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 .
This is in response to Amendment filed 03/30/26. Claims 1 – 20 has been examined amended.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)as being unpatentable over Clark et al. US 20200228950 A1 in view of Milton US 20210312725 A1.
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 20 Clark discloses a method of managing applications of a first vehicle, the method comprising:
receiving, from a second vehicle over a network between the first vehicle and the second vehicle, application metadata associated with a plurality of applications installed on the second vehicle [0026 – 0027, see sharing data between first and second vehicle];
processing, by a processing device of the first vehicle, an install timestamp of the; [0038, see status report to server and predefined time interval, also see 0025 – 0026, which shows performing the updates to the vehicle Application 108]; transmitting the list over the network to the second vehicle [0026 – 0027, shows transmitting to server]; and
receiving the one or more application updates from the second vehicle over the network [0025 – 0027].
Clark doesn’t expressly disclose wherein the install timestamp indicates, to the first vehicle, a recency of installation of the plurality of applications on the second vehicle as well as application metadata and an update timestamp of the application metadata wherein the install timestamp indicates, to the first vehicle, a recency of installation of the plurality of applications on the second vehicle, and the update timestamp indicates, to the first vehicle, a recency of generation of an updated version of the plurality of applications; comparing the updated version with a current version of the plurality of applications on the first vehicle; generating, based on the comparing, a list that identifies one or more application updates associated with the plurality of applications installed on the second vehicle
However, Milton in an analogous art teaches self-updating utilizing machine learning to both utilizing sensor based timestamping of events and processes and grouping based on most recent state see [0034 – 0035] as well as in 0051 teaches utilizing data and, comparing vehicles based on similar or identical mapped features.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before filing the invention to combine Clark and Milton because the timestamp enable determining the time of the event as well as recent state as suggested by Milton.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, the method of claim 1, further comprising:
responsive to receiving the one or more application updates from the second vehicle over the network, installing the one or more application updates on one or more electronic control units (ECUs) of the first vehicle [0025 – 0026, shows performing updates to software in ECU 172, utilizing the shared vehicle updating process as address above in a similar previous limitation].
Regarding claims 3 and 13, the method of claim 1, wherein processing the install timestamp of the application metadata to generate the list that identifies the one or more application updates associated with the plurality of applications installed on the second vehicle comprises comparing the install timestamp to an install threshold [0038, shows generating status report at a predefined time].
Regarding claims 4 and 14, the method of claim 3, further comprising:
altering the install threshold based on at least one of vehicle data of the first vehicle, environmental data of the first vehicle, or an update communication received by the first vehicle [0026, “…the first vehicle 102a and generate a vehicle status to send to the server 186…”].
Regarding claims 5 and 15, the method of claim 4, wherein the install threshold is altered based on the environmental data of the first vehicle, and wherein the environmental data comprises a route of the first vehicle [0027, see predefined rules regarding threshold, also rejection 112 regarding environmental data above i.e., lack of antecedent basis].
Regarding claims 6 and 16, the method of claim 4, wherein the install threshold is altered based on the update communication received by the first vehicle, and wherein the update communication comprises information related to an error associated with at least one of the one or more application updates [see FIG5. 512, 516 and 518 and all associated text,
Here it shows when the flow is disconnected it stops and generates a transaction report and when there’s no disconnect it continues to send and receive data until its completed. By Examiners BRI this teaches providing a solution regarding associated errors, see all related text to Drawings parts mentioned].
Regarding claims 7, the method of claim 4, wherein the install threshold is altered based on the vehicle data of the first vehicle, and wherein the vehicle data comprises information related to a type of the first vehicle [0025 – 0027].
Regarding claims 8 and 17, the method of claim 1, further comprising:
prior to receiving, by the processing device of the first vehicle from the second vehicle over the network between the first vehicle and the second vehicle, the application metadata associated with the plurality of applications installed on the second vehicle, requesting, by the first vehicle, the application metadata from the second vehicle [0025 – 0027, shows transmission of data between first and second vehicle regarding Applications and shows sending request for vehicle status].
Regarding claims 9 and 18, the method of claim 1, wherein the list that identifies one or more application updates associated with the plurality of applications installed on the second vehicle is generated by the first vehicle based on a compatibility of computing devices of the first vehicle with computing devices of the second vehicle [0040, see detecting compatible receiver].
Regarding claims 10 and 19, the method of claim 1, wherein the application metadata is second application metadata and the plurality of applications installed on the second vehicle are a second plurality of applications, and wherein the method further comprises: prior to receiving, by the processing device of the first vehicle from the second vehicle over the network between the first vehicle and the second vehicle, the second application metadata associated with the second plurality of applications installed on the second vehicle, transmitting, by the first vehicle to the second vehicle, first application metadata associated with a first plurality of applications installed on the first vehicle [0025 – 0027. Show sharing data between vehicles regarding performing an update. It’s understood to cover the limitation of receiving metadata or software configuration data during the update].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
Correspondence Information
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 Chuck Kendall whose telephone number is 571-272-3698. The examiner can normally be reached on 10:00 am - 6:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hyung 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only [0060 – 0080].
For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/CHUCK O KENDALL/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights