DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to application filed on May 27th, 2025.
Claims 1~20 are examined.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/07/25, 09/16/25, and 07/13/26 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the disclosure is objected to because the current title, “COMMUNICATION METHOD AND APPARATUS”, is more indicative of a general category/subject to which claims are directed. While the current title describes the invention it does so in only a very general sense and is not clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. It lacks the necessary level of detail to differentiate Applicant’s automotive platform interoperability from others (i.e. a title clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed).
If a satisfactory title is not supplied by the Applicant, the Examiner may, at the time of allowance, change the title by Examiner’s Amendment pursuant to MPEP 606.01.
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 1~3 and 16~18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Flynn et al. hereinafter Flynn (WO 2021/143190).
Regarding Claim 1,
Flynn taught a method, applied to a first device, wherein the method comprises:
determining second data based on first data, wherein the first data and the second data meet a data type mapping relationship comprising a conversion relationship between data formats of different protocols [¶70, At step 163, service layer 132 may parse value from the content “352, 100, 212”. The first integer is a temperature measurement (measurement 1) with a value of 352. The remaining data (measurement 2 and measurement 3), which is not temperature, is truncated by service layer 132. At step 164, the value of step 163 is converted into desired format, which is 72 (see FIG. 7B) and translated to desired representation, which is “72°F”];
generating third data based on the second data, wherein the third data comprises the second data and second data description information of the second data [¶70, at step 165, meta-data is added to content. Additional data, which may have been in the message of step 161, is identified (e.g., timestamp and location). At step 166, content may be reordered to look like the following: 72°F., 5 Jun. 2015 12:48:31.23,40.1, -75.4]; and
sending to a second device, a first message comprising a data packet header and the third data [¶70, at step 167, a message is sent with the requested measurement (e.g., converted value) based on the message of step 161; Note: messages sent over a network implicitly includes sending a packet with headers].
Regarding Claims 2,
Flynn-Dong taught wherein the first data and the second data have different data formats, and wherein the first data and the second data comprise the same information [¶70, “requestedContentFormat” and “contentFormat” to identify elements that require re-formatting].
Regarding Claim 3,
Flynn taught wherein the second data description information comprises at least one of a data format of the second data, a length of the second data, or a message digest algorithm 5 MD 5 code of the second data [¶47, the semantic description provided allows an application associated with display 120 to convert to the desired representation].
Regarding Claims 16~18, the claims are similar in scope to claims 1~3 and therefore, rejected under the same rationale.
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 4~15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flynn in view of Ma (WO 2021/143190).
Regarding Claim 4,
Flynn-Ma taught wherein the data packet header comprises at least one of an action field, an identifier field, or a length field, wherein the action field indicates a type of the first message, wherein the identifier field indicates a topic, or indicates the topic, a receiving component of the third data, and a sending component of the third data, and wherein the length field indicates a length of the third data (DDS303 emphasizes data-centricity, and a topic is an identifier that uniquely identifies a certain kind of data. The message of a specific topic has a certain data type, and the data type is defined by the basic types of char, byte, int, etc).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made, to combine, Ma’s teaching of limitations with the teachings of Flynn, because the combination enables an autonomous driving system or an assisted autonomous driving system to have the excellent characteristics of both a first computer system and a second computer system, thereby improving the performance of the autonomous driving system or the assisted autonomous driving system (abstract).
Regarding Claim 5,
Flynn-Ma taught wherein the action field is a first value indicating that the first message is a publish message, and the publish message is used for the second device to send the third data to the receiving component, or wherein the action field is a second value indicating that the first message is a subscription message enabling the receiving component to send, to the sending component, information that meets a subscription requirement indicated by the third data (the communication mode of DDS303 is a publish-subscribe model. The publisher is responsible for managing (such as creating, deleting) data writers. Subscribers are responsible for managing (such as creating, deleting) data readers). The rationale to combine as discussed in claim 4, applies here as well.
Regarding Claim 6,
Flynn-Ma taught wherein the first device uses an automotive open system architecture (AUTOSAR) platform, and wherein the second device uses a platform other than the AUTOSAR platform (Fig. 11 and associated description). The rationale to combine as discussed in claim 4, applies here as well.
Regarding Claim 7,
Flynn-Ma taught wherein the first device is an on-board computing platform, and wherein the second device is a cockpit device (proxy device may be a computer device (such as a terminal device, a server, or a cloud server) or a chip; Fig. 11, agent device 92). The rationale to combine as discussed in claim 6, applies here as well.
Regarding Claims 8~15, 19, and 20, the claims are similar in scope to claims 4~7 and therefore, rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEE SOO KIM whose telephone number is (571) 270-3229. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas Taylor can be reached on (571) 272-3889. 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.
/HEE SOO KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights