DETAILED ACTION
This Action is a response to the reply filed 29 December 2025. Claims 1-5 are amended; no claims are canceled or newly added. Claims 1-5 remain pending for examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harata et al., U.S. 2019/0111907 A1 (“Harata”) in view of Someya et al., U.S. 2022/0405087 A1 (“Someya”).
Regarding claim 1, Harata teaches: An information processing device that is mounted on a vehicle, the information processing device comprising: a processing circuit configured (Harata, e.g., ¶48, “gateway device 10 includes a microcomputer 36 including a CPU 32 … and performs, by the CPU, various processing on the basis of a program stored in a memory …”) to
… determine whether a prohibition period is necessary in response to determining the activation process is necessary at the next startup of the vehicle, the prohibition period being a period during which the vehicle is prohibited from moving or operating a specific function of the vehicle while the activation process is performed (Harata, e.g., ¶139, “a rewriting completion expected time may be calculated depending on the data amount of the update file to determine the progress using a time from start of rewriting with respect to the calculated rewriting completion expected time …” See also, e.g., ¶140, “gateway device 10 determines traveling propriety in step U4 after the progress is determined in this manner … refers to the traveling propriety determination table …” and ¶141, “When the traveling propriety determined in step U4 indicates that traveling is prohibited, the gateway device calculates a time until traveling is permitted …”), wherein
the processing unit notifies the user of the vehicle of a length of the prohibition period when the processing circuit determines that the prohibition period is necessary while the activation process is performed at the next startup of the vehicle (Harata, e.g., ¶142, “when traveling is prohibited, like a screen display image illustrated in FIG. 17B, the gateway device 10 makes the display 5a display the remaining time information X3b indicating a time until traveling is permitted with the above-mentioned progress X1 and traveling propriety information X2 …” See also, e.g., ¶149, “after the user drives the vehicle and stops the engine as usual, the gateway device 10 plays a main role of starting reprogramming processing …” See also, e.g., ¶76, “when the vehicle … whose in-vehicle device (e.g., engine start/stop …) can be remotely operated from outside the vehicle using a wireless key or a smart key by the user as well as progress of program update processing is made to be displayed on the display 5a of the mobile terminal 5 owned by the user.” Examiner’s note: in Harata, the activation process (as part of the overall update process) is performed during and subsequent to travel, and may occur at a time at which the user attempts to start the car remotely. Someya, cited below, more fully discloses that a determination of whether to perform necessary activation occurs at a next instance of a powering on of the vehicle).
Harata does not more particularly teach determining whether update software transmission to the target ECU is completed, and determining whether activating the software update at a next startup is necessary. However, Someya does teach: determine whether transmission of update software to a target electronic control unit (ECU) device included in the vehicle is completed (Someya, e.g., ¶90, “Step 629 to step 636 of the write completion notification are looped until the writing of the update program distributed from the program distribution center 201 is completed …”);
determine whether performing an activation process to activate the update software at a next startup of the vehicle is necessary (Someya, e.g., ¶90, “When all the writing of the update program is completed, the process proceeds … central gateway 203 notifies the program unit B (9) of a switching request of the activation program …” See also, e.g., ¶95, “When the determination unit 13 verifies that the two pieces of control target information match, the determination unit activates the update program of the program unit A … starts the control of the control target device …” See also, e.g., ¶135, “Upon receiving the power supply (power ON) from the power supply device 16, the vehicle control device activates the determination unit 13 … acquires the activation program from the hardware setting unit 5 … program unit A …” and ¶139, “after the activation of the program unit A (8), the control of the control target device 50 is started …” Examiner’s note: activation of the software at the next startup of the vehicle (power ON) is necessary in that activation verification must be performed in order to determine that the updated program (program unit A) should be activated to control the control target device after an update) for the purpose of verifying a successful update and configuration of an ECU target software program and activating such at next power on (Someya, e.g., ¶¶76-97).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method for vehicle ECU reprogramming and user notification and control thereof as taught by Harata to provide for determining whether update software transmission to the target ECU is completed, and determining whether activating the software update at a next startup is necessary because the disclosure of Someya shows that it was known to those of ordinary skill in the pertinent art to improve a system and method for vehicle ECU program update and management to provide for determining whether update software transmission to the target ECU is completed, and determining whether activating the software update at a next startup is necessary for the purpose of verifying a successful update and configuration of an ECU target software program and activating such at next power on (Someya, Id.).
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Harata further teaches: wherein the processing circuit is further configured to allow the user to select whether to perform the activation process at the next startup of the vehicle, or postpone performing the activation process when the processing circuit determines that the prohibition period is necessary while the activation process is performed at the next startup of the vehicle (Harata, e.g., ¶141, “When the traveling propriety information determined in step U4 indicates that traveling is prohibited, the gateway device 10 calculates a time until traveling is permitted … and making the display 5a display a remaining time …” See also, e.g., ¶143, “make the display screen of the display 5a display the cancel button B3 for interruption forced by the user … This makes the gateway 10 interrupt the transmission processing of the update …” See also, e.g., ¶145, “press information by the cancel button B3 … gateway device 10 stops rewriting …” and ¶149, “after the user drives the vehicle and stops the engine as usual, the gateway device plays a main role of starting reprogramming processing …” Examiner’s note: the cancel button permits the user to postpone activation processing until a next time the vehicle is started).
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Harata further teaches: wherein the processing circuit is further configured to notify the user of the vehicle of the length of the prohibition period when driving of the vehicle is stopped or when the user gets out of the vehicle (Harata, e.g., ¶142, “when traveling is prohibited, like a screen display image illustrated in FIG. 17B, the gateway device 10 makes the display 5a display the remaining time information X3b indicating a time until traveling is permitted with the above-mentioned progress X1 and traveling propriety information X2 …” See also, e.g., ¶149, “after the user drives the vehicle and stops the engine as usual, the gateway device 10 plays a main role of starting reprogramming processing …”).
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Harata further teaches: wherein the processing circuit is further configured to notify the user of the length of the prohibition period by sending information on the length of the prohibition period to a mobile terminal carried by the user (Harata, e.g., ¶142, “when traveling is prohibited, like a screen display image illustrated in FIG. 17B, the gateway device 10 makes the display 5a display the remaining time information X3b indicating a time until traveling is permitted with the above-mentioned progress X1 and traveling propriety information X2 …”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harata in view of Someya, and in further view of Ariga et al., U.S. 2021/0141629 A1 (“Ariga”) and Endo et al., U.S. 2017/0262277 A1 (“Endo”).
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Harata further teaches: wherein the processing circuit is configured to when the processing circuit determines that the prohibition period is necessary while the activation process is performed at the next startup of the vehicle (Harata, e.g., ¶139, “a rewriting completion expected time may be calculated depending on the data amount of the update file to determine the progress using a time from start of rewriting with respect to the calculated rewriting completion expected time …” See also, e.g., ¶140, “gateway device 10 determines traveling propriety in step U4 after the progress is determined in this manner … refers to the traveling propriety determination table …” and ¶141, “When the traveling propriety determined in step U4 indicates that traveling is prohibited, the gateway device calculates a time until traveling is permitted …”).
Harata in view of Someya does not more particularly teach proposing to the user that the vehicle be automatically updated to perform the activation process when the user does not request to start, and instruct to automatically start the activation when the user permits automatic update of the vehicle, and perform activation when the update is automatically started. However, Ariga does teach: propose automatically starting the [update] to the in order to perform the activation process, on a condition that the user does not request to start the [update] (Ariga, e.g., ¶27, “update information on a permission request and/or a notification is displayed about a process of activating a download update program … an update program that requires a notification to the vehicle user about a change to be made on the vehicle control …” See also, e.g., ¶28, “The automatic update setting is an item that is provided to the vehicle 100 in advance and may arbitrarily be set by the vehicle user … When the automatic update is set to ‘ON’, the update can be executed without indications associated with update events for the vehicle …” Examiner’s note: the user may grant permission to automatically start an activation either upon successful download of an update or in advance such that updates activate automatically),
instruct the vehicle to [update] automatically when the user permits automatic [updating] of the vehicle, and instruct the target ECU to perform the activation process when the [update] is automatically started (Ariga, e.g., FIG. 3, S302, does vehicle user set automatic update; and S306, referring to update scenario 4 or 8 of FIG. 2, wherein the update is started and completed automatically without user intervention, and the user is only notified regarding update start and update / activation completion) for the purpose of enabling a user to authorize the automatic installation and activation of vehicle ECU program updates at a future point in time without direct intervention for each update (Ariga, e.g., ¶¶22-32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method for vehicle ECU reprogramming and user notification and control thereof as taught by Harata in view of Someya to provide for proposing to the user that the vehicle be automatically updated to perform the activation process when the user does not request to start, and instruct to automatically start the activation when the user permits automatic update of the vehicle, and perform activation when the update is automatically started because the disclosure of Ariga shows that it was known to those of ordinary skill in the pertinent art to improve a system and method for vehicle ECU program update and management to provide for proposing to the user that the vehicle be automatically updated to perform the activation process when the user does not request to start, and instruct to automatically start the activation when the user permits automatic update of the vehicle, and perform activation when the update is automatically started for the purpose of enabling a user to authorize the automatic installation and activation of vehicle ECU program updates at a future point in time without direct intervention for each update (Ariga, Id.).
Harata in view of Someya and Ariga does not more particularly teach that the vehicle is started in order to perform the update and activation. However, Endo does teach: [wherein in order to perform the update / activation, the vehicle is] started (Endo, e.g., ¶134, “when it is determined that the IG-ON signal is received, the process proceeds to step S903 …” See also, e.g., ¶135, disclosing an automated update procedure) for the purpose of performing ECU software version management when specified conditions are identified (Endo, e.g., ¶¶132-150).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method for vehicle ECU reprogramming and user notification and control thereof as taught by Harata in view of Someya and Ariga to provide that the vehicle is started in order to perform the update and activation because the disclosure of Endo shows that it was known to those of ordinary skill in the pertinent art to improve a system and method for vehicle ECU program update and management to provide that the vehicle is started in order to perform the update and activation for the purpose of performing ECU software version management when specified conditions are identified (Endo, Id.).
Response to Arguments
In the Remarks, Applicant Argues: Amendments to the claims provide distinctions over at least Harata, and the claims are accordingly in condition for allowance (Resp. at 5-9).
Examiner’s Response: In view of the amendments, Examiner newly cites to Someya, and maintains the rejections under the new grounds set forth in full above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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.
Examiner has identified particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of Applicant. Although the citations made are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the enumerated claims, the teaching of the cited art as a whole is not limited to the cited passages. Other passages and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art and/or disclosed by Examiner.
Examiner respectfully requests that, in response to this Office Action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist Examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this Office Action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37 C.F.R. 1.111(c).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone and video conferencing using a USPTO-supplied web-based collaboration tool. Applicant is encouraged to submit an Automated Interview Request (AIR) which may be done via https://www.uspto.gov/patent/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form, or may contact Examiner directly via the methods below.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from Examiner should be directed to Andrew M. Lyons, whose telephone number is (571) 270-3529, and whose fax number is (571) 270-4529. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM ET. If attempts to reach Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, Examiner’s supervisor, Wei Mui, can be reached at (571) 272-3708. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center system. For more information about the Patent Center system, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (in USA or Canada) or (571) 272-1000.
/Andrew M. Lyons/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191