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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2024-0180866, filed on 12/06/2024.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recites “changing the identifier for the sorted massages,” and it should messages. Appropriate correction is required.
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 5-10 and 14-19 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 5 recites “...an identifier, a message size, a cycle, a transmitter, a net name..,” and it is unclear from the claim language what this identifier refers to (e.g., such as the message identifier or some other identifier), what a cycle refers to/entails, and what a net name refers to/entails. Therefore, the claim is rejected as being indefinite for failing to clearly and distinctly define the entity in which the identifier refers to within the claim, what a cycle refers to/entails, and what a net name refers to/entails. Claims 6 and 7 are also rejected for their respective dependencies.
Claim 8 recites “…for each cycle, among a plurality of cycles, and changing a message name of the messages grouped by the cycle,” and it is unclear from the claim language what a cycle refers to/entails. Therefore, the claim is rejected as being indefinite for failing to clearly and distinctly define what a cycle refers to/entails.
Claim 9 recites “…each identifier among a plurality of identifiers; sorting the messages based on the identifier; and changing the identifier for the sorted messages,” and it is unclear from the claim language what this identifier refers to (e.g., such as the message identifier or some other identifier). Therefore, the claim is rejected as being indefinite for failing to clearly and distinctly define the entity in which the identifier refers to within the claim.
Claim 10 recites “…dividing, by the processor, the second data frame by the receiver…,” and it is unclear from the claim language what is meant by dividing the second data frame by the receiver. Therefore, the claim is rejected as being indefinite for failing to clearly and distinctly define what dividing the second data frame by the receiver entails.
Claim 14 recites “…an identifier, a message size, a cycle, a transmitter, a net name…,” and it is unclear from the claim language what this identifier refers to (e.g., such as the message identifier or some other identifier), what a cycle refers to/entails, and what a net name refers to/entails. Therefore, the claim is rejected as being indefinite for failing to clearly and distinctly define the entity in which the identifier refers to within the claim, what a cycle refers to/entails, and what a net name refers to/entails. Claims 15, 16 and 19 are also rejected for their respective dependencies.
Claim 17 recites “…for each cycle, among a plurality of cycles, and changing the message name of the messages grouped for each cycle,” and it is unclear from the claim language what a cycle refers to/entails. Therefore, the claim is rejected as being indefinite for failing to clearly and distinctly define what a cycle refers to/entails.
Claim 18 recites “…for each identifier among a plurality of identifiers; sorting the messages based on the identifier; and changing the identifier for the sorted massages,” and it is unclear from the claim language what this identifier refers to (e.g., such as the message identifier or some other identifier). Therefore, the claim is rejected as being indefinite for failing to clearly and distinctly define the entity in which the identifier refers to within the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At step 1, independent claims 1, 11 and 20 recite a method, a device, and computer-readable media and are therefore statutory classes of invention.
At step 2A, prong one, the claim(s) recite(s):
parsing the configuration file to extract the signal name;
extracting from the first type CAN DBC file, a line corresponding to the signal name extracted from the configuration file;
generating a first data frame by configuring information included in the line according to a second type format different from the first type CAN DBC file;
generating a second data frame by converting values of at least some items from the first data frame into another format;
generate a second data frame by converting values of at least some items in the first data frame to a different format;
generating a second type CAN DBC file based on the second data frame;
generate a second type CAN DBC file from the second data frame.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a process that could be performed mentally. That is, other than reciting a processor, a file conversion device, one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, and one or more processors to perform the parsing, extracting, and generating, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from being performed mentally or by a human using pen and paper. For example, a user can receive a first type controller area network (CAN) database container (DBC) file and a configuration file including a CAN equipment name, a path of the first type CAN DBC file, a message name, a signal name, and information about a receiving device and mentally/with pen and paper parse the configuration file to extract the signal name; mentally/with pen and paper extract from the first type CAN DBC file, a line corresponding to the signal name extracted from the configuration file; mentally/with pen and paper generate a first data frame by configuring information included in the line according to a second type format different from the first type CAN DBC file; mentally/with pen and paper generate a second data frame by converting values of at least some items from/in the first data frame into another format/into a different format; and mentally/with pen and paper generate a second type CAN DBC file based on/from the second data frame. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite a mental process.
At step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite the additional elements of a processor, a file conversion device, one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, and one or more processors. These elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations can also be viewed as an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a processor, a file conversion device, one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, and one or more processors amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The additional claim elements are:
receiving a first type CAN DBC file;
receive a first type controller area network (CAN) database container (DBC) file;
receiving a configuration file including a CAN equipment name, a path of the first type CAN DBC file, a message name, a signal name, and information about a receiving device.
These receiving limitations are mere data gathering, are insignificant extra-solution (pre-solution) activity and are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities.
As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity such as i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016); (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(g). Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality: iii. Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) . Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include: i. A commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See MPEP 2106.05(f). Examples of limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception include: iv. Specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2016); vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 2 does not recite any additional abstract ideas, but does recite the additional elements of wherein: the configuration file includes a plurality of CAN equipment names; and the configuration file stores the path, the message name, the signal name, and the information about the receiving device in a grouped format for each of the plurality of CAN equipment names. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, do not amount to significantly more, and are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities.
Claim 3 recites wherein extracting the line corresponding to the signal name includes: sequentially reading the first type CAN DBC file in one direction; determining whether the signal name is included in a first line being read from the first type CAN DBC file; extracting the first line based on determining that the signal name is included in the first line; reading a second line of the first type CAN DBC file after the first line; determining whether the second line being read from the first type CAN DBC file includes the signal name; and extracting the second line based on determining that the signal name is included in the second line. As disclosed, these limitations are directed to a mental process. There are no additional elements recited; thus, the claim does not provide a practical application and is not considered to be significantly more.
Claim 4 recites wherein extracting the line corresponding to the signal name includes extracting, by the processor, a message line, a content line, an item line, and a value line corresponding to the signal name from the first type CAN DBC file. As disclosed, this limitation is directed to a mental process. There are no additional elements recited; thus, the claim does not provide a practical application and is not considered to be significantly more.
Claim 5 recites wherein generating the first data frame includes: analyzing the information included in the first line and the information included in the second line according to a predetermined message frame and signal format, to extract information about the signal name, a start bit, a signal size, a message type, a message name, an identifier, a message size, a cycle, a transmitter, a net name, whether a standardization is applied, and a receiver; and generating the first data frame to include the extracted information. As disclosed, these limitations are directed to a mental process. The claim recites the additional element of wherein generating the first data frame includes: storing information included in the first line and information included in the second line in a memory. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, does not amount to significantly more, and is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
Claim 6 recites wherein generating the second data frame includes: reading the message size from the first data frame; and changing a value of the message size to a different value according to a protocol to be changed. As disclosed, these limitations are directed to a mental process. There are no additional elements recited; thus, the claim does not provide a practical application and is not considered to be significantly more.
Claim 7 recites wherein generating the second data frame includes reallocating the start bit based on the signal size. As disclosed, this limitation is directed to a mental process. There are no additional elements recited; thus, the claim does not provide a practical application and is not considered to be significantly more. Claim 16 contains corresponding limitations and is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 8 recites wherein generating the second data frame further includes grouping messages for each cycle, among a plurality of cycles, and changing a message name of the messages grouped by the cycle. As disclosed, this limitation is directed to a mental process. There are no additional elements recited; thus, the claim does not provide a practical application and is not considered to be significantly more.
Claim 9 recites wherein generating the second data frame further includes: grouping messages for each identifier among a plurality of identifiers; sorting the messages based on the identifier; and changing the identifier for the sorted messages. As disclosed, these limitations are directed to a mental process. There are no additional elements recited; thus, the claim does not provide a practical application and is not considered to be significantly more.
Claim 10 recites wherein generating the second type CAN DBC file includes dividing the second data frame by the receiver to generate a plurality of second type CAN DBC files. As disclosed, this limitation is directed to a mental process. There are no additional elements recited; thus, the claim does not provide a practical application and is not considered to be significantly more.
Claim 12 does not recite any additional abstract ideas, but does recite the additional elements of wherein: the configuration file includes a plurality CAN device names; and the configuration file stores the path, the message name, the signal name, and the information about the receiving device in a grouped format for each of the CAN device names. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, do not amount to significantly more, and are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities.
Claim 13 recites wherein extracting the line corresponding to the signal name includes: determining whether a first line, read from the first type CAN DBC file, includes the signal name, while sequentially reading the first type CAN DBC file in one direction; extracting the first line based on determining that the signal name is included in the first line; determining whether a second line read after the first line includes the signal name, while reading the first type CAN DBC file in the one direction; and extracting the second line based on determining that the signal name is included in the second line. As disclosed, these limitations are directed to a mental process. There are no additional elements recited; thus, the claim does not provide a practical application and is not considered to be significantly more.
Claim 14 recites wherein generating the first data frame includes: analyzing the information included in the first line and the information included in the second line to extract information about the signal name, a start bit, a signal size, a message type, a message name, an identifier, a message size, a cycle, a transmitter, a net name, whether a standardization is applied, and a receiver according to a predetermined message frame and signal format; and generating the first data frame to include the extracted information. As disclosed, these limitations are directed to a mental process. The claim recites the additional element of wherein generating the first data frame includes: storing information included in the first line and information included in the second line in a memory. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, does not amount to significantly more, and is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
Claim 15 recites wherein generating the second data frame includes: reading the message size from the first data frame; and changing a value of the message size into a different value depending on a protocol to be changed. As disclosed, these limitations are directed to a mental process. There are no additional elements recited; thus, the claim does not provide a practical application and is not considered to be significantly more.
Claim 17 recites wherein generating the second data frame further includes grouping messages for each cycle, among a plurality of cycles, and changing the message name of the messages grouped for each cycle. As disclosed, this limitation is directed to a mental process. There are no additional elements recited; thus, the claim does not provide a practical application and is not considered to be significantly more.
Claim 18 recites wherein generating the second data frame further includes: grouping the messages for each identifier among a plurality of identifiers; sorting the messages based on the identifier; and changing the identifier for the sorted massages. As disclosed, these limitations are directed to a mental process. There are no additional elements recited; thus, the claim does not provide a practical application and is not considered to be significantly more.
Claim 19 recites wherein generating the second type CAN DBC file includes dividing the second data frame for each receiver to generate a plurality of second type CAN DBC files. As disclosed, this limitation is directed to a mental process. There are no additional elements recited; thus, the claim does not provide a practical application and is not considered to be significantly more.
Support for Amendments and Newly Added Claims
Applicants are respectfully requested, in the event of an amendment to claims or submission of new claims, that such claims and their limitations be directly mapped to the specification, which provides support for the subject matter. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution and reducing potential 35 USC § 112(a) or 35 USC § 112, 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as “Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced” may be deemed insufficient. The examiner thanks the Applicant in advance for providing support for any amendments or newly added claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jiang (CN-103823804-A): conversion of a CAN network file into Excel file by extracting key data from the CAN network file, wherein the key data comprises definition and attribute parameters of all the CAN signal of all CAN message parameter and each CAN message in acquiring, predefined configuration files according to the configuration file, key data and generating Excel file of CAN network data; then converting the CAN network file of Excel file;
Li (CN-116634042-A): analyzing a large data message by obtaining the message head information and the message matrix information configured by the front end, respectively storing the message head information and the message matrix information in the message head configuration information table and the message matrix configuration information table; reading the message head configuration in the message head configuration information table, using the value of the message head configuration to analyze the large data message head and the large data message content, obtaining the large data message version number and the frame identifier corresponding to the large data message frame; matching the message matrix configuration in the message matrix configuration information table by using the version number of the large data message and the frame identifier, determining the frame analysis configuration corresponding to the large data message frame; using the frame analyzing configuration to analyze the large data message frame corresponding to the frame identifier to obtain the analyzing signal value, using the analyzing signal value and the precision and offset corresponding to the frame analyzing configuration to calculate the final signal value;
Liu (CN-117082102-A): vehicle networking/vehicle data processing based on service-oriented architecture, so as to realize comprehensive and low-cost collection of communication data of vehicle based on SOA architecture;
Tzamaloukas (US 2022/0237958): vehicle information extraction service that receives access credentials and dictionaries with proprietary encoding formats used by a vehicle supplier or component part suppliers to format vehicle information communicated over a vehicle bus, wherein the vehicle information extraction service maintains confidentiality of the proprietary access credentials and encoding formats while deploying software packages to vehicles to monitor vehicle information encoded using the proprietary encoding formats and requiring the proprietary access credentials for extraction if one or more triggering conditions are met;
Zhu (US 2017/0344005): a driverless vehicle control method for receiving a vehicle control message of a driverless vehicle, the vehicle control message used to represent vehicle control characteristics of the driverless vehicle; converting the vehicle control message to a vehicle control protocol message, the vehicle control protocol message used to implement a general instruction description for the vehicle control message; generating a vehicle control command based on the vehicle control protocol message; and converting the vehicle control command to a vehicle control instruction corresponding to the vehicle control message, and sending the vehicle control instruction to the driverless vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIEDRA M MCQUITERY whose telephone number is (571)272-9607. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8 am - 6 pm (C.S.T.).
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at (571)272-4098. 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.
/Diedra McQuitery/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166
