DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
Applicant’s amendment and response dated 3/27/2026 has been provided in response to the 12/29/2025 Office Action which rejected claims 1, 3-8, 11 and 13-18 wherein claims 1, 3, 11, 13, and 17 have been amended. Thus, claims 1, 3-8, 11 and 13-18 remain pending in this application and have been fully considered by the examiner.
2. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. .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.
3. The objections of the claims as stated in the previous action have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 3/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 1 and similar claim 11 that “Independent claim 1, as amended, provides for in part: "[a]n over-the-air (OTA) update data sharing or distribution system for a vehicle having a plurality of electronic control units (ECUs) including a primary ECU and one or more secondary ECUs," comprising "the primary ECU ... being configured to ... obtain, from [a] remote server and via [an] OTA update transceiver, OTA update data for at least one of the plurality of ECUs," when a malfunction or fault of the CAN does not prevent transmission of the OTA update data, via the CAN, from the primary ECU to the one or more secondary ECUs, transmit, via the CAN, the OTA update data from the primary ECU to the one or more secondary ECUs," and "when the malfunction or fault of the CAN prevents transmission of the OTA update data, via the CAN, from the primary ECU to the one or more secondary ECU," performing short-range wireless sharing or distribution of the OTA update data. Independent claim 11 recites features that are substantially similar to those of claim 1. Applicant submits that these features are fully supported by the application as originally filed. See, e.g., Application at [0002], [0014], and [0017]. The Examiner notes that step 304 of FIG. 3 of the present application describes "malfunctions or faults ... that would otherwise inhibit or prevent the OTA update procedure of the present application." Application at [0023]. Applicant submits that these are general preconditions, such as malfunctions/faults that would inhibit vehicle operation entirely. Further, this portion of the application does not explicitly recite these malfunctions or faults as being CAN malfunctions/faults, which are discussed separately in the specification and prevent the primary OTA update data sharing means (i.e., via the CAN) from being utilized and instead needing short-range wireless communication sharing or distribution of the OTA update data from the primary ECU to the one or more secondary ECUs (i.e., as a backup or secondary means) as claimed (see pages 8-9 of Applicant’s arguments), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The originally filed specification supports that “In some implementations, the plurality of ECUs are connected to each other via a CAN and wherein the receipt of the OTA update data and the sharing or distribution of the formatted OTA update data is performable during a malfunction or fault of the CAN” (at paragraph [0007]) and that “The plurality of ECUs 104 are physically connected (i.e., wired) to each other via a complex controller area network (CAN, not shown), which could malfunction or fault from time to time thereby preventing communication between the ECUs 104 at least temporarily” (at paragraph 0017]). However, the Examiner still does not find that there is sufficient support for "when the malfunction or fault of the CAN prevents transmission of the OTA update data , via the CAN, from the primary ECU to the one or more secondary ECUs: formatting…”, as discussed further in the rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
6. Claims 1, 3-8, 11, and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claim 1 has been amended to recite at least “when the malfunction or fault of the CAN prevents transmission of the OTA update data, via the CAN, from the primary ECU to the one or more secondary ECUs: format the OTA update data to a compressed packet-based file format to obtain formatted OTA update data, and share or distribute, to the one or more secondary ECUs and via the short-range wireless communication transceiver, the formatted OTA update data, wherein receipt of the formatted OTA update data causes each of the one or more secondary ECUs to perform a corresponding firmware upgrade, wherein the one or more secondary ECUs do not require their own one or more OTA update data transceivers, respectively, thereby decreasing costs of the vehicle.” However, these limitations raises new matter issues.
The originally filed specification supports that “In some implementations, the plurality of ECUs are connected to each other via a CAN and wherein the receipt of the OTA update data and the sharing or distribution of the formatted OTA update data is performable during a malfunction or fault of the CAN” (at paragraph [0007]) and that “The plurality of ECUs 104 are physically connected (i.e., wired) to each other via a complex controller area network (CAN, not shown), which could malfunction or fault from time to time thereby preventing communication between the ECUs 104 at least temporarily” (at paragraph 0017]). However, the Examiner still does not find that there is sufficient support for "when the malfunction or fault of the CAN prevents transmission of the OTA update data , via the CAN, from the primary ECU to the one or more secondary ECUs: formatting…”. So, the “formatting” and subsequent steps (which are supported by the specification) are being performed, but not specifically “when the malfunction or fault of the CAN prevents transmission of the OTA update data , via the CAN, from the primary ECU to the one or more secondary ECUs”. Claim 11 has a similar issue.
Dependent claims 3-8 and 13-18 do not overcome the deficiency of the base claims and, therefore, are rejected for the same reasons as the base claims.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENECA SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1651. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:30PM 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, Hyung S Sough can be reached on 571-272-6799. 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.
/CHENECA SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2192
/S. Sough/SPE, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights