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 Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed on October 8, 2025.
Claims 1-9 are pending and examined below.
Claim 1 has been amended.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significant more.
Under MPEP Revised Patentable Subject Matter Analysis Prong 1 Step 2A:
The recited claim limitations in claim 1 “based on the acquired information on the target vehicles, classify a plurality of vehicles that is software distribution targets into a first vehicle that wirelessly communicate directly with the server and a second vehicle that wirelessly communicates with mobile equipment; and prioritize software distribution to the second vehicle over software distribution to the first vehicle based on whether the vehicle communicates directly with the server or with mobile equipment” are functions that can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, thus it is reasonable to identify these limitation as reciting a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III.
Under MPEP Revised Patentable Subject Matter Analysis Prong 2 Step 2A:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements “A server that distributes software, the server comprising one or more processors”. The element is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, or merely a generic computer or generic computer components to perform the judicial exception. Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements of “acquire information on a plurality of target vehicles”, “a first vehicle that wirelessly communicate directly with the server and receive the software distributed by the software directly from the server”, and “a second vehicle that wirelessly communicates with mobile equipment and receive the software distributed by the server via the mobile equipment” are insignificant extra solution activities of data gathering and data transmitting (MPEP 2106.05 (g)), For example, the acquired information can simply be “a first vehicle that wirelessly communicate directly with the server and a second vehicle that wirelessly communicates with mobile equipment”. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception.
Under MPEP Revised Patentable Subject Matter Analysis Step 2B:
The claim recites the following additional elements A server that distributes software, the server comprising one or more processors”. The element is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, or merely a generic computer or generic computer components to perform the judicial exception.
The additional recited elements of “acquire information on a plurality of target vehicles”, “a first vehicle that wirelessly communicate directly with the server and receive the software distributed by the software directly from the server”, and “a second vehicle that wirelessly communicates with mobile equipment and receive the software distributed by the server via the mobile equipment” are well-understood , routine, and conventional data gathering and data transmitting. See MPEP § 2106.05(d). Accordingly, these additional elements do not amount to significant more than the judicial exception. The claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
As to dependent claims 2-9, the similar analysis is also applied as set forth in the analysis of claim1. Therefore, they do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
Claims 1 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0163466 (hereinafter "Kiyama”), in view of US 2015/0363210 (hereinafter “Wehrman”).
In the following claim analysis, Applicant’s claim language is in bold text and Examiner’s explanations are enclosed in square brackets.
As to claim 1, Kiyama discloses A server that distributes software claim 1, An in-vehicle software distribution system which controls updates to an identical function for in-vehicle systems of a plurality of vehicles), the server comprising one or more processors configured to:
acquire information on a plurality of target vehicles (Kiyama, ¶ 209, the campaign management unit 112 categorizes campaign target vehicles into groups based on a predetermined criterion (the test vehicle flag 1216 or current position region 1215, or the like, for example); ¶ 219, a method in which a search for vehicle information 1210 based on the VIN of the vehicle groups is performed and in which results, sorted in order starting with the lowest usage frequency 1218, for example, are used to perform segmentation into the designated number of groups):
based on the acquired information on the target vehicles, classify each of the plurality of vehicles (Kiyama, ¶ 219, segmenting the vehicle group into N groups … a search for vehicle information 1210 based on the VIN of the vehicle groups is performed and in which results, sorted in order starting with the lowest usage frequency 1218, for example, are used to perform segmentation into the designated number of groups) that are each software distribution targets into a first vehicle that wirelessly communicate directly with the server (Kiyama, Fig. 1, ¶ 32, the telematics center 10 is connected to the network 40 via a communication unit 130, the software update apparatus 210 is connected to the network 40 via a communication unit 220 of the vehicle 20; ¶ 38, the update software distribution unit 113 extracts update software which is suitable for the vehicle 20 from a software DB 127 of the storage apparatus 120 according to an instruction from the terminal 30 and sends the update software to the vehicle 20 via the communication unit 130 and network 40; ¶ 8, a terminal which performs I/Os to/from the in-vehicle software distribution server, and a software update apparatus which is mounted in each of the plurality of vehicles, downloads the software that has been distributed by the in-vehicle software distribution server) and receive the software distributed by the software directly from the server (Kiyama, ¶ 10, a software update apparatus which is mounted in each of the plurality of vehicles, downloads the software that has been distributed by the in-vehicle software distribution server, and installs the software in target in-vehicle systems), and a second vehicle (Kiyama, ¶ 219, segmenting the vehicle group into N groups);
prioritize software distribution to the second vehicle over software distribution to the first vehicle based on whether the vehicle communicates directly with the server or … (Kiyama, Fig. 4, ¶ 90, when the critical flag 1233 is ‘True,’ this means that the software update urgency (priority level) of the campaign is high and that the driver of the vehicle 20 has no right to veto the software update. On the other hand, when the critical flag 1233 is ‘False,’ this means that the software update urgency (priority level) of the campaign is relatively low and that the driver of the vehicle 20 is able to veto the software update (or the update timing)).
Kiyama does not appear to explicitly disclose a second vehicle that wirelessly communicates with mobile equipment and receive the software distributed by the server via the mobile equipment, nor disclose prioritizing software distribution based on whether the vehicle communicates directly with the server or with mobile equipment. However, in an analogous art to the claimed invention in the field of vehicle software update, Wehrman teaches a first vehicle that wirelessly communicate directly with the server receive the software distributed by the software directly from the server (Wehrman, ¶ 38, The VCS 1 may be configured to communicate with the update server 210 … the internal modem 63, to facilitate communication with the update server 210), or a second vehicle that wirelessly communicates with mobile equipment and receive the software distributed by the server via the mobile equipment (Wehrman, ¶ 14, the vehicle may use a phone or other mobile device as a data connection to retrieve a software update over-the-air; ¶ 15, When the download is complete and the mobile device is reconnected to the vehicle, the mobile device may provide the downloaded software updates to the vehicle for installation [Wehrman thus recognizes that vehicle may employ different communication paths for obtaining software updates]); prioritizing software distribution based on whether the vehicle communicates directly with the server or with mobile equipment (Wehrman, ¶ 42, The update retrieval application 218 may be configured to cause the nomadic device 53 [claim 6, the nomadic device is a mobile device] to download software updates 206 over the wide-area data connection 214; ¶ 43, By using the facilities of the nomadic device 53, the vehicle 31 may accordingly be able to have its software updates 206 downloaded over wide-area data connections 214 that may be unavailable to the vehicle 31 but available to the nomadic device 53 [i.e., prioritizing based on communication path]]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kiyama’s teaching with the teaching taught by Wehnman. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to prioritize software distribution based on the vehicle’s communication paths, in order to improve update delivery connectivity reliability. Vehicles with differing connectivity capabilities would reasonably require differentiated handling to ensure successful and timely software deployment. Such prioritization represents no more than predictable optimization of known update distribution techniques.
As to claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Kiyama as modified further teaches A software distribution system (Kiyama, Fig. 1, ¶ 31, The in-vehicle software distribution system 1 shown in FIG. 1 is a system which distributes software to a vehicle 20), comprising: the server according to claim 1 (Kiyama, Fig. 1, ¶ 31, a telematics center 10 which is a server, a software update apparatus 210 which is mounted in the vehicle 20, and a terminal 30 which performs I/Os to/from the telematics center 10. Note that, as shown in FIG. 1, the telematics center 10, software update apparatus 210 and terminal 30 are communicably interconnected via a network 40); the plurality of vehicles (Kiyama, Fig. 1, ¶ 33, a plurality of vehicles 20 in each of which the software update apparatus 210 is mounted are communicably connected to the telematics center 10 and terminal 30 via the network 40); and the mobile equipment, the mobile equipment being configured to send the software acquired from the server to the second vehicle by wireless communication (Wehrman, ¶ 14, the vehicle may use a phone or other mobile device as a data connection to retrieve a software update over-the-air; ¶ 15, When the download is complete and the mobile device is reconnected to the vehicle, the mobile device may provide the downloaded software updates to the vehicle for installation). The motivation to combine the references is the same as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 9, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated. Kiyama as modified further teaches The software distribution system according to claim 8, wherein the mobile equipment is a smartphone (Wehrman, ¶ 14, the vehicle may use a phone or other mobile device as a data connection to retrieve a software update over-the-air). The motivation to combine the references is the same as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0163466 (hereinafter "Kiyama”), in view of US 2015/0363210 (hereinafter “Wehrman”), and further in view of CN 113590164 (hereinafter “Liu”).
As to claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Kiyama does not appear to explicitly disclose The server according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to classify the plurality of vehicles according to a type of the software to be distributed, wherein the one or more processors are configured to prioritize distribution to the second vehicle over distribution to the first vehicle when performing software distribution to each vehicle classified into a same category by the one or more processors. However, in an analogous art to the claimed invention in the field of software update, Liu teaches The server according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to classify the plurality of vehicles according to a type of the software to be distributed, wherein the one or more processors are configured to prioritize distribution to the second vehicle over distribution to the first vehicle when performing software distribution to each vehicle classified into a same category by the one or more processors (Liu, the invention develops two OTA sub-control nodes capable of realizing different functions; it realizes the classification upgrade of different upgrading objects; the multiple controllers on the vehicle are divided according to the software updating characteristic; the same type of controller is provided with the same OTA technical requirement and function specification; the standardized OTA upgrading object management is realized).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kiyama’s system as modified with the system taught by Liu including prioritizing distribution to the second vehicle over distribution to the first vehicle when performing software distribution to each vehicle classified into a same category by the one or more processors. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to classify the upgrading object to centralize control upgrading process to save the upgrading time and to improve upgrading efficiency.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0163466 (hereinafter "Kiyama”), in view of US 2015/0363210 (hereinafter “Wehrman”), in view of CN 113590164 (hereinafter “Liu”), and further in view of US 2020/0218443 (hereinafter “Narayan”).
As to claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. The combination of Kiyama as modified and Narayan teaches The server according to claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: classify the plurality of vehicles into a first category and a second category (Kiyama, claim 1, categorize the plurality of vehicles that are the distribution destinations of the main campaign into groups based on a predetermined criterion), the first category being a category to which the vehicle that is to receive distribution of software related to entertainment belongs (Narayan, ¶ 2, Present vehicles are increasingly computerized, and loaded with software applications. These software applications can include applications that are critical to the driving or piloting of the vehicle, and those that are not … the non-driving-critical applications can include one or more infotainment applications), and the second category being a category to which the vehicle that is to receive distribution of software related to driving control belongs (Narayan, ¶ 2, Present vehicles are increasingly computerized, and loaded with software applications. These software applications can include applications that are critical to the driving or piloting of the vehicle, and those that are not); and prioritize software distribution to the vehicle belonging to the second category over software distribution to the vehicle belonging to the first category (Kiyama, Fig. 4, ¶ 90, when the critical flag 1233 is ‘True,’ this means that the software update urgency (priority level) of the campaign is high and that the driver of the vehicle 20 has no right to veto the software update. On the other hand, when the critical flag 1233 is ‘False,’ this means that the software update urgency (priority level) of the campaign is relatively low and that the driver of the vehicle 20 is able to veto the software update (or the update timing)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kiyama’s system as modified with the system taught by Narayan. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to classify the upgrading objects into the driving-critical applications and the non-driving-critical applications including one or more infotainment applications such that the driver of the vehicle has no right to veto the driving-critical applications update and the driver of the vehicle is able to veto the non-driving-critical applications update.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0163466 (hereinafter "Kiyama”), in view of US 2015/0363210 (hereinafter “Wehrman”), in view of CN 113590164 (hereinafter “Liu”), in view of US 2020/0218443 (hereinafter “Narayan”), and further in view of US 2022/0405171 (hereinafter “Shelke”).
As to claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. The combination of Kiyama as modified and Shelke teaches The server according to claim 3, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: further classify the vehicles classified into the first category into a third category and a fourth category (Kiyama, claim 1, categorize the plurality of vehicles that are the distribution destinations of the main campaign into groups based on a predetermined criterion), the third category being a category to which the vehicle that is to receive distribution of non-rollback software belongs (Shelke, ¶ 41, The plugin framework 200 serves as an interface for the information that is related to upgrade and rollback operations. … fetching non-upgrade or non-rollback related information of nodes), and the fourth category being a category to which the vehicle that is to receive distribution of rollback software belongs (Shelke, ¶ 41, The plugin framework 200 serves as an interface for the information that is related to upgrade and rollback operations); prioritize software distribution to the vehicle belonging to the fourth category over software distribution to the vehicle belonging to the third category (Kiyama, Fig. 4, ¶ 90, when the critical flag 1233 is ‘True,’ this means that the software update urgency (priority level) of the campaign is high and that the driver of the vehicle 20 has no right to veto the software update. On the other hand, when the critical flag 1233 is ‘False,’ this means that the software update urgency (priority level) of the campaign is relatively low and that the driver of the vehicle 20 is able to veto the software update (or the update timing); further classify the vehicles classified into the second category into a fifth category and a sixth category, the fifth category being a category to which the vehicle that is to receive distribution of non-rollback software belongs (Shelke, ¶ 41, The plugin framework 200 serves as an interface for the information that is related to upgrade and rollback operations. … fetching non-upgrade or non-rollback related information of nodes), and the sixth category being a category to which the vehicle that is to receive distribution of rollback software belongs (Shelke, ¶ 41, The plugin framework 200 serves as an interface for the information that is related to upgrade and rollback operations); and prioritize software distribution to the vehicle belonging to the sixth category over software distribution to the vehicle belonging to the fifth category (Kiyama, Fig. 4, ¶ 90, when the critical flag 1233 is ‘True,’ this means that the software update urgency (priority level) of the campaign is high and that the driver of the vehicle 20 has no right to veto the software update. On the other hand, when the critical flag 1233 is ‘False,’ this means that the software update urgency (priority level) of the campaign is relatively low and that the driver of the vehicle 20 is able to veto the vehicle 20 is able to veto the software update (or the update timing)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kiyama’s system as modified with the system taught by Shelke. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to categorize the plurality of vehicles that are the distribution destinations of the main campaign into groups based on a predetermined criterion and creates a plurality of sub-campaigns which are subordinate to the campaign for each of the categorized groups, and a software distribution unit distributes software remotely to the target vehicles for each of the sub-campaigns to make the software update process more efficient (Kiyama, Abstract).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0163466 (hereinafter "Kiyama”), in view of US 2015/0363210 (hereinafter “Wehrman”), in view of CN 113590164 (hereinafter “Liu”), and further in view of US 2006/0294514 (hereinafter “Bauchot”).
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. The combination of Kiyama as modified and Bauchot teaches The server according to claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: classify the plurality of vehicles into a seventh category and an eighth category (Kiyama, Abstract, categorize the plurality of vehicles that are the distribution destinations of the main campaign into groups based on a predetermined criterion and creates a plurality of sub-campaigns which are subordinate to the campaign for each of the categorized groups), the seventh category being a category to which the vehicle that is to receive distribution of non-recall software belongs (Bauchot, ¶ 5, car manufacturers … are performing "silent" updates during regular car repair and maintenance operations for minor software changes; ¶ 9, a software mechanism that can directly update software in cars, "in place", without recalls), and the eighth category being a category to which the vehicle that is to receive distribution of recall software belongs (Bauchot, ¶ 5, car manufacturers still recall cars for critical software updates); and prioritize software distribution to the vehicle belonging to the eighth category over software distribution to the vehicle belonging to the seventh category (Kiyama, Fig. 4, ¶ 90, when the critical flag 1233 is ‘True,’ this means that the software update urgency (priority level) of the campaign is high and that the driver of the vehicle 20 has no right to veto the software update. On the other hand, when the critical flag 1233 is ‘False,’ this means that the software update urgency (priority level) of the campaign is relatively low and that the driver of the vehicle 20 is able to veto the vehicle 20 is able to veto the software update (or the update timing)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kiyama’s system as modified with the system taught by Bauchot. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to categorize the plurality of vehicles that are the distribution destinations of the main campaign into groups based on a predetermined criterion and creates a plurality of sub-campaigns which are subordinate to the campaign for each of the categorized groups, and a software distribution unit distributes software remotely to the target vehicles for each of the sub-campaigns to make the software update process more efficient (Kiyama, Abstract).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0163466 (hereinafter "Kiyama”), in view of US 2015/0363210 (hereinafter “Wehrman”), and further in view of US 2019/0205115 (hereinafter “Gomes”).
As to claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. The combination of Kiyama as modified and Gomes teaches The server according to claim 1, further comprising a storage device (Kiyama, Fig. 1, ¶ 42, As shown in FIG. 1, as the data groups stored in the storage apparatus 120, the storage apparatus 120 comprises the vehicle DB 121, vehicle configuration DB 122, main campaign DB 123, test campaign DB 124, distribution campaign DB 125, update progress status DB 126, software DB 127, and map DB 128 and the like) that stores information (Kiyama, Fig. 1, ¶ 46, The main campaign DB 123 stores ‘main campaign information’ which is configured from the type of ECU which is the software update target in the main campaign, the limiting conditions at the time of distributing the update software, and information for managing the number of vehicles which are update targets, and the like) indicating whether each of the plurality of vehicles has subscribed to a premium service (Gomer, ¶ 133, provide APIs to permit an end-user and/or client to subscribe to various types of data services), the premium service being a service that allows to receive priority software distribution from the server (Wehrman, ¶ 38, The VCS 1 may be configured to communicate with the update server 210 … the internal modem 63, to facilitate communication with the update server 210), wherein the one or more processors are configured to prioritize distribution to the first vehicle subscribing to the premium service over distribution to the first vehicle not subscribing to the premium service when distributing predetermined software to a plurality of the first vehicles (Kiyama, ¶ 63, the storage apparatus 233 stores data groups or the like which are required to execute the program; Fig. 4, ¶ 90, when the critical flag 1233 is ‘True,’ this means that the software update urgency (priority level) of the campaign is high and that the driver of the vehicle 20 has no right to veto the software update. On the other hand, when the critical flag 1233 is ‘False,’ this means that the software update urgency (priority level) of the campaign is relatively low and that the driver of the vehicle 20 is able to veto the software update (or the update timing)); ¶ 126, the critical flag 1233 may be selected according to the priority level of the main campaign).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kiyama’s system as modified with the system taught by Gomer. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to store the categorized plurality of vehicles that are the distribution destinations of the main campaign into groups based on a predetermined criterion to assist a software distribution unit that distributes software remotely to the target vehicles for each of the sub-campaigns to make the software update process more efficient.
As to claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated. Kiyama as modified further teaches The server according to claim 6, wherein the predetermined software is software related to entertainment (Gomer, ¶ 196, the update metadata 901 also comprises an affected vehicle application(s)/system(s) element 906, which may be used to identify one or more software application(s) … e.g., vehicle … information/entertainment (i.e., “infotainment”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kiyama’s system as modified with the system taught by Gomer. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to categorize the plurality of vehicles that are the distribution destinations of the main campaign into groups based on a predetermined criterion and creates a plurality of sub-campaigns which are subordinate to the campaign for each of the categorized groups, and a software distribution unit distributes software remotely to the target vehicles for each of the sub-campaigns to make the software update process more efficient (Kiyama, Abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 10/8/2025 have been considered, but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
With respect to the remaining dependent claims, Applicant merely reiterates the argument made regarding claim 1 and asserts that any additional references cited by Examiner fail to resolve the alleged deficiencies in the rejections of the independent claim 1. Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive for the same reasons articulated above with respect to claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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.
/DAXIN WU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191