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
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6 – 11, 13, 14 and 16 – 24 are pending and have been examined; wherein:
Claims 1, 11, and 20 have been amended; and
Claims 2, 5, 12, and 15 were previously canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 03/20/2026 regarding claims 1, 11, and 20 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 20, Applicant argues that “Thus, the specification describes an improved approach to OTA updates of an ECU of a vehicle that utilizes (1) minimal communications (transmitting vehicle IDs and receiving compatibility information) with the cloud (i.e., an administrative device), where the vehicle IDs are publicly accessible information and hence not subject to privacy concerns and (2) an application update received from another vehicle in order to install on application update on an ECU. Such an approach functions well in scenarios in which connectivity of a vehicle to the cloud (i.e., an administrative device) is limited. Additionally, such an approach avoids intrusive update methods, such as a recall and/or a trip to an authorized repair center. Moreover, such an approach reduces the amount of data transferred between a vehicle and a cloud for facilitating an ECU update. Also, such an approach helps to alleviate privacy concerns associated with OTA updates, as the first vehicle ID and the second vehicle ID (which are transmitted over the second network) are publicly available information and not, for example, specific information about equipment and/or a current application status of the first vehicle …” (remark; p. 11: last half paragraph.)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. All steps for connecting vehicles and administrative device, transmitting and updating software of vehicles are not considered as improvement because they are known conventional technology for updating device(s). In other words, those steps are not indicative of an 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 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 step of “determining … an update compatibility between the first vehicle and the second vehicle based on the compatibility information received from the administrative device…”
The step is directed to a process which relies on human’s determining update compatibility by observation and evaluation of compatibility information. Thus, the process is directed to a mental process.
Step 2A, prong 2
The claim further recites additional steps of
“establishing … a first network with a second vehicle…;
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 … an update compatibility …;
responsive …, processing an application update …; and
installing the application update …”
These additional steps of establishing network connection, transmitting data, receiving, processing, and installing are just insignificant extra solution activity.
And, the claim recites additional element “first 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 … 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 cover performance of the limitation in the mind and are insignificant extra solution activity, and they 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 they 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 cover performance of the limitation in the mind and are insignificant extra solution activity, and they 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 cover performance of the limitation in the mind and are insignificant extra solution activity, and they 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 they 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 they 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 they 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
Claim 11 is statutory because it is directed to a device.
Claim 20 is statutory because it is directed to a product.
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.
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1
Rao teaches “A method of managing applications of a first vehicle, the method comprising:
establishing, by a processing device of the first vehicle, a first network with a second vehicle based on a detection by the first vehicle that the second vehicle is in proximity to the first vehicle;
determining, by the processing device of the first vehicle, an update compatibility between the first vehicle and the second vehicle over the second network;
responsive to determining that the first vehicle has the update compatibility with the second vehicle, processing an application update received from the second vehicle; and
installing the application update on one or more electronic control units (ECUs) of the first vehicle based on the processing.”
Lisewski teaches
“receiving, by the first vehicle, a second vehicle identifier (ID) from the second vehicle over the first network;
transmitting the second vehicle ID and a first vehicle ID of the first vehicle to an administrative device over a second network, wherein the first vehicle ID and the second vehicle ID are publicly accessible information.”
ANG, KENG HONG (WO 2016149908 A1) teaches
“ based on the second vehicle ID and the first vehicle ID, compatibility information whether application updates from the second vehicle are compatible with the first vehicle;
determining, by the processing device of the first vehicle, an update compatibility between the first vehicle and the second vehicle based on compatibility information over the second network”
However, Rao, Lisewski, and ANG do not teach limitations
“transmitting the second vehicle ID and a first vehicle ID of the first vehicle to an administrative device over a second network, wherein the first vehicle ID and the second vehicle ID are publicly accessible information;
receiving, from the administrative device over the second network and based on the second vehicle ID and the first vehicle ID, compatibility information indicating whether application updates from the second vehicle are compatible with the first vehicle;
determining, by the processing device of the first vehicle, an update compatibility between the first vehicle and the second vehicle based on compatibility information received from the administrative device over the second network;
responsive to determining that the first vehicle has the update compatibility with the second vehicle, processing an application update received from the second vehicle.”
These claimed limitations are not present in the prior art of record, would not have been obvious, and present subject matter that is novel. Thus, claim 1 and its dependent claims are allowed.
Claims 11 and 20
These claims recite limitations in the same manner as claim 1; therefore, they and their dependent claims are also allowed for the same reasons.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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