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 action is in response to the application filled on 02/17/2026.
Claims 1, 4, 7-9 are pending and 2-3 and 5-6 are cancelled. Claims 8-9 are newly added.
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 1,4, 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 4, and 7 recite:
Determine, before a first time, whether an update of software in a vehicle is capable of being started at the first time based on whether the vehicle is scheduled to be traveling at the first time.
In response to determining that the update is not capable of being started at the first time because the vehicle is scheduled to be traveling at the first time, determine a second time based on a traveling end time indicated by a traveling schedule for the vehicle;
install the update at the second time by writing update software to a non-volatile memory of an electronic control unit of the vehicle,
wherein the first time and the second time are future times relative to when the determination of whether the update of software in the vehicle is capable of being started at the first time is performed.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes.
Claim 1 is a machine
Claim 4 is a process
Claim 7 is an article of manufacture
Step 2A, Prong I: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘determine’ limitation in #1 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determine” in the context of the claim encompasses the person making a determination about starting an update.
The ‘determine’ limitation in #2 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determine” in the context of the claim encompasses the person making a determination of an end time based on a traveling schedule.
The ‘wherein’ limitation in #4 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “wherein” in the context of the claim encompasses the person deciding a first and second time for the update based on whether the update can be started at a first time.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The “install” limitation in #3 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is mere instructions to apply an exception. “Install” in the context of the claim is merely an “Apply it” step as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
One or more of the claims recite the following additional elements:
At least on processor (Claim 1 and 7)
Non-transitory storage medium (Claim 7)
The additional elements “memory,” “machine-readable instructions” and “programmable circuitry, the machine-readable instructions to cause the programmable circuitry” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “memory,” “machine-readable instructions” and “programmable circuitry, the machine-readable instructions to cause the programmable circuitry” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and merely displaying data do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, for the “install” limitation does not require any particular application of the recited evaluation and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 8 recites:
The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
Output, to an interface of the vehicle, a notification indicating that the update will be performed at the second time.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes.
Claim 8 is a system
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
The “output” limitation in #5 is extra-solution activity and/or WURC which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as it is mere data gathering and/or akin to receiving or transmitting data over a network. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claim 9 recites:
The information processing system according to claim 1, where the one or more processors are configured to
Perform the determination of whether the update of software in the vehicle is capable of being started at the first time only within a predetermined time period before the first time.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes.
Claim 9 is a system
Step 2A, Prong I: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The “determination” limitation in #6 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determination” in the context of this claim encompasses a person whether the update can be started within a time period.
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, 4, and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickerson et al. (US 9715378 B2), hereinafter Dickerson in view of Harata et al. (US 12399632 B2) hereinafter Harata.
With regards to Claim 1, Dickerson discloses,
An information processing system comprising one or more processors configured to: (Dickerson Column 2, lines 61-67 discloses a data processing system with one or more processors)
determine, before a first time, whether an update of software in a vehicle is capable of being started at the first time based on whether the vehicle is scheduled to be traveling at the first time, (Dickerson column 8, lines 10-27, 66-67 and column 9, lines 1-29 discloses the scheduling manager picking a time period by using the vehicle’s usage history to determine when the vehicle will be inactive in order to schedule the update, therefore demonstrating whether to update base on whether the vehicle is schedule to be traveling or not and when not, perform the update).
in response to determining that the update is not capable of being started at the first time because the vehicle is scheduled to be traveling at the first time, determine a second time based on a traveling end time indicated by a traveling schedule for the vehicle; and (Dickerson column 9, lines 1-49 and figure 4 discloses determining a time window meeting the requirements, thus setting the first time. Then if the update is unable, for example the user has an early flight which would require the use of the vehicle, the update process can return to step 415, which is the step to determine another best time window, therefore determining a second time. As disclosed previously, the time window is based when the vehicle is inactive/turned off in order to avoid interruption, and thus the second time window would be based on the traveling end time of the vehicle. Further demonstrated in Dickerson Column 14, lines 37-54, scheduling is quickly identified based on when the vehicle is started or turned off for determining when to start the software update).
the first time and the second time are future times relative to when the determination of whether the update of software in the vehicle is capable of being started at the first time is performed. (Dickerson column 14, lines 37-84, Column 9, lines 1-49 and figure 4, discloses the time windows are dependent on whether the system believes it is capable of starting the update based on a set of requirements and using historical data to predict the best times to do the update. When the update is incapable, the system will either notify the user if critical, or loop back to step 415 in order to pick another best start time window).
Dickerson lacks explicitly
install the update at the second time by writing update software to a non-volatile memory of an electronic control unit of the vehicle, wherein
Harata teaches
install the update at the second time by writing update software to a non-volatile memory of an electronic control unit of the vehicle, wherein (Harata claim 1, column 10, lines 60-67 and column 11, lines 1-14 discloses after receiving the updated information, write the received updated data into a non-volatile memory of the targeted ECU).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Dickerson in view of Harata to “install the update at the second time by writing update software to a non-volatile memory of an electronic control unit of the vehicle, wherein” in order to apply the update specifically for the ECU which is the central computer of the vehicle, thus ensuring the vehicle’s main system is running effectively.
With regards to Claim 4, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 4 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
With regards to claim 7, it is a non-transitory storage medium claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 4. Thus, claim 7 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4 above. Additionally, Dickerson column 16, lines 64-67 and column 17, lines 1-4 discloses non-transitory storage medium.
With regards to claim 8, Dickerson discloses,
The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: output, to an interface of the vehicle, a notification indicating that the update will be performed at the second time. (Dickerson column 8, lines 66-67 and column 9, lines 1-49 discloses the user being notified through the vehicle/user interface of the need for a scheduled software update with the scheduled time window for performing the update. Further in column 10, lines 43-67 and column 11, lines 1-6 further discloses the user also being notified through the vehicle through the user interface that the vehicle needs to be taken to a dealer for a software update or the user may provide requirements and asked if those requirements could be met by a change in the user’s routine. This change in routine updates the scheduler which decides time intervals for the software update).
With regards to claim 9, Dickerson discloses,
The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform the determination of whether the update of software in the vehicle is capable of being started at the first time only within a predetermined time period before the first time. (Dickerson column 15, lines 27-67 and column 16, lines 1-3 discloses the scheduling manager identifies usage patterns using historical data and determines before the upcoming time window if a software update can be concluded without interruption. This determination is done using confidence levels of whether the time interval can be successful without interruption and if the location meets requirements. Further, in Dickerson column 16, lines 11-30 and column 15, lines 17-26 discloses that one of the requirements in the determination is the time needed to perform the software update, therefore if the first time period is not a long enough time to perform the software update, a new time window will be chosen instead).
Response to Arguments
Response to 101 remarks:
Applicant's arguments filed 02/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to the physical transformation remark specifically the “install” limitation, the examiner would treat this limitation as an “apply it” step, thus it would not be a mental step. Even when the claim is considered as a whole, the claimed invention still recites mental steps in the “determining” limitations along with the “wherein” clause, while the “install” limitation is an “apply it” step which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, thus the 101 rejection is maintained.
In regards to the technical solution to a technical problem remark points to a “determining” step solving the problem/technical solution, the examiner would like to point out that the “determining” step is analyzed under step 2A prong 1 and not analyzed under step 2A prong 2 nor step 2B, thus it cannot be a technical solution to the problem and the 101 rejection is maintained.
Response to 103 remarks:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4, 7-9, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied or has been combined with an additional reference in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 CHRISTOPHER J SALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6355. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:30am-5pm.
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, Chat Do can be reached at (571) 272-3721. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J SALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2193
/Chat C Do/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights