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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 11/26/2025.
Claims 1, 5-12, 14-20 are pending and claims 2-4 and 13 are cancelled.
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.
Claim 1, this claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directing to a system claim under Step 1.
However, the limitations to “assign a dependency level to each electronic control unit (ECU) for each vehicle that is part of the group of vehicles; assign, based on the dependency level, a respective weight value to each ECU for each vehicle that is part of the group; determine a cluster distance measured between two respective module configurations corresponding to two vehicles that are part of the group based on respective weight values assigned to the each of the ECUs of the two vehicles, wherein the cluster distance is determined between the module configurations for each vehicle that is part of the group; combine the two respective module configurations together with another based on at least the cluster distance measured between the two respective module configurations to establish a set of combined module configurations; and select a module configuration that is part of the set of combined module configurations as the representative vehicle software configuration based on at least one predefined criteria; determine the one or more target ECUs that the software update is applied to based on field update details for each vehicle that is part of the group of vehicles; and determine one or more dependent ECUs based on the one or more target ECUs and one or more system level configuration files, wherein the system level configuration files indicate the one or more dependent ECUs that are affected by the software update applied to the one or more target ECUs, and wherein the respective weight value ranges from zero to one, and wherein a highest respective weight value is assigned to the one or more target ECUs, and lower respective weight values are assigned to the one or more dependent ECUs”, cover functions that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitations as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A.
Under Prong 2 Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements “the memory stores data comprising a database and program code that, when executed by the one or more processors”, “processors” and “system” which are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, or merely a generic computer or generic computer components to perform the judicial exception. Further, “wherein the representative vehicle software configuration is applicable to one or more target electronic control units (ECUs) of at least one vehicle that is part of the group of vehicles, and a software update is only applied to the one or more target ECUs” is non-functional descriptive language which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “the memory stores data comprising a database and program code that, when executed by the one or more processors”, “processors” and “system” are merely a generic computer or generic computer components to apply the judicial exception which cannot provide an inventive concept. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. While “wherein the representative vehicle software configuration is applicable to one or more target electronic control units (ECUs) of at least one vehicle that is part of the group of vehicles, and a software update is only applied to the one or more target ECUs” is non-functional descriptive language which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 8, 12 and 14 recites non-functional descriptive language that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 5-7 recite additional mental steps by further adjusting weight values that are not patent eligible. Claim 9 recites a mathematical concept that is not patent eligible. Claim 10 further recites mental steps of comparing configurations and measure cluster distance that are not patent eligible. Claim 11 further recites mental steps of determining distance is greater than threshold and merging configurations together that are not patent eligible.
Claim set 15-19 and claim set 15-20 are also rejected under the same rationale as claim set 1-14 for having similar limitations. In addition, claim 20 recites the mathematical concept of the cluster distance which is an abstract idea and thus, further not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 5-12, 14-20 would be allowed once the 101 rejection is overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record Abhishek et al. (US 2021/0271962 A1) hereinafter Abhishek in view of Wakita (US 2017/0267193 A1) and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2018/0295011 A1) hereinafter Wang and further in view of Witztum et al. (US 2021/0241163 A1) hereinafter Witztum and further in view of Kushwaha (US 2020/0218531 A1) hereinafter Kushwaha and further in view of Quin et al. (US 20170212746 A1) hereinafter Quin fail to teach the features in the indicated allowable subject matter. Where the search performed did not yield reasonable references to teach the objected claims as a whole.
Further, claim set 15-19 would be allowed for the reasons above when the 101 rejection is overcome.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Response to 101 remarks
Regarding the remark that the claim as a whole in light of the amendments includes an improvement to a computer or to a technical field, the examiner would like to point out that the amendment recites a wherein clause that is non-functional descriptive language that neither integrates the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Further, the two determining steps are additional mental steps which are not analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two nor Step 2B, thus, the mental steps cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
For the above reasons, the 101 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Noor Alkhateeb whose telephone number is (313)446-4909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:00AM ET to 5:00PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chat do, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-3721. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center. 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. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/NOOR ALKHATEEB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights