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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the unlabeled rectangular box(es) shown in the drawings (Fig.1) should be provided with descriptive text labels. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kodama (USPGPN 2022/0413833 – filed 2020), in view of Nakanishi et al. (Japanese Publication JP 2020131718 A – published 2020).
Regarding Claims 1 & 7, Kodama (Figs.1, 2, & 9) teaches an information processing device (s), comprising:
a storage device (31); and
an executing device (2 & 7) configured to update software stored in the storage device (¶0097: update can be communicated through charging control apparatus 7), control charging electric power to a secondary battery installed in a vehicle (charging control apparatus), and
when updating of the software that is not executable at the same time as charging of the secondary battery is requested (¶0110: target onboard ECU is a charging ECU then charging is stopped at S44 and only updating is performed), perform one of supplying the charging electric power to the secondary battery (S43) and updating of the software first (S44), based on urgency information that is information indicating urgency (S42).
Kodama fails to explicitly teach the urgency information provided with new software to be updated to.
However, Nakanishi teaches a system for updating software where the update includes urgency information (Pg.3, Para.2: the signal includes an “emergency flag”, which is an urgency of rewriting the program).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Kodama with Nakanishi to provide the urgency information that is information indication urgency with the software to be updated to. Doing so provides the executing device with priority information that can allow for different prioritizations of updating software or charging as determined by the provider of the software update.
Regarding Claim 2, Kodama (Fig. 9), as modified, further teaches the urgency information includes a priority level indicating a degree of priority for updating the software (S42, state of charge exceeding determination threshold); and
the executing device is configured to, when updating of the software that is not executable at the same time as charging of the secondary battery is requested, and on condition that the priority level is a level that is to be given priority over a degree of priority that is set in advance (S42->Yes), perform updating of the software before supplying the charging electric power to the secondary battery (S44).
Regarding Claim 3, Kodama (Fig. 9), as modified, further teaches the urgency information includes specifying information that specifies whether priority is to be given to updating the software or to supplying the charging electric power to the secondary battery (S42, state of charge exceeding determination threshold); and
the executing device is configured to, when updating of the software that is not executable at the same time as charging of the secondary battery is requested, and on condition that the urgency information includes the specifying information that specifies that updating of the software is to be given priority (S42->Yes), perform updating of the software before supplying the charging electric power to the secondary battery (S44).
Regarding Claim 4, Kodama (Fig. 9), as modified, further teaches the executing device is configured to supply the charging electric power to the secondary battery before updating the software (S43), when updating of the software that is not executable at the same time as charging of the secondary battery is requested, and also a remaining charge of the secondary battery is lower than a stipulated value that is set in advance (S42->No).
Regarding Claim 5, Kodama (Fig. 9), as modified, further teaches the executing device is configured to determine which of supplying the charging electric power to the secondary battery and updating of the software is higher in priority, based on the urgency information (S42), and perform the one of the supplying the charging electric power to the secondary battery and updating of the software that is determined to be higher in priority (S43/S44).
Regarding Claim 6, Kodama (Figs. 1, 2, & 9) teaches a non-transitory storage medium (¶0050: control program is stored RAM/ROM/EEPROM) storing instructions that are executable by an information processing device (s) including a storage device (31) and an executing device (2 & 7) including one or more processors (20), and that cause the one or more processors to perform functions comprising:
updating software stored in the storage device (¶0097: update can be communicated through charging control apparatus 7);
controlling charging electric power to a secondary battery installed in a vehicle (charging control apparatus 7); and
when updating of the software that is not executable at the same time as charging of the secondary battery is requested (¶0110: target onboard ECU is a charging ECU then charging is stopped at S44 and only updating is performed), ), performing one of supplying the charging electric power to the secondary battery (S43) and updating of the software first (S44), based on urgency information that is information indicating urgency (S42).
Kodama fails to explicitly teach the urgency information provided with new software to be updated to.
However, Nakanishi teaches a system for updating software where the update includes urgency information (Pg.3, Para.2: the signal includes an “emergency flag”, which is an urgency of rewriting the program).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Kodama with Nakanishi to provide the urgency information that is information indication urgency with the software to be updated to. Doing so provides the executing device with priority information that can allow for different prioritizations of updating software or charging as determined by the provider of the software update.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al. (USPGPN 2014/0304700) teaches a method for updating software based on priority levels and power states of a battery.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P ONDRASIK whose telephone number is (703)756-1963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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, Julian Huffman can be reached at (571) 272-2147. 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.
/JOHN P ONDRASIK/ Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights