CTFR 18/428,851 CTFR 88079 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Status of Claim 1. Applicant's amendment dated 02/06/2026 responding to the Office Action 12/01/2025 provided in the rejection of claims 1-8. 2. Claims 1, 6, 7 and 8 have been amended. 3. Claims 1-8 are pending in the application, of which claims 1, 6 and 8 in independent form and which have been fully considered by the examiner. Response to Amendments 4. (A). Regarding claim interpretation: Claim interpretation has been withdrawn in view of applicants' amendment. (B). Regarding 112(b) rejections: 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn in view of applicants' amendment. (C). Regarding 101 rejections: 101 rejections have been maintained in view of applicants' amendment. (D) Regarding art rejection: Applicants' amendment necessitated new grounds of rejections presented in the following art rejection. Please see Sangameswaran et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0259223 A1). Examiner Notes 5. Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. 6. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis specific to Claims 1 and 8 are being presented below. Claims 1, 6 and 8: Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 of the instant application is direct to apparatus. Claim 6 of the instant application is direct to process. Claim 8 of the instant application is direct to apparatus. Step 2 Analysis: Claims 1 and 6 recite: (a) downloading software update data for software for an information processing device; (b) obtaining schedule information, the schedule information including information on a scheduled event that is scheduled for a user and information regarding a time slot of the scheduled event; (c) predicting a blank period in the future in which the scheduled event will not occur, based on (i) the schedule information that is acquired and (ii) a location of the scheduled event; (d) deciding a scheduled update date-and-time that is a date and time when an update of the software for the information processing device is to be performed with the software update data, within the blank period; (e) performing the update of the software at the scheduled update date-and-time. Step 2A -- Prong 1: The claim 1 recites the limitations of: (c) predicting a blank period in the future in which the scheduled event will not occur, based on (i) the schedule information that is acquired and (ii) a location of the scheduled event; (d) deciding a scheduled update date-and-time that is a date and time when an update of the software for the information processing device is to be performed with the software update data, within the blank period; Limitations (c) and (d) are limitations that, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretations, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with a pen and paper, i.e. “predicting” and “deciding” can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion with the aid of pen and paper. As such, these limitations fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Step 2A -- Prong 2: The claim 1 recites the additional limitations of “A software updating device”, “a central processing unit (CPU)” and “the CPU being configured to execute”. The limitations of “A software updating device”, “a central processing unit (CPU)” and “the CPU being configured to execute.” Claim 6 recites the addition limitations of “A software updating method executed by an updating device”. The limitations of “A software updating device”, “a central processing unit (CPU)” and “the CPU being configured to execute”; “A software updating device”, “a central processing unit (CPU)” and “the CPU being configured to execute“ and “A software updating method executed by an updating device” are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Additionally, limitation (b) is merely insignificant extra solution activity of gathering data and (a) and (e) perform as well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Step 2B: As explained with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., simply adding extra-solution activity or well- understood, routine and conventional activity or generic computer components does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B since the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well- understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and See MPEP 2106.05(g) . Therefore, claims are ineligible. Claim 8: Step 2 Analysis: Claim 8 recites: (a) a computer that stores schedule information, the schedule information including information on a scheduled event that is scheduled for a user and information regarding a time slot of the scheduled event; (b) downloading software update data for software for an information processing device; (c) acquiring the schedule information from the computer, (d) predicting a blank period in the future in which the scheduled event will not occur, based on (i) the schedule information that is acquired and (ii) a location of the scheduled event, (e) deciding a scheduled update date-and-time that is a date and time when an update of the software for the information processing device installed in the vehicle is to be performed with the software update data, within the blank period, (f) transmitting information regarding the scheduled update date-and-time to the computer when the scheduled update date-and-time is decided, (g) performing the update of the software at the scheduled update date-and-time; and (h) acquiring timing information regarding the scheduled update date-and-time; and (i) updating the schedule information in accordance with the timing information regarding the scheduled update date-and-time. Step 2A -- Prong 1: The claim 8 recites the limitations of: (d) predicting a blank period in the future in which the scheduled event will not occur, based on (i) the schedule information that is acquired and (ii) a location of the scheduled event, (e) deciding a scheduled update date-and-time that is a date and time when an update of the software for the information processing device installed in the vehicle is to be performed with the software update data, within the blank period, Limitations (d) and (e) are limitations that, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretations, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with a pen and paper, i.e. “predicting” and “deciding” can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion with the aid of pen and paper. As such, these limitations fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Step 2A -- Prong 2: The claim 8 recites the additional limitations of “A software updating system”, “a computer”, “a processor” and “the computer is configured to execute”. The limitations of “A software updating system”, “a computer”, “a processor” and “the computer is configured to execute” are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Additionally, limitations (c) and (h) are merely insignificant extra solution activity of gathering data and limitations (a), (b), (f), (g) and (i) perform as well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Step 2B: As explained with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., simply adding extra-solution activity or well- understood, routine and conventional activity or generic computer components does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B since the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well- understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and See MPEP 2106.05(g) . Therefore, claim is ineligible. Dependent claims Additionally, claim 2 recites “external transmission of information regarding the scheduled update date-and-time when the scheduled update date-and-time is decided” which perform as well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 2 is ineligible. Additionally, claim 3 recites “performing, when the scheduled update date-and-time is decided, confirmation regarding whether the user consents to perform the update of the software at the scheduled update date-and-time” and “performing the update of the software at the scheduled update date-and-time, on a condition that consent to performing the update of the software at the scheduled update date-and-time is obtained” which perform as well- understood, routine and conventional activity. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 3 is ineligible. Additionally, claim 4 recites “wherein the update of the software includes activating an updated version of the software” which perform as well- understood, routine and conventional activity. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 4 is ineligible. Additionally, claim 5 recites “predicting a non-use period that is a period during which the user will not use the vehicle, and predicting a period within the non-use period in which the scheduled event will not occur for the user, as the blank period” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretations, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with a pen and paper, i.e. “predicting” can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion with the aid of pen and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract idea. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 5 is ineligible. Additionally, claim 7 recites the limitations similar to claim 6. The limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 7 is ineligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA 7. Claim (s) 1, 3 and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagata et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0413835 A1 – art of record – herein after Nagata) in view of Sangameswaran et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0259223 A1 – herein after Sang) . Regarding claim 1. Nagata discloses A software updating device comprising a central processing unit (CPU) (terminal device 200 comprising a processor 201 – See Fig. 2), the CPU being configured to execute: downloading software update data for software for an information processing device (downloading the update data at the download start time and an instruction to start updating the program using the update data at the update start time – See paragraph [0072]); obtaining schedule information (schedule information – See Fig. 4), the schedule information including information on a scheduled event that is scheduled for a user and information regarding a time slot of the scheduled event (is information indicating update of program of high importance included and specify distribution start date and time of update data – See Fig. 6, steps S001-S008 and Fig. 7, steps S009-S010); [[predicting a blank period in the future in which the scheduled event will not occur, based on (i) the schedule information that is acquired and (ii) a location of the scheduled event]]; deciding a scheduled update date-and-time that is a date and time when an update of the software for the information processing device is to be performed with software update data , [[within the blank period]] (the operation plan includes a mobile body identification (ID) for identifying the mobile body 2. Further, in the data example of FIG. 4, the operation plan is created for each day and includes the date, month, and year. Further, in the data example of FIG. 4, the operation schedule, the maintenance schedule, and the like of the mobile body 2 for each time zone are specified in the operation plan – See paragraph [0055-0056]); and performing the update of the software at the scheduled update date-and-time (update program using update data – See Fig. 8, step S 109; set download start time and update start time from central ECU (updating device) – See Fig. 8, steps S101-S106). Nagata discloses the control center 4 updates the operation schedule in a timely manner, distributes the updated operation schedule to the mobile body 2, and manages the operation of the mobile body 2 – See paragraph [0036]. Nagata does not disclose predicting a blank period in the future in which the scheduled event will not occur, based on (i) the schedule information that is acquired and (ii) a location of the scheduled event; deciding a scheduled update date-and-time that is a date and time when an update of the software for the information processing device is to be performed with software update data, within the blank period. Sang discloses predicting a blank period in the future in which the scheduled event will not occur, based on (i) the schedule information that is acquired ( a predicted duration required to transmit the update to the vehicle – See paragraph [0025]) and (ii) a location of the scheduled event (the vehicle location may be predicted, such as a predicted location at which the vehicle is likely to be parked or stopped for an extended period of time. The SOC threshold corresponding to the pending update may be modified based on the known or predicted location of the vehicle at the time the update is going to be performed. Key-on probability map 224 includes predictive information provided without use of location information (e.g., the data is location-less, as an overall average type of prediction). Also of note, the stop duration prediction may be performed by estimating the time until the next key-on is likely (e.g., until the accumulated probability exceeds a threshold value). For instance, in the example shown in FIG. 3, the best time to perform an update that could last between 2-3 hours is shown as being between 2 AM and 5 AM – See paragraphs [0032-0036]. One of the challenges of performing OTA updates is to predict a time to schedule the installation that minimizes inconvenience to the driver – See paragraph [0012]. An improved system for identifying a time for performing a software update may make use of historical vehicle usage information. The system may learn a usage pattern for the vehicle based upon time of day and day of week. Using this information, a probability of the customer using the vehicle at any given time may be determined. Additionally, an amount of time required to perform the OTA update may be identified from a manifest including information about the updates to be performed. This timing information gleaned from the manifest can be determined during vehicle development phases, such as by recording the amount of time required for updating the vehicle controller in a controlled environment. Based on vehicle usage pattern and the time to perform the update, the system may identify an optimum time to schedule vehicle downtime for performing the update. Moreover, driver preferences may be accounted for to allow the system to ask before performing each update or instead to perform silent updates – See paragraph [0013]. An example probability map 224. As shown, the probability map 224 indicates key-on probability for the vehicle 102 according to time and day of week. The example probability map 224 indicates values for each day of the week (Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, from top to bottom) and over different times of the day (24 hours, from left to right). Given the current day and time, the update scheduler application 222 may be configured to evaluate the likelihood of a key-on event by integrating the probability values up to a desired future time horizon to determine the estimated likelihood of a key-on event that may interrupt an OTA scheduled event. Furthermore, see figures 4-5 (and related text)) – See Fig. 3 and paragraph [0033]); deciding a scheduled update date-and-time that is a date and time when an update of the software for the information processing device is to be performed with software update data, within the blank period (a probability map including information indicative of probabilities of a vehicle being used during each of a plurality of blocks of a time period and instructions to cause a processor to schedule a time to install a software update utilizing the probability map and an expected downtime required for installation, and install the software update at the scheduled time responsive to confirming the vehicle is not in use – See paragraph [0005]. In the example shown in FIG. 3, the best time to perform an update that could last between 2-3 hours is shown as being between 2 AM and 5 AM – See paragraphs [0032-0036]. Schedule a time to install a software update utilizing the probability map and an expected downtime required for the installation – See Abstract. The update procedure is performed only to the day/time blocks that match the key-on event (i.e., the block included within the key-on period for the trip) – See paragraph [0048]). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Sang’s teaching into Nagata’s invention because incorporating Sang’s teaching would enhance Nagata to enable to to install the software update at the scheduled time responsive to confirming the vehicle is not in use as suggested by Sang (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Sakurai’s teaching into Nagata’s and Wakafuji‘s inventions because incorporating Sakurai’s teaching would enhance Nagata and Wakafuji to enable to transmission of the update information from the external device as suggested by Sakurai (paragraphs [0046-0050]). Regarding claim 3, the software updating device according to claim 1, Nagata discloses wherein the CPU is configured to execute (a central processing unit (CPU). The processor 201 performs various processes by executing various programs – See paragraph [0049]) performing, when the scheduled update date-and-time is decided (set download start time and update start time – See Fig. 8, steps S101-S109), confirmation regarding whether the user consents to perform the update of the software at the scheduled update date-and-time (the UIF device 23 may accept input for confirmation by an operation of the user via the reprogramming HMI. That is, the central ECU 22 may request the user to confirm start updating the program with the UIF device 23, and may start updating the program after the confirmation is obtained. The UIF device 23 itself also acquires the update data from the central ECU 22 and updates the program of the UIF device 23 – See paragraph [0041]), and performing the update of the software at the scheduled update date-and-time, on a condition that consent to performing the update of the software at the scheduled update date-and-time is obtained (the central ECU 22 may request the user to confirm start updating the program with the UIF device 23, and may start updating the program after the confirmation is obtained. The UIF device 23 itself also acquires the update data from the central ECU 22 and updates the program of the UIF device 23 – See paragraph [0041]). Regarding claim 5, the software updating device according to claim 1, wherein: Nagata discloses the information processing device is installed in a vehicle; and the CPU is configured to execute predicting a non-use period that is a period during which the user will not use the vehicle (the update of the program for the ECU mounted on the mobile body 2 is executed during a maintenance period when travel of the mobile body 2 is stopped (time during which the mobile body 2 is stopped) – See paragraph [0037]), Nagata does not disclose and predicting a period within the non-use period in which the scheduled event will not occur for the user, as the blank period. Sang discloses and predicting a period within the non-use period in which the scheduled event will not occur for the user, as the blank period (to schedule a time to install a software update utilizing the probability map and an expected downtime required for installation, and install the software update at the scheduled time responsive to confirming the vehicle is not in use – See paragraphs [0003-0005]). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Sang’s teaching into Nagata’s invention because incorporating Sang’s teaching would enhance Nagata to enable to to schedule a time to install a software update utilizing the probability map and an expected downtime required for installation, and install the software update at the scheduled time responsive to confirming the vehicle is not in use as suggested by Sang (paragraphs [0003-0005]). Regarding claim 6. A software updating method executed by an updating device, the software updating method comprising: Regarding claim 6, recites the same limitations as rejected claim 1 above. Regarding claim 7. A non-transitory storage medium storing instructions that are executable by an updating device and that cause the updating device to execute the software updating method according to claim 6. Regarding claim 7, recites the same limitations as rejected claim 1 and claim 6 above. Regarding claim 8. Nagata discloses A software updating system (control center – See Fig. 4), comprising: a computer (control center – See Fig. 4) that stores schedule information (The control center 4 creates, for example, an operation schedule such as an operation start time, an operation, an operation end time, and a maintenance time zone of the mobile body 2 that is regularly operated – See paragraph [0036]), the schedule information (Fig. 4 and Fig. 5) including information on a scheduled event that is scheduled for a user and information regarding a time slot of the scheduled event (is information indicating update of program of high importance included and specify distribution start date and time of update data – See Fig. 6, steps S001-S008 and Fig. 7, steps S009-S010); and a processor (the central ECU 22 updates, for example, a program executed by the ECU mounted on each device in the mobile body 2 and manages the progress of the update of the program – See paragraphs [0027-0028]) that is configured to communicate with the computer (the central ECU 22 and the DCM 21 is an example of the computer (in-vehicle computer) mounted on the vehicle – See paragraph [0027]), and that is installed in a vehicle (a central electrical control unit (central ECU) 22 – See Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0025-0028]), and configured to execute: downloading software update data for software for an information processing device (downloading the update data at the download start time and an instruction to start updating the program using the update data at the update start time – See paragraph [0072]); acquiring the schedule information from the computer (acquires, from the storage device 202, the operation plan data of the mobile body 2 on a predetermined date after the distribution start date and time (for example, the distribution start date or the next day of the distribution start date) – See paragraphs [0062-0067]), [[predicting a blank period in the future in which the scheduled event will not occur, based on (i) the schedule information that is acquired and (ii) a location of the scheduled event,]] deciding a scheduled update date-and-time that is a date and time when an update of the software for the information processing device installed in the vehicle is to be performed with the software updated data [[within the blank period]] (the operation plan includes a mobile body identification (ID) for identifying the mobile body 2. Further, in the data example of FIG. 4, the operation plan is created for each day and includes the date, month, and year. Further, in the data example of FIG. 4, the operation schedule, the maintenance schedule, and the like of the mobile body 2 for each time zone are specified in the operation plan – See paragraph [0055-0056]), transmitting information regarding the scheduled update date-and-time to the computer when the scheduled update date-and-time is decided (The vehicle center 3 notifies the control center 4 of the latest update contents and update schedule of the program for each ECU in the form of release note. When the control center 4 receives the release note, the control center 4 incorporates the update schedule of the program for each ECU into the operation schedule of each mobile body 2. The DCM 21 accesses the vehicle center 3 according to the received operation schedule, acquires update data for updating the program, and transfers the update data to the central ECU 22 – See paragraphs [0038-0040]), and performing the update of the software at the scheduled update date-and-time (update program using update data – See Fig. 8, step S 109); set download start time and update start time from central ECU (updating device) – See Fig. 8, steps S101-S106), and the computer is configured to execute (the control center manages and operation – See paragraph [0036]) acquiring timing information regarding the scheduled update date-and-time (the control center 4 creates, for example, an operation schedule such as an operation start time, an operation, an operation end time, and a maintenance time zone of the mobile body 2 that is regularly operated – See paragraph [0036]), and updating the schedule information in accordance with information regarding the scheduled update date-and-time (the latest update contents and update schedule of the program for each ECU in the form of release note. When the control center 4 receives the release note, the control center 4 incorporates the update schedule of the program for each ECU into the operation schedule of each mobile body 2 – See paragraph [0038-0040] and Fig. 5, last update date. The control center 4 records the last update date and time and the system version of the entire updated program group in the state information – See paragraph [0061]). Nagata discloses the control center 4 updates the operation schedule in a timely manner, distributes the updated operation schedule to the mobile body 2, and manages the operation of the mobile body 2 – See paragraph [0036]. Nagata does not disclose predicting a blank period in the future in which the scheduled event will not occur, based on (i) the schedule information that is acquired and (ii) a location of the scheduled event, deciding a scheduled update date-and-time that is a date and time when an update of the software for the information processing device installed in the vehicle is to be performed with the software updated data within the blank period. Sang discloses predicting a blank period in the future in which the scheduled event will not occur, based on (i) the schedule information that is acquired ( a predicted duration required to transmit the update to the vehicle – See paragraph [0025]) and (ii) a location of the scheduled event (the vehicle location may be predicted, such as a predicted location at which the vehicle is likely to be parked or stopped for an extended period of time. The SOC threshold corresponding to the pending update may be modified based on the known or predicted location of the vehicle at the time the update is going to be performed. Key-on probability map 224 includes predictive information provided without use of location information (e.g., the data is location-less, as an overall average type of prediction). Also of note, the stop duration prediction may be performed by estimating the time until the next key-on is likely (e.g., until the accumulated probability exceeds a threshold value). For instance, in the example shown in FIG. 3, the best time to perform an update that could last between 2-3 hours is shown as being between 2 AM and 5 AM – See paragraphs [0032-0036]. One of the challenges of performing OTA updates is to predict a time to schedule the installation that minimizes inconvenience to the driver – See paragraph [0012]. An improved system for identifying a time for performing a software update may make use of historical vehicle usage information. The system may learn a usage pattern for the vehicle based upon time of day and day of week. Using this information, a probability of the customer using the vehicle at any given time may be determined. Additionally, an amount of time required to perform the OTA update may be identified from a manifest including information about the updates to be performed. This timing information gleaned from the manifest can be determined during vehicle development phases, such as by recording the amount of time required for updating the vehicle controller in a controlled environment. Based on vehicle usage pattern and the time to perform the update, the system may identify an optimum time to schedule vehicle downtime for performing the update. Moreover, driver preferences may be accounted for to allow the system to ask before performing each update or instead to perform silent updates – See paragraph [0013]. An example probability map 224. As shown, the probability map 224 indicates key-on probability for the vehicle 102 according to time and day of week. The example probability map 224 indicates values for each day of the week (Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, from top to bottom) and over different times of the day (24 hours, from left to right). Given the current day and time, the update scheduler application 222 may be configured to evaluate the likelihood of a key-on event by integrating the probability values up to a desired future time horizon to determine the estimated likelihood of a key-on event that may interrupt an OTA scheduled event. Furthermore, see figures 4-5 (and related text)) – See Fig. 3 and paragraph [0033]); deciding a scheduled update date-and-time that is a date and time when an update of the software for the information processing device is to be performed with software update data, within the blank period (a probability map including information indicative of probabilities of a vehicle being used during each of a plurality of blocks of a time period and instructions to cause a processor to schedule a time to install a software update utilizing the probability map and an expected downtime required for installation, and install the software update at the scheduled time responsive to confirming the vehicle is not in use – See paragraph [0005]. In the example shown in FIG. 3, the best time to perform an update that could last between 2-3 hours is shown as being between 2 AM and 5 AM – See paragraphs [0032-0036]. Schedule a time to install a software update utilizing the probability map and an expected downtime required for the installation – See Abstract. The update procedure is performed only to the day/time blocks that match the key-on event (i.e., the block included within the key-on period for the trip) – See paragraph [0048]). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Sang’s teaching into Nagata’s invention because incorporating Sang’s teaching would enhance Nagata to enable to to install the software update at the scheduled time responsive to confirming the vehicle is not in use as suggested by Sang (Abstract) . 07-22-aia AIA 8. Claim (s) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagata and Sang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sakurai et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0410754 A1 – art of record --herein after Sakurai) . Regarding claim 2, the software updating device according to claim 1, Sakurai discloses wherein the CPU is configured to execute external transmission of information regarding the scheduled update date-and-time when the scheduled update date-and-time is decided (the transmission of the update campaign information from the center device 2 to the vehicle corresponds to “notification that the data to be stored in the electronic control device should be updated”. The OTA control unit 6 compares the time or the time period when the battery 8 is charged according to the setting of the charge schedule with the update required time, and determines whether or not it is possible to update the program from now on. If update execution is possible, the possibility is notified to the user through the HMI device 5, and if the user acknowledges the update execution, the update is started – See paragraphs [0046-0050]). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Sakurai’s teaching into Nagata’s and Sang‘s inventions because incorporating Sakurai’s teaching would enhance Nagata and Sang to enable to transmission of the update information from the external device as suggested by Sakurai (paragraphs [0046-0050]). Regarding claim 4, the software updating device according to claim 1, Sakurai discloses wherein the update of the software includes activating an updated version of the software (the OTA control unit 6 grasps the time (2) required for the update campaign execution included in the above information. The time (2) is the total time for downloading the update program, installing the update program in the ECU, and activating the installed update program to validate the program – See paragraph [0049]). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Sakurai’s teaching into Nagata’s and Sang‘s inventions because incorporating Sakurai’s teaching would enhance Nagata and Sang to enable to activate the installed update program to validate the program as suggested by Sakurai (paragraphs [0046-0050]) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA 9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Smith et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0054130 A1) discloses scheduling retrieval of candidate information from a first entity system at the predicted time. The method comprises determining a dataset associated with historical information issued by a first entity, wherein the dataset comprises a plurality of entries, each entry comprising an information date; determining a period of successful retrieval of information issued by the first entity, or a period of issuance of information by the first entity, based on the information dates of the plurality of entries in the dataset; determining a predicted time of issuance of future information by the first entity based on the determined period; and scheduling retrieval of candidate information from a first entity system at the predicted time – See Abstract and specification for more details. Miskovic (US Patent No. 12,022,032 B1) discloses receives, from applications running on the endpoint devices, location updates identifying geographic locations of the endpoint devices. The server may modify a location database to include entries specifying the geographic locations of the endpoint devices. Data/telephone calls are routed based upon the entries specifying geographic locations of the plurality of endpoint devices. Based upon input parameters, a set of periodic update timings are generated and sent to the endpoint devices – See Abstract and specification for more details. Nara et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0027445 A1) discloses obtaining, from the vehicle, start position information indicating a start position of the vehicle, start date-and-time information indicating a start date and time of the vehicle, parking position information indicating a parking position of the vehicle, and parking date-and-time information indicating a parking date and time of the vehicle, an estimating unit estimating a date and time at which the vehicle is started based on the start position, the start date and time, the parking position and the parking date and time, and an instructing unit instructing the second server apparatus to activate a personal authentication program in accordance with an estimation result by the estimating unit – See Abstract and specification for more details. Wu et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0092396 A1) discloses determines an update schedule for the plurality of vehicles by assigning the clusters to timeslots of the schedule. The service pushes a firmware or software update to the vehicles according to the update schedule – See Abstract and specification for more details. 10. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONGBAO NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7180. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-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, Hyung S. Sough can be reached at 571-272-6799. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of 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. /MONGBAO NGUYEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/428,851 Page 2 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/428,851 Page 3 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/428,851 Page 4 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/428,851 Page 5 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/428,851 Page 6 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/428,851 Page 7 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/428,851 Page 8 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/428,851 Page 9 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/428,851 Page 10 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/428,851 Page 11 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/428,851 Page 12 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/428,851 Page 13 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/428,851 Page 14 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/428,851 Page 15 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/428,851 Page 16 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/428,851 Page 17 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/428,851 Page 18 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/428,851 Page 19 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/428,851 Page 20 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/428,851 Page 21 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/428,851 Page 22 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/428,851 Page 23 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/428,851 Page 24 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/428,851 Page 25 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/428,851 Page 26 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/428,851 Page 27 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/428,851 Page 28 Art Unit: 2192 Application/Control Number: 18/428,851 Page 29 Art Unit: 2192
Prosecution Insights