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 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 - 4 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim limitation “receiving-side electronic control unit that requests” have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, because said limitations use the non-structural term “unit” coupled with functional language “that requests” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the non-structural term is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since this claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, claim 1 is interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Though Fig. 1 items 20 of Applicant’s specification illustrate the claimed unit, Applicant is reminded that if a claim function is a specific function to be performed by a special purpose computer, then the corresponding structure in the specification must be more than a mere reference to a general purpose computer, microprocessor, specialized computer, or an unidentified component of a computer system, software, logic, code or black box element. If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not wish to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim so that it will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph (e.g., by incorporating sufficient structure into the claim language to achieve the claimed functionality), or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011). Regarding claims 2 - 4, said claims suffer from issues corresponding to those of claim 1, as they depend on claim 1 and fail to clarify the issues noted above.
Claims 1 - 5 are further 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.
Regarding claim 1, line 1 introduces “a plurality of electronic control units”.
Line 2 then references “each of the electronic control units”, a reference back to the recitation on line 1. However, line 5 next recites “the electronic control unit”. There is lack of antecedent basis for a particular individual “electronic control unit”, resulting an unclear recitation of indefinite scope. Claim 1 continues to reference these control unit(s), including a recitation of “a receiving-side electronic control unit” on line 9 and “the plurality of electronic control units” on lines 9 – 10.
Note that lines 9 – 10 recite “a receiving-side electronic control unit that requests a service among the plurality of electronic control units”.
Line 12 then refers back to “received by all the electronic control units”. It is unclear if the recitation in line 12 is intended to reference “the plurality of electronic control units” of lines 9 – 10 (as they are the units who have received the service request) or another larger group of “electronic control units”. The number of similar but distinct references to possibly overlapping, but also possibly unique groups of electronic control units has resulted in an unclear claim of indefinite scope.
Further regarding claim 1, lines 10 – 14 recites:
“a service identifier unique to the service to be requested and having the first identifier to be
received by all the electronic control units;
each of the electronic control units determines whether the request message including
the service identifier corresponding to the service providable . . .” (emphasis added).
It is unclear if these two recitations are intended to refer to the same item; i.e., if the “service identifier corresponding to the service providable” is relying on “a service identifier unique to the service to be requested” for antecedent basis. Regardless of the intention, “a service identifier unique to the service to be requested” does not provide antecedent basis for “the service identifier corresponding to the service providable” as a “service to be requested” and a “service providable” are not the same thing. However, the “service identifier corresponding to the service providable” has no antecedent basis despite a degree of similarity to the other bolded recitation.
Claim 1 continues on lines 10 - 12, reciting “a request message including a service identifier unique to the service to be requested and having the first identifier to be received by all the electronic control units”. It is unclear if the “and having the first identifier to be received” is intended to further limit the “request message”, “service identifier”, “the service to be requested”, or perhaps the “receiving-side electronic control unit” of line 9. Line 14 of claim 1 next references “the electronic control unit”. As noted in the above comments, various groups of electronic control units are introduced in claim 1, along with references to individual electronic control units. It is unclear precisely which unit is being further limited by this particular recitation. Lines 14 – 15 of claim 1 recite “the received request message”. While line 10 references “a request message”, there is no antecedent basis for “the received request message”.
Line 17 of claim 1 references “the electronic control unit that has received”. There is no antecedent basis for this particular recitation (as well a many different introduced “electronic control unit” groups and individuals that may overlap in scope), compounding the indefiniteness issues in claim 1.
Lines 17 – 18 next recite “the request message including the service identifier corresponding to the providable service . . .”.
Preceding recitations in claim 1 include:
“a request message including a service identifier unique” (line 10),
“the request message including the service identifier corresponding to the providable service” (lines 13-14), “the received request message” (lines 15-16). There is a lack of antecedent basis for the noted recitation in lines 17 – 18. Additionally, it is unclear if the other recitations are intended to reference a single particular request message or multiple distinct messages. This issue is exacerbated by the similar but distinct phrasing utilized to reference various permutations of a “request message”. Lines 17 – 19 also recites “the electronic control unit that has received the request message including the service identifier corresponding to the providable service among the plurality of electronic control units”. It is unclear what “among the plurality of electronic control unit” is intended to modify or otherwise further specify. For example, is this language further specifying “the electronic control unit that has received”, or instead “the providable service”? The Examiner notes that other options could also be intended. Further regarding claim 1, line 21 recites “and having the first identifier to be received by all the electronic control units”. This concludes a clause that as a whole recites “the electronic control unit that has received the request message including the service identifier corresponding to the providable service among the plurality of electronic control units serves as a providing-side electronic control unit to transmit, to the communication bus, a response message including the service identifier included in the received request message and having the first identifier to be received by all the electronic control units”. It is unclear what part of this clause this concluding “and having the first identifier to be received by all the electronic control units” is intended to further specify or otherwise limit. For example, it could be further specifying a characteristic of the “response message” on line 20. Alternatively, it could be further specifying “the service identifier” or “the received request message”.
Line 22 continues by reciting “the providing-side electronic control unit”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this language. The recitation of “the communication message for the service” on line 23 and “the receiving-side electronic control unit that has received” on line 26 similarly lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 2, said claim recites “the electronic control unit” line 2. There are multiple recited electronic control unit and electronic control units in claim 1; which particular electronic control unit is being referenced in claim 2 is unclear and indefinite.
Further regarding claim 2, said claim recites “basic” software in line 2. It is unclear if this recitation is intended as a term of degree (i.e., “basic” software when contrasted with “complex” software) or if another interpretation is desired (such as “basic” in the context of Controller Area Network software that operates at the lower/lowest firmware levels).
Regarding claim 5, said claim recites language analogous to that of claim 1, and thus suffers from issue corresponding to those of claim 1.
In order to perform a complete examination, the above claims have been interpreted broadly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. This includes:
Iorio (Iorio, Marco, et al. "Protecting in-vehicle services: Security-enabled SOME/IP middleware." IEEE Vehicular Technology Magazine 15.3: 77-85. (Year: 2020)) discusses modern vehicle networks, which are includes use of multiple electronic control units (ECUs; pg. 1 R56-R61) operating in a CAN environment that includes Ethernet support (particularly applicable to pending claim 4; see Iorio, pg. 2, left column). The use of unique service IDs to differentiate messages of interest to particular endpoints is also discussed (pg. 3 L17-L25, R14-R24, Figure 2 on pg. 4 and Figure 3 on pg. 5).
Nichiţelea (Nichiţelea, Teodor-Constantin, and Maria-Geanina Unguritu. "Automotive ethernet applications using scalable service-oriented middleware over IP: service discovery." 2019 24th International Conference on Methods and Models in Automation and Robotics (MMAR). IEEE. (Year: 2019)), discusses techniques to utilize a CAN bus in conjunction with Ethernet networks (pg. 1 R52-R58, pg. 2 R42-R45). The disclosure operates in a service-oriented network and includes support for subscriptions (pg. 3, Section IV). Thus, Nichiţelea discusses a communication network system in which a plurality of electronic control units is connected by a communication bus (pg. 1, L35-L45), each of the electronic control units selects a communication message to be received among a plurality of the communication messages transmitted (pg. 3 L34-L38, pg. 4 L48-L56), as well as where the communication network system being configured such that, when a network is updated, (pg. 4 L48-L64) a receiving-side electronic control unit that requests a service among the plurality of electronic control units transmits to the communication bus (pg. 4 L48-L60). The general request/response service-based subscription architecture is illustrated in Figure 1 on page 3.
Oh (Oh, Sung Bhin, et al. "Implementation of some/ip-can gateway in view of automotive service discovery." 2024 IEEE 33rd International Symposium on Industrial Electronics (ISIE). IEEE. June. (Year: 2024)), like Nichiţelea and Iorio, discusses a hybrid CAN and Ethernet vehicle networking environment (pg. 1 L44-R39). Use of a gateway analogous to the gateway claimed by Applicant is discussed on Oh’s page 4 and illustrated in Figure 4.
Stöttinger (US-20210011632-A1) discusses mechanisms for labeling and associating requests and responses, e.g., “including transmitting, to the communication bus, the communication message for the service having, as the first identifier, a value generated based on a specific rule from a value of the service identifier included in the received request message”, as is recited in claims 1 and 5 (Stöttinger, [3-5]).
Rajan (US-20190141133-A1) discusses multiple ECUs in a CAN/Ethernet environment ([14,17,47]), where communication is maintained across the variety of endpoints via a gateway ([20-24, 33-34]). Use of message identifiers to facilitate message exchange/routing is also discussed ([24]). Parmar (US-20190126858-A1) also discusses vehicle message routing through the use of unique service IDs ([10-12,21, 58]). Message subscriptions are supported as a mechanism for various endpoint devices to provide services to other interested endpoints ([25-26,33]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M MACILWINEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9686. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Glenton B Burgess can be reached at (571) 272 - 3949. 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.
JOHN MACILWINEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2442
/JOHN M MACILWINEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights