DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial Office action based on the application submitted on February 05, 2024.
Claims 1-3 are pending.
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.
Specification
6. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Software Update for In-Vehicle Device on a local area network.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim Interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the limitations of Claim 1 are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to a vehicle, which a machine and/or manufacture, and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 1 recites the limitations:
a. determine whether an update of the software is in an executable state in a situation where the update of the software is requested and the vehicle is located in a position where the vehicle is connectable to the wireless LAN; and
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, other than reciting:
the vehicle comprising one or more processors configured to:
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, the limitations in (a) can be reasonably interpreted as mental processes that can be practically performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the limitation (a) for the determine step, a human can read updates to the software executable state information stored in a database using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion to identify an executable state. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements:
obtain update data via a wireless local area network (LAN) and updates software of an in-vehicle device using the update data,
the vehicle comprising one or more processors configured to:
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 additional element (2) and (3) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The one or more processors and the wireless LAN are used as tools to perform the obtain, determine and connect steps of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element (1) is mere data gathering/transmitting recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering/transmitting and, as such, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional elements amount to necessary data gathering/transmitting. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites the additional elements:
obtain update data via a wireless local area network (LAN) and updates software of an in-vehicle device using the update data,
the vehicle comprising one or more processors configured to:
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 additional elements (2) and (3) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The additional element (1) simply appends a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) expressly states that the courts have recognized the computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data as well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as an insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the computing art to gathering update data information using a wireless local area network. Therefore, the limitation remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration and does not amount to significantly more.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components, insignificant extra-solution activities, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more for at least the reasons stated above.
Claim 2 recites the limitation:
(a) 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,
(b) regardless of whether the one or more processors determine that the update of the software is in the executable state,
(c) in a case where the update of the software is not requested.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 3 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein in a case where a category of the software for which an update is requested is a predetermined category,
(b) 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,
(c) regardless of whether the one or more processors determine that the update of the software is in the executable state.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
These claims are dependent on Claim 1, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the judicial exception deficiencies of Claim 1.
Claims 2 and 3 recite further mental steps which can be practically performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper and thus, fail to make the claim any less abstract (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claim 2 and 3 recite further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because they are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Claim 3 recites further additional element that fail to meaningfully limit the claim because it is mere data gathering/transmitting/outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and fails to integrated into practical application and it does not amount to significant more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, Claims 2 and 3 do not add any steps or additional elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert Claim 1 into patent-eligible subject matter.
Claims 1-3 are therefore not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significant more.
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”).
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).”.
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).”. and
MATSUMOTO does not explicitly disclose:
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.
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]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MATSUMOTO in view of Pazhayampallil 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 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 and Pazhayampallil 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 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 and Pazhayampallil 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 and Pazhayampallil 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]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure. They are as follows:
US 2023/0033832 (hereinafter “ISHIKAWA”) discloses a system configured to control software update of an electronic control unit mounted on a vehicle.
US 2022/0382532 (hereinafter “SAKAI”) discloses an OTA master mounted on the vehicle and configured to control software update for a target ECU.
US 2009/0125897 (hereinafter “Matlin”) discloses a method for updating device software in an information handling system.
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