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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is responsive to communication filed on 3/13/2026.
Claims 5-6 and 9 are amended.
Claim 7 is canceled.
Claims 5-6 and 8-12 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Claim Objections
Applicant Argues
Claims 6 and 9 have been amended to overcome the objections set forth in the previous office action.
Examiner Responds
The objections to claims 6 and 9 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - Provisional Nonstatutory Double Patenting
Applicant Argues
Claim 5 has been amended to overcome the double-patenting rejection.
Examiner Response
The provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection to claims 5-6 and 8 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - §102 and §103
Applicant Argues
Cited references do not teach the invention defined by amended claim 5.
Examiner Responds
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 5-6 and 8-12 have been fully considered but are moot because Applicant’s arguments are over amended features.
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 5-6 and 8-12 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.
Regarding claim 5
Claim 5 recites the master control unit “is capable of executing a writing process of writing the program to the program store unit provided to the vehicle control unit based on the writing data, in the writing process executed after a starting battery of the vehicle is connected with the vehicle control unit and the master control unit on a manufacturing line of the vehicle”. However, this is unclear. Is the writing process executed while the vehicle is on a manufacturing line after the battery is connected to the control units, or is the writing process executed at any point after a battery is connected to the control units, wherein the battery must be connected to the control units on a manufacturing line?
Dependent claims 6 and 8-12 are likewise rejected.
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 5-6, 8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over UJIIE1 in view of BLAZIC (US20040254689A1) (hereinafter – “UJIIE-BLAZIC”).
Regarding claim 5
UJIIE teaches a vehicle control system (Abstract: gateway device connected to a plurality of ECUs via one or more buses on-board a vehicle) comprising:
a vehicle control unit which includes a non-volatile program storage unit and controls a function unit installed in a vehicle by executing a program stored in the program storage unit ([0056]: “An ECU is a device that includes components such as a processor (microprocessor), digital circuits such as memory, analog circuits, and communication circuits. The memory is memory such as ROM and RAM, and is able to store a control program (a computer program as software) executed by the processor. The firmware is all or part of the control program, and is stored in non-volatile memory (designated the boot ROM) such as electrically erasable read-only memory (EEPROM), for example. For example, by having the processor operate by following the control program (computer program), the ECU realizes various functions”, FIG. 1 shows function units 101 (engine), 102 (brake), 103 (door sensor), 104 (window sensor) operably connected to ECUs 100a-d for which the ECU realizes the various functions”); and
a master control unit which is connected with the vehicle control unit ([0058]: “gateway 300 is a type of ECU that acts as a gateway device connecting the bus 200a, to which the ECU 100a and the ECU 100b are connected, and the bus 200b, to which the ECU 100c and the ECU 100d are connected”), wherein
the master control unit
includes a non-volatile master storage unit, stores writing data for writing the program to the program storage unit in the master storage unit ([0058]: gateway is a type of ECU; [0056]: “ECU is a device that includes components such as a processor (microprocessor), digital circuits such as memory, analog circuits, and communication circuits. The memory is memory such as ROM and RAM, and is able to store a control program (a computer program as software) executed by the processor. The firmware is all or part of the control program, and is stored in non-volatile memory (designated the boot ROM) such as electrically erasable read-only memory (EEPROM)”)
is capable of executing a writing process of writing the program to the program storage unit provided to the vehicle control unit based on the writing data ([0074]: “gateway 300 executes functions such as forwarding frames between buses, and communicating with the external server 500 (such as receiving FW update information for updating the firmware of the ECUs 100a to 100d or the like)”),
transmits a wake-up request to the vehicle control unit, and to subsequently write the program for the vehicle control unit, which is a transmission destination of the wake-up request, as a target ([0138]: “ECU to update includes the signature verification function, the FW update processing unit 370 causes the frame generating unit 380 to generate a frame including the FW data to transmit to the relevant ECU, and the frame transmitting and receiving unit 310 transmits the frame to the ECU via the bus to which the ECU is connected (step S1205). Subsequently, the gateway 300 receives a verification result of the signature for the FW data (FW data signature) from the ECU whose firmware is to be updated (step S1206)”; [0141]: “Consequently, the ECU whose firmware is to be updated receives the FW data, conducts a process for updating the firmware, and transmits the update result to the gateway 300”)2,
the master control unit is capable of being connected with a plurality of the vehicle control units (FIG. 1 shows the gateway (master control unit) connected with a plurality of ECUs (vehicle control units) 100a-100d), and
the master control unit performs the writing process after all of the vehicle control units to be connected with the master control unit are connected with the master control unit and all of the vehicle control units are connected with function units ([0007]: “there is known a technology that updates firmware only in a case of determining, from information indicating the state of the automobile, that the firmware of the ECU may be updated, such as while the automobile is stopped”, the disclosure of updating the firmware while the automobile is stopped implies an operable vehicle with all function units, ECUs, and the master control unit installed, connected and in an operative state).
UJIIE is not relied on for the writing process being executed after a starting battery of the vehicle is connected with the vehicle control unit and the master control unit on a manufacturing line of the vehicle.
However, BLAZIC in analogous art teaches executing the writing process after a starting battery of the vehicle is connected with the vehicle control unit and the master control unit on a manufacturing line of the vehicle ([0006]: “after all of the ECUs and the battery are installed in a vehicle, ruggedized computers are utilized by operators in the vehicle manufacturing plant to download the software directly into the memories of each ECU”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of BLAZIC to the teachings of UJIIE such that vehicle control system of UJIIE would be programmed on a manufacturing line of the vehicle after a starting battery of the vehicle is connected with the vehicle control unit and the master control unit. BLAZIC provides the motivation for doing so by teaching that is common practice for vehicle electronic control unit suppliers to “provide the vehicle manufacturer with generic non-programmed ECU’s, which are later programmed with the vehicle unique software by the vehicle manufacturer” ([0006]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine BLAZIC with UJIIE for the benefit of programming non-programmed ECU’s installed in a vehicle after being connected with a starting battery, such that the vehicle is operable for the purposes of transporting the vehicle off the manufacturing line by being able to drive it off.
Regarding claim 6
UJIIE-BLAZIC teaches the elements of claim 5 as outlined above.
UJIIE also teaches wherein the writing data includes the program which is written to the program storage unit and association data which associates the program with the vehicle control unit ([0123]: “ECU information associated with the vehicle information is configured to include an ECU-ID, an ECU type that indicates the functional type of the ECU, the manufacturing company of the ECU, the presence or absence of the signature verification function, the presence or absence of the FW cache function, a FW version which is a version number or the like of the firmware installed in the ECU, and a latest FW version which is a version number or the like of the latest firmware corresponding to that ECU. Each piece of ECU information for a certain vehicle in the vehicle ECU management information is set based on information received from the gateway 300 of that vehicle”), and
the master control unit performs the writing process for the vehicle control unit in accordance with the association data ([0128]: “based on information such as the vehicle ECU management information stored by the ECU management information storing unit 572, decides one or more pieces of updated firmware to deliver to the gateway 300”; [0141]: “ECU whose firmware is to be updated receives the FW data, conducts a process for updating the firmware”).
Regarding claim 8
UJIIE-BLAZIC teaches the elements of claim 5 as outlined above.
UJIIE also teaches the system comprising a connection unit that connects an external device which is present on an outside of the vehicle control system with the master control unit ([0056]: in-vehicle network system 10 is configured to include gateway 300, network 400, and server 500 outside the vehicle; [0059]: “server 500 that acts as an external device located externally to the vehicle is a computer that includes a function of delivering via the network 400 FW update information, which is data for updating the firmware of the ECUs 100a to 100d. For communication on the network 400, any wired or wireless communication protocol may be applied”), wherein
in a case where an instruction is input from the external device, the master control unit transmits the wake-up request to the vehicle control unit ([0138]: verification function).
Regarding claim 10
UJIIE-BLAZIC teaches the elements of claim 8 as outlined above.
UJIIE also teaches wherein in a case where the writing process does not succeed, the master control unit notifies writing error information to the external device, the writing error information including information that indicates the vehicle control unit as a target of the writing process which does not succeed ([0132]: “gateway 300 transmits a firmware update result to the server 500 (step S1111a). The firmware update result is information indicating whether or not the update is successful”).
Regarding claim 11
UJIIE-BLAZIC teaches the elements of claim 5 as outlined above.
UJIIE also teaches wherein in a case where the writing process does not succeed, the master control unit stores writing error information in the master storage unit, the writing error information including information that indicates the vehicle control unit as a target of the writing process which does not succeed ([0150]: “ECU 100a transmits to the bus 200a a frame including an update result indicating that the firmware update failed (step S1312). Consequently, the firmware update result is reported to the gateway 300”).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over UJIIE-BLAZIC in view of DUDDLES3.
Regarding claim 9
UJIIE-BLAZIC teaches the elements of claim 8 as outlined above.
UJIIE also teaches wherein the master control unit notifies that the writing process is in progress to the external device before or during execution of the writing process for the vehicle control unit ([0086]: “external communication unit 375 transmits an update result reported by the FW update processing unit 370 to the server 500”).
UJIIE is not relied on for the master control unit which is executing the writing process makes a transition to a state where the instruction from the external device is not accepted.
However, DUDDLES in an analogous art does teaches methods and techniques for reprogramming of flash memories contained in vehicle electronic units ([0001]), wherein the master control unit which is executing the writing process makes a transition to a state where the instruction from the external device is not accepted ([0039]: “VSM 40 can also, for example, take overcontrol of the VLAN 34, inhibiting other uses of it that might conflict with the reprogramming operation”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of DUDDLES to the teachings of UJIIE such that DUDDLES’s reprogramming subroutine which prevents the programming from being interrupted could be used with UJIIE’s vehicle control system for the purposes of completing the control unit programming.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over UJIIE-BLAZIC in view of VANGELOV4.
Regarding claim 12
UJIIE-BLAZIC teaches the elements of claim 5 as outlined above.
UJIIE is not relied on for wherein in a case where the writing process does not succeed, the master control unit causes a lamp body to be lit or to blink by the vehicle control unit which controls the lamp body of the vehicle.
However, VANGELOV in an analogous art teaches a vehicle control system with an automated feedback responsive to software updates to vehicle controllers (Abstract), wherein in a case where the writing process does not succeed, the master control unit causes a lamp body to be lit or to blink by the vehicle control unit which controls the lamp body of the vehicle ([0009]-[0010]: “vehicle that includes at least one and/or one or more onboard controller(s), which are configured to generate the trigger signal to cause communication of one or more of an audible, a visual, and a tactile feedback update status, which identifies success or failure of the software update […] the trigger signal causes communication of a visual and/or audiovisual feedback update status, identifying success or failure of the software update with one or more of a vehicle exterior lighting signal”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the update failure feedback indicator as taught by VANGELOV to the vehicle control system of UJIIE such that an operator of the vehicle can be informed that the vehicle is not in an operable condition.
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 Michael V Farina whose telephone number is (571)272-4982. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:00-6:00 EST.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/M.V.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/KAMINI S SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 UJIIE is a prior art reference cited in the previous office action.
2 See also FIG. 20, [0165]-[0169]: “gateway requests ECU whose firmware is to be updated […] ECU receives request from gateway […] ECU receiving the update ROM data updates the data inside the boot
ROM with the update ROM data”
3 DUDDLES is a prior art reference cited in the previous office action.
4 VANGELOV is a prior art reference cited in the previous office action.
Prosecution Insights