore, the claimed invention is clearly anticipated by the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER B SHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-4159. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:00 PM.
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 N 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.
/CHRISTOPHER B SHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2181
Prosecution Insights