DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed on March 24, 2026.
Claims 1-6 and 8-9 are pending.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 8 have been amended.
Claim 7 has been cancelled.
Claim 9 has been added.
The objections to the drawings are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the drawings.
The objections to the specification are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the specification.
The 35 USC § 112(b) rejections to Claims 1-8 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims or cancellation of the claim.
The 35 USC § 101 rejections to Claims 1-8 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims or cancellation of the claim.
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 .
Response to Amendment
Claim Interpretation Under 35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“information processing apparatus configured to […]” recited in Claims 2-5 and 8-9.
“an input device configured to […]” recited in Claim 2.
“the electronic control unit to be updated is configured to […]” recited in Claim 4.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The corresponding structure for “information processing apparatus” is described in paragraph [0011] of the specification. The corresponding structure for “input device” is described in paragraphs [0016 & 0092] of the specification. The corresponding structure for “the electronic control unit” is described in paragraphs [0011 & 0012] of the specification.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2021-105923 (Provided by Applicant’s IDS, hereinafter “Tomoaki”) in view of US 2018/0316207 (hereinafter “Irish”) and US 2020/0133812 (hereinafter “Ogawa”).
As per Claim 2, Tomoaki discloses:
A software update system for a vehicle (paragraph [0001], “The present invention relates to a vehicle, a software update system, and a software update method for updating software of an electronic control unit with update data sent from a server via a communication line (emphasis added).”), the software update system comprising:
an electronic control unit mounted on the vehicle (paragraph [0012], “A large number of electronic control units (hereinafter referred to as ECUs) 16 are mounted on the vehicle 10 (emphasis added).”);
an information processing apparatus configured to manage an update of software of the electronic control unit (paragraph [0014], “The vehicle 10 has an OTA manager [information processing apparatus] 20 […] the OTA manager 20 includes processors such as central processing units (CPUs) or micro processing units (MPUs) (not illustrated), non-transitory tangible computer-readable recording media such as ROM and RAM, a communication module that communicates with other devices via the CAN, and the like. Further, the OTA manager 20 comprises a storage 22 and a speaker 24 (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0015], “The OTA manager 20 manages ECU16 software updates. The software update includes software download, software installation, and software activation (emphasis added).”); and
an input device configured to receive input from a user (paragraph [0025], “The touch panel display [input device] 32 receives an operation corresponding to a combination of a position at which the touch panel 36 is touched by the user [receive input by the user] and a display displayed on the screen 34 at that time (emphasis added).”);
wherein the information processing apparatus is configured to
set a permission period of an update process based on input through the input device, the update process being a process in which the software of the electronic control unit is updated to updated software (paragraph [0015], “The OTA manager 20 manages ECU16 software updates (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0068], “In step S20, the OTA manager 20 instructs the IVI30 to display the update information on the screen 34 of the touch panel display 32, and the process proceeds to step S21 […] On the screen 34, three options are presented as update time points of the software. The options to be presented are "update immediately" in which the update time point is immediate, "set update start time" in which the update time point is a time point arbitrarily set by the user [permission period], and "later" in which the update time point is not set. Buttons (a button 64, a button 66, and a button 68 illustrated in FIG. 10) for selecting these options are displayed on the touch panel display 32. When the user touches any one of the button 64, the button 66, and the button 68 on the screen 34 of the touch panel display 32, the user selects an option of the touched button 64, button 66, or button 68 (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0075], “On the touch panel display 32 [input device], selection box 74 for selecting the date and time at which the update is started and a setting button 78 for setting the update start time to the selected date and time [setting permission period] are displayed (emphasis added).”);
when no permission period is set, execute the update process on condition that an approval signal indicating approval to the update process is acquired from the input device (paragraph [0068], “On the screen 34, three options are presented as update time points of the software. The options to be presented are "update immediately" in which the update time point is immediate, "set update start time" in which the update time point is a time point arbitrarily set by the user, and "later" in which the update time point is not set (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0070], “When the selected option is "update immediately", the process proceeds to step S22 […] (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0071], “In step S22, the OTA manager 20 installs the software in the ECU16 having the single-sided ROM and proceeds to step S23 (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0072], “In step S23, the OTA manager 20 activates the software of each ECU16 and returns to the main routine (FIG. 5) (emphasis added).”) [Examiner’s Remarks: Note that Tomoaki discloses the user selecting the “update immediately” option to execute the update and then discloses installing and activating the update software. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that selecting the “update immediately” option means a permission period was not set and that the user selecting the “update immediately” button is an approval signal acquired from the input device to immediately execute the update process.]; and
when the permission period is set, execute the update process in the permission period not on the condition that the approval signal is acquired (paragraph [0068], “On the screen 34, three options are presented as update time points of the software. The options to be presented are "update immediately" in which the update time point is immediate, "set update start time" in which the update time point is a time point arbitrarily set by the user [permission period], and "later" in which the update time point is not set (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0075], “On the touch panel display 32, a selection box 74 for selecting the date and time at which the update is started and a setting button 78 for setting the update start time to the selected date and time [setting the permission period] are displayed (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0076], “In step S25, the OTA manager 20 determines whether or not the set update start time has come. When the set update start time is reached, the process proceeds to step S26 […] (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0077], “In step S26, the OTA manager 20 determines whether or not the activation switch 48 is off. When the start switch 48 is OFF, the process proceeds to step S22 […]”; paragraph [0071], “In step S22, the OTA manager 20 installs the software in the ECU16 having the single-sided ROM and proceeds to step S23 (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0072], “In step S23, the OTA manager 20 activates the software of each ECU16 and returns to the main routine (FIG. 5) (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0110], “When a start switch (48) of the vehicle is OFF at the set update time point. The update management unit may update the software, and when the start switch is turned on at the set update time point, the update management unit may regard that the third option is selected by the user (emphasis added).”) [Examiner’s Remarks: Note that Tomoaki discloses a user setting the update time point (permission period) and the OTA manager (information processing apparatus) installing/activating the update software once the update start time has come. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that the OTA manager detecting whether the update start time has come and then installing/activating the update software means, once the user sets the permission period and that time comes, the update process is executed by the information processing apparatus without acquiring an approval signal from the user.];
[…] regardless of whether the permission period is set (Figure 7; paragraph [0067], “In step S19, the OTA manager 20 determines whether or not the activation switch 48 has switched from on to off. When the start switch 48 is switched from ON to OFF, the process proceeds to step S20. When the start switch 48 is ON, the process of step S19 is repeated, and the process waits until the start switch 48 is switched from ON to OFF (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0074], “When the start switch 48 is switched from OFF to ON during the installation of step S22 and during the activation of step S23, the OTA manager 20 cancels the installation or the activation and returns to step S19 (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0076], “In step S25, the OTA manager 20 determines whether or not the set update start time has come. When the set update start time is reached, the process proceeds to step S26 […] (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0077], “In step S26, the OTA manager 20 determines whether or not the activation switch 48 is off. When the start switch 48 is OFF, the process proceeds to step S22, and when the start switch 48 is ON, the process returns to step S19 (emphasis added).”) [Examiner’s Remarks: Note that Tomoaki discloses repeating the initial step of S19 in Figure 7 when information processing apparatus determines the start switch is on at the start of the process, when the start switch is switched to on during installation and activation of software (cancels it), and when the start switch is on during the update time set by the user (permission period). One of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that the information processing apparatus is configured to not execute the update process when the start switch is on regardless of whether the permission period is set.].
Tomoaki discloses “the software update system,” “the information processing apparatus is configured to […]” and “[…] regardless of whether the permission period is set,” but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the software update system further comprises a battery rechargeable from a power supply outside the vehicle, a charge sensor configured to detect a charging current flowing through a power line connecting the battery to a connector of the vehicle, and a battery sensor configured to detect battery information of the battery, and
the information processing apparatus is further configured to, when the electronic control unit to be updated is other than an electronic control unit configured to control a driving source or a brake device of the vehicle, determine whether the battery is being charged based on the charging current detected by the charge sensor, determine whether a state of charge of the battery calculated based on the battery information detected by the battery sensor is lower than or equal to a predetermined state of charge, and, when the battery is being charged and the state of charge is lower than or equal to the predetermined state of charge, execute the update process not on the condition that the approval signal is acquired regardless of whether the permission period is set.
However, Irish discloses:
a battery rechargeable from a power supply outside the vehicle (paragraph [0013], “The rechargeable battery pack 100 can be coupled to a power source such as a charging station to charge the rechargeable battery 105 via the BMS 101 (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0009], “FIG. 3 shows an example electric vehicle comprising a rechargeable battery pack, such as the one shown in FIG. 1 (emphasis added).”), a charge sensor configured to detect a charging current flowing through a power line connecting the battery to a connector of the vehicle (paragraph [0022], “During charging, the temperature sensor 107 monitors the temperature of the battery 105, and the current sensor 109 monitors the charging current to the battery 105. The temperature sensor 107 sends a temperature signal to the controller 103 and the current sensor 109 sends a current signal to the controller 103 (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0043], “The BMS 101 further comprises a charging detector, for example a current sensor 109, which detects whether a rechargeable battery 105 is being charged. The controller 103 is configured to send a signal to the vehicle drive 201 via the interface 113 to inhibit operation of the vehicle drive 201 in response to the charging detector detecting that the rechargeable battery 105 is being charged (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0009], “FIG. 3 shows an example electric vehicle comprising a rechargeable battery pack, such as the one shown in FIG. 1 (emphasis added).”);
determine whether the battery is being charged based on the charging current detected by the charge sensor (paragraph [0043], “The BMS 101 further comprises a charging detector, for example a current sensor 109, which detects whether a rechargeable battery 105 is being charged. The controller 103 is configured to send a signal to the vehicle drive 201 via the interface 113 to inhibit operation of the vehicle drive 201 in response to the charging detector detecting that the rechargeable battery 105 is being charged (emphasis added).”).
Tomoaki is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a software update system for a vehicle and updating ECU software. Irish is also within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding the detection of charging currents of rechargeable batteries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Irish into the teaching of Tomoaki to include “wherein the software update system further comprises a battery rechargeable from a power supply outside the vehicle, a charge sensor configured to detect a charging current flowing through a power line connecting the battery to a connector of the vehicle; the information processing apparatus is further configured to […] determine whether the battery is being charged based on the charging current detected by the charge sensor.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize a current sensor that monitors the charging current of a battery and temperature sensor to control the charging current based on the temperature signal to prevent damage of the battery from high temperature (Irish, abstract & paragraphs [0014 & 0022]).
The combination of Tomoaki and Irish discloses “wherein the software update system further comprises a battery rechargeable from a power supply outside the vehicle, a charge sensor configured to detect a charging current flowing through a power line connecting the battery to a connector of the vehicle,” “the information processing apparatus is further configured to […] determine whether the battery is being charged based on the charging current detected by the charge sensor,” and “[…] regardless of whether the permission period is set,” but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the software update system further comprises a battery rechargeable from a power supply outside the vehicle, a charge sensor configured to detect a charging current flowing through a power line connecting the battery to a connector of the vehicle, and a battery sensor configured to detect battery information of the battery, and
the information processing apparatus is further configured to, when the electronic control unit to be updated is other than an electronic control unit configured to control a driving source or a brake device of the vehicle, determine whether the battery is being charged based on the charging current detected by the charge sensor, determine whether a state of charge of the battery calculated based on the battery information detected by the battery sensor is lower than or equal to a predetermined state of charge, and, when the battery is being charged and the state of charge is lower than or equal to the predetermined state of charge, execute the update process not on the condition that the approval signal is acquired regardless of whether the permission period is set.
However, Ogawa discloses:
a battery sensor configured to detect battery information of the battery (paragraph [0005], “[…] and includes an acquisition unit [battery sensor] configured to acquire electric energy of a battery supplying electric power to the plurality of on-vehicle control devices […] (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0110], “The acquisition unit 112 acquires a remaining battery level SoC by monitoring a frame transmitted from the ECU controlling the battery (not shown) (emphasis added).”);
when the electronic control unit to be updated is other than an electronic control unit configured to control a driving source or a brake device of the vehicle (paragraph [0075], “Examples of the types of the ECU 30 include a power-supply control ECU, an engine control ECU, a steering control ECU, and a door lock control ECU (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0102], “Upon downloading the update program, the gateway 10 transmits the update program to the target ECU, and requests the target ECU to update the control program (step S4) (emphasis added).”) […] determine whether a state of charge of the battery calculated based on the battery information detected by the battery sensor is lower than or equal to a predetermined state of charge, and, when the battery is being charged and the state of charge is lower than or equal to the predetermined state of charge, execute the update process not on the condition that the approval signal is acquired (paragraph [0135], “Further, when charging progresses to a state where the remaining battery level SoC is larger than the threshold Th2 (YES in step S117), the CPU 11 causes the in-vehicle communication unit 14 to transmit a frame instructing the target ECU to resume the update process (step S119). As a result, the update process by the target ECU is resumed. When the update process is resumed, the CPU 11 periodically repeats the process from step S101 (NO in step S113) until the update process by the target ECU is completed (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0139], “Further, after the battery is charged to the necessary electric energy or more, the update process is automatically resumed. As a result, even in the case where the update process is interrupted due to deficiency of the battery, the update process is automatically resumed at the time when the remaining battery level is secured. Therefore, the update process is completely executed (emphasis added).”) [Examiner’s Remarks: Note that Ogawa discloses automatically resuming the update process once the battery is charged to the necessary electric energy (equal to predetermined threshold). One of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that automatically resuming the update process requires executing the update process not on the condition that an approval signal is acquired from a user.].
Ogawa is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding updating ECU software and the execution of an update process in response to a battery’s state of charge.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Ogawa into the combined teachings of Tomoaki and Irish to include “wherein the software update system further comprises a battery rechargeable from a power supply outside the vehicle, a charge sensor configured to detect a charging current flowing through a power line connecting the battery to a connector of the vehicle, and a battery sensor configured to detect battery information of the battery, and the information processing apparatus is further configured to, when the electronic control unit to be updated is other than an electronic control unit configured to control a driving source or a brake device of the vehicle, determine whether the battery is being charged based on the charging current detected by the charge sensor, determine whether a state of charge of the battery calculated based on the battery information detected by the battery sensor is lower than or equal to a predetermined state of charge, and, when the battery is being charged and the state of charge is lower than or equal to the predetermined state of charge, execute the update process not on the condition that the approval signal is acquired regardless of whether the permission period is set.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to automatically resume an update when the battery’s state of charge is equal to a predetermined threshold to help ensure there is an adequate amount of electric energy to complete the update (Ogawa, paragraphs [0135 & 0139]).
Claim 1 is an apparatus claim corresponding to system Claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejection of that claim.
As per Claim 3, the rejection of Claim 2 is incorporated; and Tomoaki further discloses:
wherein the information processing apparatus is further configured to, when the permission period is set, execute the update process outside the permission period on the condition that the approval signal is acquired (paragraph [0100], “When the start switch 48 is ON at the update time point set by the user, the software update system 14 of the present embodiment assumes that "later" is selected as the option of the update time point. When the start switch 48 is ON at the update time point set by the user, there is a high possibility that the user intends to postpone the update of the software, Therefore, by regarding that "later", which is an option indicating a similar intention, is selected, the user's intention can be reflected (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0101], “In the software update system 14 of the present embodiment, when the number of times that the start switch 48 has been turned on at the update time point set by the user in the past is two or more at the time of the important update A display for urging the user to park the vehicle 10 in a place where the state in which the start switch 48 is off can be continued for two hours or more is displayed on the screen 34 of the touch panel display 32. As a result, it is possible to increase the opportunity to update the software by the important update (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0102], “[…] a display that prompts the user to park the vehicle 10 at a position where the road surface is flat. This makes it possible to update the software when the vehicle 10 is parked in a stable place (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0103], “[…] a display that prompts the user to park the vehicle 10 in a safe area. This makes it possible to update the software when the vehicle 10 is parked in a safe area (emphasis added).”) [Examiner’s Remarks: Note that Tomoaki discloses assuming the “later” option is selected when the start switch is on at the update time point set by the user (permission period) and displays urging the user to park their vehicle in a safe and stable place where the start switch can be off for two hours to increase the opportunity for an update. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that assuming the “later” option is selected despite the update time point set by the user allows the update process to be executed outside the permission period. Furthermore, providing displays urging the user to park their vehicle is allowing the execution of the update process outside of the permission period on the condition that the user parks the vehicle in a safe and stable place where the start switch can be turned off for two or more hours; this condition is an approval signal from the user to execute the update since the user can choose not to meet this condition if they don’t want the update to be executed.].
Claim 8 is a non-transitory storage medium claim corresponding to system Claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejection of that claim.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomoaki in view of Irish and Ogawa as applied to Claim 2 above, and further in view of US 2017/0262277 (hereinafter “Endo”).
As per Claim 4, the rejection of Claim 2 is incorporated; and Tomoaki discloses “wherein the information processing apparatus is configured to […] regardless of whether the permission period is set (Figure 7; paragraph [0067], “In step S19, the OTA manager 20 determines whether or not the activation switch 48 has switched from on to off. When the start switch 48 is switched from ON to OFF, the process proceeds to step S20. When the start switch 48 is ON, the process of step S19 is repeated, and the process waits until the start switch 48 is switched from ON to OFF (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0074], “When the start switch 48 is switched from OFF to ON during the installation of step S22 and during the activation of step S23, the OTA manager 20 cancels the installation or the activation and returns to step S19 (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0076], “In step S25, the OTA manager 20 determines whether or not the set update start time has come. When the set update start time is reached, the process proceeds to step S26 […] (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0077], “In step S26, the OTA manager 20 determines whether or not the activation switch 48 is off. When the start switch 48 is OFF, the process proceeds to step S22, and when the start switch 48 is ON, the process returns to step S19 (emphasis added).”) [Examiner’s Remarks: Note that Tomoaki discloses repeating the initial step of S19 in Figure 7 when information processing apparatus determines the start switch is on at the start of the process, when the start switch is switched to on during installation and activation of software (cancels it), and when the start switch is on during the update time set by the user (permission period). One of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that the information processing apparatus is configured to not execute the update process when the start switch is on regardless of whether the permission period is set.],” but the combination of Tomoaki, Irish, and Ogawa does not explicitly disclose:
when the electronic control unit to be updated is configured to control a driving source of the vehicle or a brake device of the vehicle, execute the update process on the condition that the approval signal is acquired.
However, Endo discloses:
when the electronic control unit to be updated is configured to control a driving source of the vehicle or a brake device of the vehicle, execute the update process on the condition that the approval signal is acquired (Figure 3B; paragraph [0054], “Note that the software related to the automatic driving function or the driving support function is software that requires a permission of a user as a general rule at the time of an update to software of a latest version (emphasis added).”; abstract, “[…] a restriction portion configured to turn on a control flag of the driving support function when it is determined that the update is required, and also configured to turn off the control flag when the update is permitted by a user and the software related to the driving support function is updated (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0073], “The automatic driving or driving support ECU 300 executes software related to the automatic driving function or software related to the driving support function, installed in an automatic driving or driving support software storage portion 322, so as to implement the automatic driving function or the driving support function (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0050], “Further, among the terms used in the present specification and the drawing, an “automatic driving function” and a “driving support function” shall refer to respective functions to implement the following levels. “Automatic Driving Function:”—A level to wholly perform a driving operation of a vehicle and surrounding monitoring […] “Driving Support Function:”—A level to wholly perform a driving support to steering, braking, and acceleration, although a driver takes responsibility for a safe driving (emphasis added).”).
Endo is also within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding updating ECU software.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Endo into the combined teachings of Tomoaki, Irish, and Ogawa to include “when the electronic control unit to be updated is configured to control a driving source of the vehicle or a brake device of the vehicle, execute the update process on the condition that the approval signal is acquired.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incentivize a user to give permission to update an automatic driving or driving support ECU early, to avoid a situation where an old software version is being used, by restricting automatic driving and driving support functions (Endo, paragraphs [0007, 0008, & 0015]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomoaki in view of Irish and Ogawa as applied to Claim 2 above, and further in view of US 2018/0074811 (hereinafter “Kiyama”) and US 2015/0248795 (hereinafter “Davidson”).
As per Claim 5, the rejection of Claim 2 is incorporated; and Tomoaki discloses “wherein the information processing apparatus is configured to […] regardless of whether the permission period is set,” but the combination of Tomoaki, Irish, and Ogawa does not explicitly disclose:
further comprising a vehicle speed sensor configured to detect a travel speed of the vehicle;
when the travel speed of the vehicle, acquired by the vehicle speed sensor, is higher than zero, execute the update process on the condition that the approval signal is acquired.
However, Kiyama discloses:
when the travel speed of the vehicle is higher than zero, execute the update process on the condition that the approval signal is acquired (paragraph [0114], “By the above-described processing of FIG. 10, in a case where ECU software to be updated does not have influence on the traveling of the vehicle 200 even when the vehicle 200 is traveling [vehicle speed is higher than zero], it is possible to execute the updating of the ECU software by using downloaded update software after obtaining the user's permission [on condition that the approval signal is acquired] (emphasis added).”).
Kiyama is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding updating ECU software.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Kiyama into the combined teachings of Tomoaki, Irish, and Ogawa to include “when the travel speed of the vehicle is higher than zero, execute the update process on the condition that the approval signal is acquired.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to update the ECU software based on OTA since it is “easy for a user to utilize” and “there have been increasing demands for a remote software update technique for an automobile for remotely updating software of in-vehicle equipment such as an ECU” (Kiyama, paragraphs [0003 & 0007]).
However, Davidson discloses:
further comprising a vehicle speed sensor configured to detect a travel speed of the vehicle (paragraph [0080], “In the illustrated embodiment of FIG. 2, the delivery vehicle 100 includes a plurality of vehicle sensors, readers, cameras, and/or the like configured for generating and/or collecting telematics data indicative of various vehicle dynamics, such as engine ignition, engine speed, vehicle speed, vehicle location, and the status of various vehicle components (emphasis added).”);
[…] acquired by the vehicle speed sensor (paragraph [0080], “In the illustrated embodiment of FIG. 2, the delivery vehicle 100 includes a plurality of vehicle sensors, readers, cameras, and/or the like configured for generating and/or collecting telematics data indicative of various vehicle dynamics, such as engine ignition, engine speed, vehicle speed, vehicle location, and the status of various vehicle components (emphasis added).”).
Davidson is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding the use of vehicle speed sensors to detect travel speed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Davidson into the combined teachings of Tomoaki, Irish, Ogawa, and Kiyama to include “further comprising a vehicle speed sensor configured to detect a travel speed of the vehicle; […] acquired by the vehicle speed sensor.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use a vehicle speed sensor to detect vehicle travel speed and use the vehicle telematics data in evaluating telematics and service data “in a variety of ways in order to improve the operating efficiency of the fleet of vehicles” (Davidson, paragraph [0082]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomoaki in view of Irish, Ogawa, Kiyama, and Davidson as applied to Claim 5 above, and further in view of US 2024/0208507 (hereinafter “Przybylski”).
As per Claim 6, the rejection of Claim 5 is incorporated; and the combination of Tomoaki, Irish, Ogawa, Kiyama, and Davidson does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the input device is a voice recognition apparatus provided in a cabin of the vehicle or a push switch provided on a steering wheel of the vehicle.
However, Przybylski discloses:
wherein the input device is a voice recognition apparatus provided in a cabin of the vehicle or a push switch provided on a steering wheel of the vehicle (paragraph [0027], “The data gathering and processing system 18 additionally includes an input device 46 arranged in the vehicle cabin 12A and operatively connected to the navigation module 22, for example, using the navigation screen 30. In general, the input device 46 may be configured as an operator-to-vehicle control interface, as exemplified by non-limiting examples such as tactile buttons, turn and push dials, capacitive touch and/or proximity sensors, visual gesture and voice recognition devices, etc. for setting programmable vehicle features (emphasis added).”).
Przybylski is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding the use of voice recognition input devices within the cabin of a vehicle to receive input from a user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Przybylski into the combined teachings of Tomoaki, Irish, Ogawa, Kiyama, and Davidson to include “wherein the input device is a voice recognition apparatus provided in a cabin of the vehicle or a push switch provided on a steering wheel of the vehicle.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use an input device such as a voice recognition apparatus to allow a vehicle operator to set programmable vehicle features to “enhance vehicle user experience” by providing “adjustability of vehicle systems to various needs and wants of the vehicle operator” (Przybylski, paragraphs [0002 & 0027]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomoaki in view of Irish and Ogawa as applied to Claim 2 above, and further in view of US 2020/0174778 (hereinafter “David”) and US 2014/0047425 (hereinafter “Thapar”).
As per Claim 9, the rejection of Claim 2 is incorporated; and Tomoaki discloses “the information processing apparatus (paragraph [0014], “The vehicle 10 has an OTA manager [information processing apparatus] 20 […] the OTA manager 20 includes processors such as central processing units (CPUs) or micro processing units (MPUs) (not illustrated), non-transitory tangible computer-readable recording media such as ROM and RAM, a communication module that communicates with other devices via the CAN, and the like),” but the combination of Tomoaki, Irish, and Ogawa does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the information processing apparatus includes a communication module for wireless communication with an outside;
an external apparatus is a component of the input device; and
the information processing apparatus is further configured to, when the permission period is set and a current date and time is outside the permission period, send, to the external apparatus via the communication module, an instruction signal for displaying an approval image on the external apparatus, and execute the update process on the condition that the approval signal is received from the external apparatus in response to input from the user through the external apparatus.
However, David discloses:
wherein the [apparatus] includes a communication module for wireless communication with an outside (Figures 1 & 2A; paragraph [0017], “The vehicle and the mobile computing device each communicate wirelessly with a server computing system, which acts as an intermediary between the mobile computing device and the vehicle.”; paragraph [0026], “As a non-limiting example, in some embodiments, the user processing module 208 and the communication relay module 210 may be combined into a single module.”; paragraph [0027], “As shown, the server computing system 104 includes a computer-readable medium 213 that stores a user processing module 208 and a communication relay module 210 […].”);
an external apparatus is a component of the input device (Figures 1 & 2A; paragraph [0017], “The vehicle and the mobile computing device [external apparatus] each communicate wirelessly with a server computing system, which acts as an intermediary between the mobile computing device and the vehicle (emphasis added).”); and
the [apparatus] is further configured to […] send, to the external apparatus via the communication module, an instruction signal for displaying an approval image on the external apparatus, and execute the update process on the condition that the approval signal is received from the external apparatus in response to input from the user through the external apparatus (Figure 2A; Figure 3C: 334, 336; Figure 4C; paragraph [0057], “Returning to FIG. 3C, the method 300 then proceeds to decision block 332, where a determination is made regarding whether the vehicle state conditions indicate that the vehicle 106 is ready for an update […] Alternatively, in some embodiments, the determination at decision block 332 is made by the user processing module 208 or the communication relay module 210, and a result of the determination is transmitted to the update processing module 206 […] if all of the vehicle state conditions indicate that the vehicle 106 is ready for an update, then the result of decision block 332 is YES, and the method 300 proceeds to block 334 (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0058], “At block 334, the update processing module 206 [external apparatus] presents an interface element [approval image] for initiating the software update. FIG. 4C also illustrates such an interface element, which includes the text “Install” and allows the user to tap to actuate the element […] Returning to FIG. 3C, at block 336, the update processing module 206 detects actuation of the interface element [user input] and transmits a command to the server computing system 104 to initiate the software update (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0059], “At block 338, the communication relay module 210 transmits the command to the OTA updater device 108, which receives the command, conducts the software update process, and transmits a signal indicating a result to the server computing system 104.”).
David is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding vehicle software updates.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of David into the combined teachings of Tomoaki, Irish, and Ogawa to include “wherein the information processing apparatus includes a communication module for wireless communication with an outside; an external apparatus is a component of the input device; and the information processing apparatus is further configured to […] send, to the external apparatus via the communication module, an instruction signal for displaying an approval image on the external apparatus, and execute the update process on the condition that the approval signal is received from the external apparatus in response to input from the user through the external apparatus.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to initiate an update using an external mobile device that allows a user to login and update the software of a vehicle based on the state of the vehicle in order to improve security and safety by ensuring the software update is initiated by authorized users/devices and that the software update is initiated when the vehicle is in a safe condition to perform the update (David, paragraph [0018]).
The combination of Tomoaki, Irish, Ogawa, and David does not explicitly disclose:
the information processing apparatus is further configured to, when the permission period is set and a current date and time is outside the permission period, send, to the external apparatus via the communication module, an instruction signal for displaying an approval image on the external apparatus, and execute the update process on the condition that the approval signal is received from the external apparatus in response to input from the user through the external apparatus.
However, Thapar discloses:
when the permission period is set and a current date and time is outside the permission period, send an instruction signal for displaying an approval image on the [device], and execute the update process on the condition that the approval signal is received from the [device] in response to input from the user through the [device] (Figure 4; paragraph [0046], “Included as part of the scenario 400 is a login window 402, which can be presented as part of a login page for logging on to a computing device. The login window 402 includes a notification 404 of the upcoming restart and install operation, which indicates a time interval until an update and restart operation will be initiated (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0047], “Also included as part of the login window 402 and a selectable control 406, which can be selected via user input to initiate an update and restart operation (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0048], “In accordance with one or more embodiments, when there are no pending update and restart operations (e.g., there are no restart updates to be installed), the login window 402 does not include the notification 404 or the selectable control 406. Thus, when restart updates are retrieved and an update and restart operation is scheduled [permission period], the login window 402 can be visually augmented to include the notification 404, the selectable control 406, and/or other suitable notifications of the pending update and restart operation (emphasis added).”) [Examiner’s Remarks: Note that Thapar discloses a notification appearing on a login window that shows the amount of time left until a scheduled update (permission period) and a selectable control that allows the user to update now instead of waiting for the scheduled time. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that an instruction signal for displaying the notification (approval image) on the login window was sent outside of the permission period since the notification includes a countdown until the scheduled update.].
Thapar is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding scheduled updates and updating outside of scheduled update times.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Thapar into the combined teachings of Tomoaki, Irish, Ogawa, and David to include “when the permission period is set and a current date and time is outside the permission period, send, to the external apparatus via the communication module, an instruction signal for displaying an approval image on the external apparatus, and execute the update process on the condition that the approval signal is received from the external apparatus in response to input from the user through the external apparatus.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to present notifications of scheduled updates/restarts and allow users to initiate the update outside of the scheduled update/restart time to help reduce device restarts that are ”disruptive to a user experience” by allowing users to manually initiate the update and also checking user presence on the device (Thapar, Figure 9 & paragraphs [0002 & 0035]).
Response to Arguments
In the Remarks, Applicant’s arguments under Section V. 35 U.S.C. §101 Alice are moot because amended Claims 1-2, and 8 overcome the 101 rejection.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Applicant respectfully submits that "electronic control unit" is a well-recognized structural term in the automotive and computing arts and therefore is not a means-plus-function term.
Examiner’s response:
Examiner disagrees. “the electronic control unit to be updated is configured to control a driving source of the vehicle or a brake device of the vehicle” meets the three-prong test for invoking 35 U.S.C §112(f). As per Prong A, “electronic control unit” is a generic placeholder which satisfies Prong A. As per Prong B, the electronic control unit (generic placeholder) is modified by functional language, “the electronic control unit to be updated is configured to control a driving source of the vehicle or a brake device of the vehicle (emphasis added)” which satisfies Prong B. As per Prong C, the electronic control unit (generic placeholder) is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function (sufficient structure is not recited in the claim) which satisfies Prong C.
In the Remarks, Applicant’s arguments under Section VI. Art Rejections, Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-2 and 8 have 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 Feven H. Huruy whose telephone number is (571) 272-3826. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-3:30pm.
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, 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 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.
/F.H.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2191 /WEI Y MUI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2191
Prosecution Insights