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
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed on May 19, 2026.
Claims 2-6 and 8 are pending.
Claims 2-6 and 8 have been amended.
Claims 1 and 7 have been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on May 19, 2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Harata '301 at Figure 10 shows the reprogramming announcement on the in-vehicle display and at Figure 9 shows the reprogramming announcement on the user equipment. As shown below, both reprogramming announcements have the same buttons: "normal procedure," "com1ect to operator," "automatic response," and "later."
As the information on the in-vehicle device and the information on the user equipment
are the same for authorizing approval for a software update, there is no rational reason, absent
impermissible hindsight, why a person of ordinary skill in the art would modify Harata '301 to
reach the claimed invention (Remarks, pg. 6-7).
Examiner’s response:
First, Applicant’s argument improperly focus on whether identical approval buttons appear on both displays. The claimed invention does not require different approval controls. Rather, the claim requires that corresponding data displayed on the user equipment have a higher explanatory information granularity than the data displayed on the in-vehicle display.
As discussed in the previous Office action and in the claim rejections section below, Pirwani teaches presenting substantially more detailed software and vehicle information than Harata '301. Although the buttons shown in Harata’s Fig. 9 and 10 are the same, the information displayed in connection with those buttons need not be identical. In particular, Pirwani teaches displaying more detailed software and vehicle information on the mobile device. When applied to Harata, Pirwani’s teaching results in more detailed formation being displayed on the mobile terminal 6 than on the in-vehicle display 7, consistent with the respective display processes disclosed in the cited paragraphs associated with Figs. 9 and 10 of Harata.
Second, Applicant’s argument does not persuasively address the rejection as a whole. Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is expressly suggested in any one or all of the references, but whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of those references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
As discussed in the previous Office action and in the claim rejections section below, the combined teachings of the cited prior art references teach or suggest the claimed limitations of first data and second data, and displaying the data corresponding to the first data on the in-vehicle display and displaying the data corresponding to the second data on the user equipment, in which the second data has higher intonation granularity of explanatory information than the first data. The motivation to combine the prior art references are clearly presented in the previous Office action and in the claim rejections section below.
Accordingly, Applicant’s argument that Harata alone displays the same information on both devices does not overcome the rejections, because the rejection does not rely on Harata alone for the claimed difference in information granularity. Rather, the rejection relies on the combined teachings of Harata, Harata2, Harat3, and Pirwani, with Pirwani supplying the teaching of presenting more detailed explanatory software and vehicle information on the user equipment.
Therefore, for at least the reasons set forth above, the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) with respect to claims 2-6 and 8 are proper and therefore, maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 8 recites “A software update method for updating software on a vehicle control device though wireless communication”. It appears that the word “though” should be “through”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 of this title, 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 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0253301 (hereinafter “Harata”), in view of US 2021/0255805 (hereinafter “Harata2”), further in view of DE 112020004103 (hereinafter “Harata3”), and further in view of US 2023/0048368 (hereinafter “Pirwani”).
In the following claim analysis, bold text denotes claim language; bold text with underlines and strikethroughs indicates claim amendments; underlining in Examiner’s claim mappings is used for emphasis; and the Examiner’s detailed interpretations are provided in square brackets.
As per claim 8, Harata discloses A method for updating software on a vehicle control device though wireless communication (Harata, ¶ 2, Fig. 1, a program update approval determination method and a program update approval determination program; ¶ 33, a vehicle program rewriting system 1 includes a center device 3 on a communication network 2 side, a vehicle-side system 4 on a vehicle side, and a display terminal 5), the software update method comprising:
set first data and second data, the first data to be displayed on an in-vehicle display in order to obtain user’s approval to the software update from the in-vehicle display (Harata, Fig. 3, ¶ 48, When a user recognizes the campaign notification with the mobile terminal 6 or the in-vehicle display 7 and gives approval for program update by using the mobile terminal 6 or the in-vehicle display 7, the rewriting of the application program is performed; Fig. 10, ¶ 93-95, When the guidance screen 30 for the campaign notification is displayed on the in-vehicle display 7 … A user of the vehicle having the in-vehicle display 7 can select whether to give the approval by using the in-vehicle 7 or give the approval by using the conversation response system 26 or the automatic response system 27, which enhances operability), the second data to be displayed on user equipment in order to obtain the user’s approval to the software update from the user equipment (Harata, Fig. 9, ¶ ¶ 70-72, when the guidance screen 29 of the campaign notification is displayed on the mobile terminal 6, a “normal procedure” button 29a, a “connect to operator” button 29b, an “automatic response” button 29c, and a “later” button 29d are displayed, so that a user can select any of the buttons. When the user operates the “normal procedure” button 29a, the user subsequently conducts operation for approving the program update by using the mobile terminal 6; ¶ 73, the QR code displayed on the mobile terminal 6 … a scanner to read the QR code displayed on the mobile terminal 6 [the read user's personal information and the like as approval information to be displayed on the mobile terminal 6]; ¶ 49, When the user-oriented management WEB 24a determines that a user has approved a program update by using the mobile terminal 6, the management WEB 24a transmits approval information indicating that the user has approved the program update by using the mobile terminal 6 (corresponding to second approval information [second data to be displayed on the mobile terminal 6]); ¶ 69, the user giving the approval for the program update by using any of the mobile terminal 6, the approval information transmission unit 8g transmits approval information [to be displayed on the mobile terminal 6 in order to obtain the user’s approval to the software update] to the master device 11);
sending the first data to the in-vehicle display (Harata, Fig. 3, ¶ 48, When a user recognizes the campaign notification with the mobile terminal 6 or the in-vehicle display 7 and gives approval for program update by using the mobile terminal 6 or the in-vehicle display 7; Fig. 10, ¶ ¶ 93-95, When the guidance screen 30 for the campaign notification is displayed on the in-vehicle display 7, the “normal procedure” button 30a is displayed as an invitation for program update using the in-vehicle display 7 and the “connect to operator” button 30b is displayed as an invitation for program update using the conversation response system 26 and the “automatic response” button 30c is displayed as an invitation for program update using the automatic response system 27 … A user of the vehicle having the in-vehicle display 7 can select whether to give the approval by using the in-vehicle 7 or give the approval by using the conversation response system 26 or the automatic response system 27) and sending the second data to the user equipment (Harata, Fig. 3, ¶ 48, When a user recognizes the campaign notification with the mobile terminal 6 or the in-vehicle display 7 and gives approval for program update by using the mobile terminal 6 or the in-vehicle display 7; Fig. 9, ¶ ¶ 70-73, when the guidance screen 29 of the campaign notification is displayed on the mobile terminal 6, a “normal procedure” button 29a, a “connect to operator” button 29b, an “automatic response” button 29c, and a “later” button 29d are displayed, so that a user can select any of the buttons. When the user operates the “normal procedure” button 29a, the user subsequently conducts operation for approving the program update by using the mobile terminal 6):
at least one of displaying corresponding data out of the first data on the in-vehicle display (Harata, Fig. 10, ¶ ¶ 74-76 and 93-95) and displaying corresponding data out of the second data on the user equipment (Harata, Fig. 9, ¶ ¶ 70-73); and
receiving approval from the user to the software update (Harata, Fig. 3, ¶ 48, When a user recognizes the campaign notification with the mobile terminal 6 or the in-vehicle display 7 and gives approval for program update by using the mobile terminal 6 or the in-vehicle display 7).
Harata does not appear to explicitly disclose the first data being license information. However, in an analogous art to the claimed invention in the field of software update, Harata2 teaches the first data being license information (Harata2, ¶ 473, when a license contract is not established, the master device 11 displays the content that “the program cannot be updated because the license is not valid; please contact your dealer” on the in-vehicle display 7. Consequently, it is possible to present the reason why the vehicle condition is not suitable for updating a program or the like to the user, and thus to present appropriate information to the user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harata’s techniques with Harata2’s teaching. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to determine whether or not the vehicle is a vehicle in which a program would be updated against the intention of the user, or a vehicle in which installation would fail after download even when the download is successful by determining whether or not a license contract is established, whether or not a vehicle position is within a predetermined range registered in advance by the user, whether or not a setting of an alarm function of the vehicle is validated, whether or not trouble information regarding the ECU 19 is generated, and determining whether or not a vehicle condition is a condition suitable for downloading a distribution package (Harata2, ¶ 468).
Harata as modified discloses the first data being license information (Harata2, ¶ 473), but does not appear to explicitly disclose the information, which includes information explaining content of the software update or information explaining how to use the vehicle after the software update. However, Harata3 teaches the information, which includes information explaining content of the software update or information explaining how to use the vehicle after the software update (Harata3, pg. 49, para. 3, if the user operates the "Check Details" button 510a in this state, as in 46 1, the central gate way (CGW)13 performs switching of display contents of the check operation screen 510 and displays details of the completion of activation on the on-vehicle display 7. FIG. The CGW 13 displays a function added or changed due to the update; The CGW 13 displays content of the update, time required for the update, limitation of vehicle functions due to the update, and the like using the received distribution specification data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harata’s techniques as modified with Harata3’s teaching. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to keep a vehicle informed by displaying each stage of a software update and allowing the user to review corresponding details to improve user experience.
Harata as modified does not appear to explicitly disclose the second data being license information, which includes information explaining content of the software update or information explaining how to use the vehicle after the software update, the second data having higher information granularity of explanatory information than the first data. However, Pirwani teaches the second data being license information (Pirwani, ¶ 51, The processor then may obtain private data of the occupant, as needed. Transport data 118 may include any data associated with a transport 120, including vehicle identification information, license/registration information), which includes information explaining content of the software update (Pirwani, ¶ 51, The processor then may obtain private data of the occupant, as needed. Transport data 118 may include any data associated with a transport 120, including vehicle identification information, license/registration information, technical details, installed options, current levels of hardware and software components [explaining content of the software update], hardware and/or software versions [explaining content of the software update], service information) or information explaining how to use the vehicle after the software update (Pirwani, ¶ 51, The processor then may obtain private data of the occupant, as needed. Transport data 118 may include any data associated with a transport 120, including vehicle identification information, license/registration information, technical details [explaining how to use the vehicle after the software update], installed options, current levels of hardware and software components, hardware and/or software versions, service information [explaining how to use the vehicle after the software update]), the second data having higher information granularity of explanatory information than the first data (Pirwani, ¶ 51, The processor then may obtain private data of the occupant, as needed. Transport data 118 may include any data associated with a transport 120, including vehicle identification information, license/registration information, technical details, installed options, current levels of hardware and software components, hardware and/or software versions, service information [Examiner’s remarks: The transport data taught by Pirwani ¶ 51 includes multiple detailed vehicle parameters, which provide more detailed explanatory information regarding the vehicle and software environment than Harata3 teaching as Harata3’s teaching does not include the optional claim limitation “information explaining how to use the vehicle after the software update”, thereby the information taught by Pirwani having higher information granularity]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harata’s techniques as modified with Pirwani’s system. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide additional technical parameters regarding the vehicle system and software configuration that allows the system to more accurately identify, describe, and manage software updates applicable to the vehicle, thereby improving update management and ensuring compatibility between the vehicle system and the software update. In addition, when the mobile device has a greater display capability, it provides more flexibility to allow information reviewing at user’s convenience, and to avoid cluttering the in-vehicle display while still enabling an informed approval decision.
As to claim 2, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Harata as modified further discloses The method according to claim 8, wherein an information amount of character information included in the second data is greater than an information amount of character information included in the first data (Pirwani, ¶ 51, The processor then may obtain private data of the occupant, as needed. Transport data 118 may include any data associated with a transport 120, including vehicle identification information, license/registration information [It is noted that the information provided by Pirwani includes vehicle identification, hardware versions, software version, installed options, technical details, and service information, whereas Harata3 merely provides an update notification and summary of updated functions. Therefore, Pirwani provides an information amount of character information included in the second data that is greater than an information amount of character information included in the first data.]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the more detailed information taught by Pirwani into the mobile device interface of Harata as modified in order to improve user understanding of the software update before approval, while maintaining a simplified notification on the in-vehicle display.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harata, in view of Harata2, further view of Harata3, further in view of Pirwani, and further in view of US 2020/0142661 (hereinafter “Cansino”).
As to claim 3, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated, Harata as modified does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein: the second data includes video information; and the first data does not include the video information. However, in an analogous art to the claimed invention in the field of utilizing a mobile device, Cansino teaches wherein: the second data includes video information (Cansino, ¶ 179, the mobile device 2410 may separate the audio and video streams); and the first data does not include the video information (Cansino, ¶ 179, the mobile device 2410 may separate the audio and video streams so that the audio stream is communicated through the in-vehicle infotainment system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harata’s system with the system taught by Cansino including that the second data includes video information; and the first data does not include the video information. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to adapt a secondary display and the secondary display is standalone device, such as the mobile device used for displaying various types of data including video streams to make the mobile device more user friendly and to enrich user experience.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harata, in view of Harata2, further view of Harata3, further in view of Pirwani, and further in view of US 2013/0254685 (hereinafter “Batraski”).
As to claim 4, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Harata as modified further discloses the method according to claim 8, wherein when the user views part way through the second data using the user equipment (Harata, Fig. 3, ¶ 49, When the user-oriented management WEB 24a determines that a user has approved a program update by using the mobile terminal 6, the management WEB 24a transmits approval information indicating that the user has approved the program update by using the mobile terminal 6 (corresponding to second approval information)) and then further views the first data using the in-vehicle display (Harata, Fig. 3, ¶ ¶ 49-50, when the user-oriented management WEB 24a determines that a user has approved a program update by using the in-vehicle display 7, the user-oriented management WEB 24a transmits approval information indicating that the user has approved the program update by using the in-vehicle display 7 (corresponding to third approval information)).
Harata as modified does not appear to explicitly disclose the method further comprises setting the first data to be displayed on the in-vehicle display to be data following a part of the second data that has already been viewed using the user equipment, and displaying, on the in-vehicle display, the set first data being the data following the part of the second data that has already been viewed using the user equipment.
However, Batraski teaches the method further comprises setting the first data to be displayed on the in-vehicle display to be data following a part of the second data that has already been viewed using the user equipment (Batraski, ¶ 52, the user that owns for example, the PC 105, the mobile phone 205, the tablet PC 305, and the gaming machine 405 can move between the above devices and synchronize previous browsing states between the machines. The user can begin a browsing session on the mobile phone 205, and upon arrival at a work location, continue the browsing session on a work PC. En route home, the user can continue the browsing session from the work PC on the mobile, phone 205. … The synchronization of the browsing state on the remote server allows the user to maintain an effective single browsing session across multiple devices in multiple locations), displaying, on the in-vehicle display, the set first data being the data following the part of the second data that has already been viewed using the user equipment (Batraski, ¶ 52, The user can begin a browsing session on the mobile phone 205, and upon arrival at a work location, continue the browsing session on a work PC … The synchronization of the browsing state on the remote server allows the user to maintain an effective single browsing session across multiple devices in multiple locations. … because cookies are also maintained across platforms, functionalities of previous web pages and current web pages are maintained as the user transfers between platforms; Fig. 14, ¶ 99, At step 1435, the seamless browser 100 indicates to the user that the last browsing was on another device. At step 1440, the seamless browser 100 asks the user if the user would like to continue browsing from where a browsing session ended on a different device. If the user wants to continue browsing from where a browsing session ended on a different device, the method proceeds to step 1445 … At step 1445, the seamless browser updates the rendering unit 905 … with the browser information from the selected device [Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that the last page visited by the user is loaded to the current device for the user to continue browsing.]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harata’s system as modified with the system taught by Batraski. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to enable user transitions from viewing software-update information on the user equipment to viewing the information on the in-vehicle display, such that presentation on the in-vehicle display continues from the portion following the information already viewed on the user equipment. This technique approach provides seamless continuation of information across multiple user devices and to avoid unnecessarily redisplaying information already viewed by the user.
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Harata as modified further discloses The method according to claim 8, wherein when the user views part way through the first data using the in-vehicle display (Harata, Fig. 3, ¶ 48, When a user recognizes the campaign notification with … the in-vehicle display 7 and gives approval for program update by using … the in-vehicle display 7 … ) and then further views the second data using the user equipment (Harata, Fig. 3, ¶ 49, reception of a program update approval that is given by a user using the mobile terminal 6), the method further comprises setting the second data to be displayed on the user equipment to be data following a part of the first data that has already been viewed using the in-vehicle display, and displaying, on the user equipment, the set second data being the data following the part of the first data that has already been viewed using the in-vehicle display (Batraski, Fig. 14, ¶ 99, At step 1435, the seamless browser 100 indicates to the user that the last browsing was on another device. At step 1440, the seamless browser 100 asks the user if the user would like to continue browsing from where a browsing session ended on a different device. If the user wants to continue browsing from where a browsing session ended on a different device, the method proceeds to step 1445 … At step 1445, the seamless browser updates the rendering unit 905 … with the browser information from the selected device [Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that the last page visited by the user is loaded to the current device for the user to continue browsing. Thus, Batraski teaches displaying on the current device data following the portion of the content previously viewed on another device, thereby resuming presentation from the user’s last viewing position.] ).
The motivation to combine the references is the same as set forth in the rejection of claim 4.
As to claim 6, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Harata as modified further discloses The method according to claim 8, wherein when he user views part way through the first data using the in-vehicle display (Harata, Fig. 3, ¶ 48, When a user recognizes the campaign notification with … the in-vehicle display 7 and gives approval for program update by using … the in-vehicle display 7 … ) and then further views the second data using the user equipment (Harata, Fig. 3, ¶ 49, reception of a program update approval that is given by a user using the mobile terminal 6), the method further comprises setting the second data to be displayed on the user equipment to be data including a part of the first data that has already been viewed using the in-vehicle display, and displaying, on the user equipment, the set second data being data including a part of the first data that has already been viewed using the in-vehicle display (Batraski, ¶ 52, the user that owns for example, the PC 105, the mobile phone 205, the tablet PC 305, and the gaming machine 405 can move between the above devices and synchronize previous browsing states between the machines. The user can begin a browsing session on the mobile phone 205, and upon arrival at a work location, continue the browsing session on a work PC. En route home, the user can continue the browsing session from the work PC on the mobile, phone 205. … The synchronization of the browsing state on the remote server allows the user to maintain an effective single browsing session across multiple devices in multiple locations. …. functionalities of previous web pages and current web pages are maintained as the user transfers between platforms. … the effects of pushing a back button on the seamless browser 100 to retrieve a previous page is independent of which device the user carries out this operation. An example of such functionality occurs, when a user clicks on a link some way down an Internet page, and a new web page is displayed. If the user pushes the back up on the browser, in many instances the previous page will appear, but also be scrolled to the position where the user clicked on the link to move to the next page. The seamless browser 100 allows such functionality to be transferred between different devices and platforms while browsing [Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that the restored display on the second device includes the previously viewed page and presents the browsing session at the user’s prior viewing position, thereby causing the displayed data on the user equipment to include a part of the data that had already been reviewed by the user on the first device while permitting the user to continue from the restored viewing position.]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harata’s system as modified with the system taught by Batraski. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to restore the user’s viewing position when switching from the in-vehicle display to the user equipment, thereby preserving the user’s browsing context and avoiding unnecessary loss of continuity while reviewing the software-update information across multiple devices..
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAXIN WU whose telephone number is (571) 270-7721. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (7 am - 11:30 am; 1:30- 5 pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Wei Mui can be reached at (571) 272-3708. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
Wu, Daxin
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2191
/DAXIN WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191
Prosecution Insights