DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed on April 13, 2026.
Claims 1-4 are pending.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claim 4 has been added.
The objection to the title of the invention is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the title of the invention.
The 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections of Claims 1-3 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2023-043963, filed on March 20, 2023.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200233654 (hereinafter “MATSUMOTO”) in view of US 20190137287 (hereinafter “Pazhayampallil”), and further in view of US 20230005305 (hereinafter “SAKURAI”).
As per Claim 1, MATSUMOTO discloses:
A vehicle configured to obtain update data via a wireless local area network (LAN) (Figure 1: 50) and updates software of an in-vehicle device using the update data, the vehicle comprising one or more processors (Figure 2: 100) configured to:
determine whether an update of the software is in an executable state in a situation where the update of the software is requested (Paragraph [0110], “When the software update enters an executable state such as when the permission for executing the software update is received from the user (such as when “Yes” is selected in the screen shown in FIG. 11), the software update control unit 410 requests the vehicle software update control unit 470 of the vehicle 40 to start the software update (S920) [determine whether an update of the software is in an executable state in a situation where the update of the software is requested] (emphasis added).”.
the executable state being present […] (Paragraph [0110], “When the software update enters an executable state such as when the permission for executing the software update is received from the user (such as when “Yes” is selected in the screen shown in FIG. 11), the software update control unit 410 requests the vehicle software update control unit 470 of the vehicle 40 to start the software update (S920) [the executable state being present […]] (emphasis added).”;
on a condition that the one or more processors determine that the update of the software is in the executable state (Paragraph [0048], “The CPU 100 is a device which controls the respective parts of the in-vehicle terminal 10, and executes software such as the car navigation or the software update loaded in the RAM 102 (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0110], “When the software update enters an executable state such as when the permission for executing the software update is received from the user (such as when “Yes” is selected in the screen shown in FIG. 11), the software update control unit 410 requests the vehicle software update control unit 470 of the vehicle 40 to start the software update (S920) [on a condition that the one or more processors determine that the update of the software is in the executable state] (emphasis added).”.
obtain the update data via the wireless LAN and install the update of the software of the in-vehicle device, if the executable state is present (Paragraph [0086], “The vehicle software installation unit 490 executes the installation of the vehicle update software acquired from the server 30 (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0110], “When the software update enters an executable state such as when the permission for executing the software update is received from the user (such as when “Yes” is selected in the screen shown in FIG. 11), the software update control unit 410 requests the vehicle software update control unit 470 of the vehicle 40 to start the software update (S920) [install the update of the software of the in-vehicle device, if the executable state is present] (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [00151], “when there is a software update, subsequently generates update information of the vehicle software (vehicle software group to be updated and related information (software name and version, restrictions upon performing software update, message to user, etc.)) (information (3)) (S2514), and sends the generated information (3) (update information of vehicle software) to the in-vehicle terminal 10 via the wireless LAN (S2516) [obtain the update data via the wireless LAN] (emphasis added).”.
MATSUMOTO does not explicitly disclose:
the vehicle is located in a position where the vehicle is connectable to the wireless LAN; and
the executable state being present if (i) the vehicle is in a first predetermined state and (ii) the in-vehicle device is in a second predetermined state;
connect the vehicle to the wireless LAN on a condition that the one or more processors determine that the update of the software is in the executable state.
However, Pazhayampallil discloses:
the vehicle is located in a position where the vehicle is connectable to the wireless LAN (Paragraph [0023], “and selectively push a localization map update that reflects this discrepancy to this second set of autonomous vehicles via the Internet and local area networks, such as when these vehicles park at their “home” locations and are connected to home Wi-Fi networks at later times [the vehicle is located in a position where the vehicle is connectable to the wireless LAN] (emphasis added).”; and
connect the vehicle to the wireless LAN […] (Paragraph [0023], “and selectively push a localization map update that reflects this discrepancy to this second set of autonomous vehicles via the Internet and local area networks, such as when these vehicles park at their “home” locations and are connected to home Wi-Fi networks at later times [connect the vehicle to the wireless LAN […]] (emphasis added).”.
MATSUMOTO is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding an information distribution system and an in-vehicle device for updating software, such as car navigation, used in vehicles. Pazhayampallil is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a method for detecting and managing changes along road surfaces in the field of navigation of autonomous vehicles. Thus, MATSUMOTO and Pazhayampallil are both analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Pazhayampallil into the teaching of MATSUMOTO to include “the vehicle is located in a position where the vehicle is connectable to the wireless LAN; and connect the vehicle to the wireless LAN on a condition that the one or more processors determine that the update of the software is in the executable state.” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to enable managing updates through local area network access points. (Pazhayampallil, paragraph [0011]).
MATSUMOTO discloses “the executable state being present”, but the combination of MATSUMOTO and Pazhayampallil does not explicitly disclose:
the executable state being present if (i) the vehicle is in a first predetermined state and (ii) the in-vehicle device is in a second predetermined state;
However, SAKURAI discloses:
[…] if (i) the vehicle is in a first predetermined state and (ii) the in-vehicle device is in a second predetermined state (Paragraph [0003], “In light of such circumstances, for example, there has been known a technique in which an ECU update program is distributed from a server to an in-vehicle device through Over The Air (OTA), and the update program is rewritten on the vehicle side (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0405], “[…] and an application program cannot be rewritten while the vehicle is traveling, and the application program can be rewritten while the IG power is turned off and the vehicle is parked (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0460], “When the user switches off the IG switch in an ON state such that the vehicle power switches from the IG power to the +B power during rewriting of the application program in the double-bank memory ECU, the DCM 12 stops the data transfer/center communication operation, the CGW 13 stops the reprogramming master operation, and the double-bank memory ECU stops the installation phase and stops rewriting of the application program (t5) [[…] if (i) the vehicle is in a first predetermined state and (ii) the in-vehicle device is in a second predetermined state] (emphasis added).”;
SAKURAI is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a center device managing data to be written in a plurality of electronic control unites mounted on vehicles. Thus, SAKURAI is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of SAKURAI into the combined teachings of MATSUMOTO and Pazhayampallil to include “[…] if (i) the vehicle is in a first predetermined state and (ii) the in-vehicle device is in a second predetermined state;” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to increase reliability by adding verifying conditions before updating (SAKURAI, paragraph [0643]).
As per Claim 4, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of MATSUMOTO and Pazhayampallil does not explicitly discloses:
the first predetermined state includes a start switch of the vehicle being turned off, the vehicle being parked, or the vehicle being stopped, and
the second predetermined state indicates that the in-vehicle device to be updated is able to stop its operation.
However, SAKURAI discloses:
the first predetermined state includes a start switch of the vehicle being turned off, the vehicle being parked, or the vehicle being stopped (Paragraph [0405], “[…] and an application program cannot be rewritten while the vehicle is traveling, and the application program can be rewritten while the IG power is turned off and the vehicle is parked (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0460], “When the user switches off the IG switch in an ON state such that the vehicle power switches from the IG power to the +B power during rewriting of the application program in the double-bank memory ECU, the DCM 12 stops the data transfer/center communication operation, the CGW 13 stops the reprogramming master operation, and the double-bank memory ECU stops the installation phase and stops rewriting of the application program (t5) [the first predetermined state includes a start switch of the vehicle being turned off, the vehicle being parked, or the vehicle being stopped] (emphasis added).”, and
the second predetermined state indicates that the in-vehicle device to be updated is able to stop its operation (Paragraph [0003], “In light of such circumstances, for example, there has been known a technique in which an ECU update program is distributed from a server to an in-vehicle device through Over The Air (OTA), and the update program is rewritten on the vehicle side (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0460], “When the user switches off the IG switch in an ON state such that the vehicle power switches from the IG power to the +B power during rewriting of the application program in the double-bank memory ECU, the DCM 12 stops the data transfer/center communication operation, the CGW 13 stops the reprogramming master operation, and the double-bank memory ECU stops the installation phase and stops rewriting of the application program (t5) [the second predetermined state indicates that the in-vehicle device to be updated is able to stop its operation] (emphasis added).”.
SAKURAI is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a center device managing data to be written in a plurality of electronic control unites mounted on vehicles. Thus, SAKURAI is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of SAKURAI into the combined teachings of MATSUMOTO and Pazhayampallil to include “the first predetermined state includes a start switch of the vehicle being turned off, the vehicle being parked, or the vehicle being stopped, and the second predetermined state indicates that the in-vehicle device to be updated is able to stop its operation.” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to increase reliability by adding verifying conditions before updating (SAKURAI, paragraph [0643]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MATSUMOTO in view of Pazhayampallil and SAKURAI as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20220107798 (hereinafter “TAKATSUNA”).
As per Claim 2, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated;
MATSUMOTO discloses:
where in the one or more processors are configured to [...] (Paragraph [0048], “The CPU 100 is a device which controls the respective parts of the in-vehicle terminal 10, and executes software such as the car navigation or the software update loaded in the RAM 102 [where in the one or more processors are configured to [...]] (emphasis added).”;
[...] regardless of whether the one or more processors determine that the update of the software is in the executable state [...] (Paragraph [0048], “The CPU 100 is a device which controls the respective parts of the in-vehicle terminal 10, and executes software such as the car navigation or the software update loaded in the RAM 102 (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0110], “When the software update enters an executable state such as when the permission for executing the software update is received from the user (such as when “Yes” is selected in the screen shown in FIG. 11), the software update control unit 410 requests the vehicle software update control unit 470 of the vehicle 40 to start the software update (S920) [[...] regardless of whether the one or more processors determine that the update of the software is in the executable state [...]] (emphasis added).”.
Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to connect the vehicle to the wireless LAN in a situation where the vehicle is located in a position where the vehicle is connectable to the wireless LAN [...].
However, Pazhayampallil discloses:
[...] connect the vehicle to the wireless LAN in a situation where the vehicle is located in a position where the vehicle is connectable to the wireless LAN [...] (Paragraph [0023], “and selectively push a localization map update that reflects this discrepancy to this second set of autonomous vehicles via the Internet and local area networks, such as when these vehicles park at their “home” locations and are connected to home Wi-Fi networks at later times [[...] connect the vehicle to the wireless LAN in a situation where the vehicle is located in a position where the vehicle is connectable to the wireless LAN [...]] (emphasis added).”.
Pazhayampallil is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a method for detecting and managing changes along road surfaces in the field of navigation of autonomous vehicles. Thus, Pazhayampallil is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Pazhayampallil into the teaching of MATSUMOTO to include “wherein the one or more processors are configured to connect the vehicle to the wireless LAN in a situation where the vehicle is located in a position where the vehicle is connectable to the wireless LAN [...]” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to enable managing updates through local area network access points. (Pazhayampallil, paragraph [0011]).
The combination of MATSUMOTO and Pazhayampallil and SAKURAI does not explicitly disclose:
[…] in a case where the update of the software is not requested.
However, TAKATSUNA discloses:
[…] in a case where the update of the software is not requested (Paragraph [0075], “In step S21, the communication unit 27 determines whether an update confirmation request is received from the software update device 11. The process proceeds to step S22 when the result of the determination in step S21 is YES, and proceeds to step S23 otherwise [[…] in a case where the update of the software is not requested] (emphasis added).”.
TAKATSUNA is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a system is configured to distribute update data for software for an electronic control unit mounted on a vehicle. Thus, TAKATSUNA is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of TAKATSUNA into the teaching of the combined teachings of MATSUMOTO, Pazhayampallil and SAKURAI to include “[…] in a case where the update of the software is not requested.” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to include receiving software update requests from the system. (TAKATSUNA, paragraph [0009]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MATSUMOTO in view of Pazhayampallil and SAKURAI as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20150347121 (hereinafter “HARUMOTO”).
As per Claim 3, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated;
MATSUMOTO discloses:
the one or more processors are configured to [...] (Paragraph [0048], “The CPU 100 is a device which controls the respective parts of the in-vehicle terminal 10, and executes software such as the car navigation or the software update loaded in the RAM 102 [where in the one or more processors are configured to [...]] (emphasis added).”;
[...] regardless of whether the one or more processors determine that the update of the software is in the executable state [...] (Paragraph [0048], “The CPU 100 is a device which controls the respective parts of the in-vehicle terminal 10, and executes software such as the car navigation or the software update loaded in the RAM 102 (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0110], “When the software update enters an executable state such as when the permission for executing the software update is received from the user (such as when “Yes” is selected in the screen shown in FIG. 11), the software update control unit 410 requests the vehicle software update control unit 470 of the vehicle 40 to start the software update (S920) [[...] regardless of whether the one or more processors determine that the update of the software is in the executable state [...]] (emphasis added).”.
Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose:
the one or more processors are configured to connect the vehicle to the wireless LAN in a situation where the vehicle is located in a position where the vehicle is connectable to the wireless LAN [...].
However, Pazhayampallil discloses:
[...] connect the vehicle to the wireless LAN in a situation where the vehicle is located in a position where the vehicle is connectable to the wireless LAN [...] (Paragraph [0023], “and selectively push a localization map update that reflects this discrepancy to this second set of autonomous vehicles via the Internet and local area networks, such as when these vehicles park at their “home” locations and are connected to home Wi-Fi networks at later times [[...] connect the vehicle to the wireless LAN in a situation where the vehicle is located in a position where the vehicle is connectable to the wireless LAN [...]] (emphasis added).”.
Pazhayampallil is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a method for detecting and managing changes along road surfaces in the field of navigation of autonomous vehicles. Thus, Pazhayampallil is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Pazhayampallil into the teaching of MATSUMOTO to include “the one or more processors are configured to connect the vehicle to the wireless LAN in a situation where the vehicle is located in a position where the vehicle is connectable to the wireless LAN [...]” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to enable managing updates through local area network access points. (Pazhayampallil, paragraph [0011]).
The combination of MATSUMOTO, Pazhayampallil and SAKURAI does not explicitly disclose:
wherein in a case where a category of the software for which an update is requested is a predetermined category,
However, HARUMOTO discloses:
wherein in a case where a category of the software for which an update is requested is a predetermined category (Paragraph [0096], “Upon receiving the notification indicating the generation of a difference, the update data acquisition unit 76 checks the version information 82 stored in the communication apparatus memory unit 62 and checks the type of the software, thereby listing which software needs to be updated (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0127], “When the owner presses the “update” button on the vehicle-mounted apparatus input unit 136, the vehicle-mounted apparatus control unit 130 requests the communication apparatus 20 to output the update data [wherein in a case where a category of the software for which an update is requested is a predetermined category] (emphasis added).”,
HARUMOTO is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a communication system for a vehicle that communicate predetermined data. Thus, HARUMOTO is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of HARUMOTO into the teaching of the combined teachings of MATSUMOTO, Pazhayampallil and SAKURAI to include “wherein in a case where a category of the software for which an update is requested is a predetermined category,” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to perform the confirmation of the type of the software to be updated the server and the in-vehicle device. (HARUMOTO, paragraph [0111]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim 1 has been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Yanbin Li whose telephone number is 571-272-0906. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Wei Mui, can be reached at 571-272-3708. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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 more 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.
/Y.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2191
/WEI Y MUI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2191
Prosecution Insights