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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/24/2026 has been entered; wherein:
Claims 1, 3, 11, 13 – 14, 16 – 17, 20, and 24 have been amended; and
Claims 2, 5, 12, and 15 were previously canceled.
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 3 – 4, 6 – 11, 13 – 14 and 16 – 24 remain pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 07/24/2026 regarding claims 1, 11, and 20 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 20, Applicant argues that “More particularly, Applicant submits that the claims cannot be considered abstract as directed to a mental process. For example, at least ‘broadcast, by the processing device of the first vehicle and in response to detection of the second vehicle, one or more wireless messages to establish, with the second vehicle, a first network comprising a wireless network’, ‘responsive to determining that the first vehicle has the update compatibility with the second vehicle, acquiring, wirelessly from the second vehicle, application metadata associated with a plurality of application executing on the second vehicle, the application metadata comprising a device ID and at least one of a version ID, or an update timestamp’, and ‘installing the application update on the first ECU of the first vehicle based on the processing’ cannot be considered mental processes because they cannot be practically performed in the human mind …” (Remark; p. 9: last half paragraph – p. 10: first half paragraph.)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. All steps of “broadcast … one or more wireless messages;” “acquiring … application metadata;” and “installing the application update” are not considered as improvement because they are known conventional technologies for transmitting and collecting data wirelessly and updating device(s). These steps are then considered as insignificant extra-solution activities. In other words, those steps are not indicative of integration into a practical application. As a result, claim 1, claim 11, claim 20, and their dependent claims remain rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3 – 4, 6 – 11, 13 – 14 and 16 – 24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1
Line 5; insert --the-- before “detection”
Line 6; insert --over-- before “a first network”
Line 19; insert --the-- before “determining”
Line 22; should insert --associated with electronic unit (ECU)-- after “a device ID”.
Claims 3 – 4 and 6 – 10
These claims are dependent claims of claim 1; therefore, they inherit issues of claim 1.
Claim 11
Line 5; insert --the-- before “detection”
Line 6; insert --over-- before “a first network”
Line 21; insert --the-- before “determining”
Line 24; should insert --associated with electronic unit (ECU)-- after “a device ID”.
Claims 3 – 14 and 16 – 19
These claims are dependent claims of claim 11; therefore, they inherit issues of claim 11.
Claim 20
Line 5; insert --the-- before “detection”
Line 6; insert --over-- before “a first network”
Line 19; insert --the-- before “determining”
Line 22; should insert --associated with electronic unit (ECU)-- after “a device ID”.
Claims 21 – 24
These claims are dependent claims of claim 20; therefore, they inherit issues of claim 20.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3 – 4, 6 – 11, 13 – 14 and 16 – 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1
Step 1
The claim is statutory because it is directed to a method.
Step 2A, prong 1
The claim recites steps of
“detecting, at the first vehicle, a second vehicle in proximity to the first vehicle;
determining … an update compatibility between the first vehicle and the second vehicle based on the compatibility information received from the administrative device…;
determining a first electronic control unit (ECU) of the first vehicle is compatible with a second ECU of the second vehicle based on the device ID;
determining a first version of an application executed by the second ECU is more recent than a second version of the application executed by the first vehicle based on the at least one of the version ID or the update timestamp.”
The step “detecting, at the first vehicle, a second vehicle in proximity to the first vehicle” discovers the second vehicle near the first vehicle by human observation the proximity between two vehicles.
The step “determining … an update compatibility between the first vehicle and the second vehicle based on the compatibility information received from the administrative device…” identifies compatibility between two vehicles by human observation and evaluation of compatibility information.
The step “determining a first electronic control unit (ECU) of the first vehicle is compatible with a second ECU of the second vehicle based on the device ID” identifies compatibility between two ECUs by human observation and evaluation of similarity of device ID of the two ECUs.
The step “determining a first version of an application executed by the second ECU is more recent than a second version of the application executed by the first vehicle based on the at least one of the version ID or the update timestamp” identifies newest version of application of one ECU by human observation and evaluation of versions of the two ECUs.
These steps, as discussed above, are directed to mental processes (i.e., observation, evaluation, judgement) that can be performed by human.
Step 2A, prong 2
The claim further recites additional steps of
“broadcasting … one or more wireless messages…;
receiving … a second vehicle identifier (ID) from the second vehicle…;
transmitting the second vehicle ID and a first vehicle ID of the first vehicle to an administrative device…;
receiving … compatibility information …;
… acquiring, wirelessly from the second vehicle, application metadata …;
processing an application update …; and
installing the application update …”
These additional steps collect data and install update. They are just insignificant extra solution activities that are not indicative of integration into a practical application.
And, the claim recites additional element “first vehicle, second vehicle and administrative device” are just recited at a high level of generality as tools for performing the abstract idea. Therefore, they do not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Steps 2B
The claim as a whole is not amounted to significantly more than the judicial exception. In other words, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. Therefore, claim 1 and its dependent claims are not patent eligible.
Analysis of claims 3, 4, and 6 – 10 as follow
Claim 3
The claim recites limitations “receiving … the application metadata associated with a plurality of applications executing on the second vehicle;
based on the application metadata, transmitting a list over the first network that identifies the application update associated with one or more applications of the plurality of applications to the second vehicle; and
receiving the application update from the second vehicle over the first network.”
These limitations, as drafted, deliver list of application update based on application metadata. Thus, these limitations are insignificant extra solution activities and are not integrated into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. So, they do not include any additional element that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 4
The claim recites limitations “the application metadata is second application metadata; prior to the receiving the second application metadata associated with the plurality of applications executing on the second vehicle, transmitting … first application metadata associated with the plurality of applications executing on the first vehicle.”
These limitations, as drafted, define application metadata and transmit first application metadata. Thus, these limitations are insignificant extra solution activity and are not integrated into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. So, they do not include any additional element that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 6
The claim recites limitations “responsive to the receiving the application metadata associated with the plurality of applications executing on the second vehicle, processing the application metadata to generate the list that identifies the application update associated with the one or more applications of the plurality of applications executing on the second vehicle.”
These limitations, as drafted, generate list of application update based on application metadata. Thus, these limitations are insignificant extra solution activity and are not integrated into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. So, they do not include any additional element that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 7
The claim recites limitations “responsive to determining that the first vehicle does not have the update compatibility with the second vehicle, terminating the first network between the first vehicle and the second vehicle.”
These limitations, as drafted, terminate network connection upon incompatibility between vehicles. Thus, these limitations are insignificant extra solution activity and are not integrated into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. So, they do not include any additional element that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 8
The claim recites limitations “the first vehicle ID comprises a registration number that uniquely identifies the first vehicle.”
These limitations, as drafted, define vehicle ID. Thus, these limitations are insignificant extra solution activity and are not integrated into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. So, they do not include any additional element that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 9
The claim recites limitations “the update compatibility indicates a compatibility between a first electronic control unit (ECU) of the first vehicle with a second ECU of the second vehicle.”
These limitations, as drafted, recognize compatibility between ECUs. Thus, these limitations are insignificant extra solution activity and are not integrated into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. So, they do not include any additional element that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 10
The claim recites limitations “the first network is a vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) network.”
These limitations, as drafted, defines network type. Thus, these limitations are insignificant extra solution activity and are not integrated into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. So, they do not include any additional element that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 11 and 20
Step 1
Claim 11 is statutory because it is directed to a device.
Claim 20 is statutory because it is directed to a product.
Step 2A, prongs 1 & 2
Claims 11 and 20 recite limitations in the same manner as claim 1; therefore, they are also rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 11 recites additional elements “first vehicle, a processor, memory, and administrative device”, and claim 20 recites additional elements “first vehicle, processing device, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, and administrative device.” These additional elements are just recited at a high level of generality as tools for performing the abstract idea. Therefore, they are not indicative of an integration into a practical application.
Steps 2B
Claim 11 and claim 20, each as a whole, are not amounted to significantly more than the judicial exception. In other words, claims11 and 20 are directed to an abstract idea. Therefore, claim 11, claim 20 and their dependent claims are not patent eligible.
Analysis of claims 13, 14, 16 – 19 and 21 – 24
Claim 13, 14, and 16 – 19 recite limitations in the same manner as claims 3, 4, and 6 – 9 respectively. Thus, they are also rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 21 – 24 recite limitations in the same manner as claims 8 – 10 and 3 respectively. Thus, they are also rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CUONG V LUU whose telephone number is (571)270-1733. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30 AM - 3:00 PM.
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.
/CUONG V LUU/Examiner, Art Unit 2192
/S. Sough/SPE, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights