CTFR 18/437,695 CTFR 101666 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Amendment The amendment filed March 23 rd , 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 4-5 remain pending in the application. Claims 2-3 have been canceled. Claims 6-7 are introduced into the application. Applicants’ amendments to the claims have overcome each 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the non-final action mailed January 2 nd , 2026. Examiner further acknowledges applicants’ amendment to the claims to no longer invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) in claims 1 and 4-5. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim(s) 1 recite(s): An in-vehicle device mounted on a vehicle including a human- machine interface and configured to manage an update of software for the vehicle, the in-vehicle device comprising: a memory configured to store update data of the software; and a processor configured to communicate with the human-machine interface and a server via a network, and perform the update through a plurality of phases including: downloading the update data of the software from the server, installing the software on in-vehicle equipment to be updated, and activating the software, wherein the memory is configured to store user data indicating whether a user consent is necessary for a plurality of types of software at each phase of the plurality of phases, the user data is set based on a user selection obtained via a plurality of buttons of the human-machine interface for selecting whether the user consent is necessary for the plurality of phases, the plurality of types of software includes a first type of software of which a function restriction of the vehicle occurs during the update, the processor is configured to: determine whether the user consent is necessary at each phase of the plurality of phases based on a type of the software to be updated; perform the update of the software automatically in a case where determination is made that the user consent is not necessary; and make an inquiry to a user as to whether to perform the update of the software at the plurality of phases in a case where determination is made that the user consent is necessary, and the processor is further configured to: determine whether the software to be updated is the first type of software; determine that the user consent is necessary in a case where determination is made that the software to be updated is the first type of software; and determine that the user consent is not necessary in a case where determination is made that the software to be updated is not the first type of software. Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter? Yes. Claim 1 is a machine Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes: (an) abstract idea(s). The limitation of "determine whether the user consent is necessary", as drafted in #6 above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind, but with generic computer parts. That is, other than reciting "processor configured to", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed by a person. The limitation of "determine whether the software to be updated is the first type of software", as drafted in #9 above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind, but with generic computer parts. That is, other than reciting "processor is further configured to", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed by a person. The limitation of "determine that the user consent is necessary", as drafted in #10 above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind, but with generic computer parts. That is, other than reciting "processor further configured to", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed by a person. The limitation of "determine that the user consent is not necessary", as drafted in #11 above, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the mind, but with generic computer parts. That is, other than reciting "processor further configured to", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being performed by a person. Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No. The "installing" limitation in #2 above. As claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is mere instructions to apply an exception. For example, installing and activating in the context of this claim encompasses merely executing a program. See in the MPEP §§2106.05(f). The "selecting whether user consent is necessary" limitation in #4 above. As claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is mere instructions to apply an exception. For example, selecting in the context of this claim encompasses merely pressing buttons to user preferences. See in the MPEP §§2106.05(f). The "restriction" limitation in #5 above. As claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is mere instructions to apply an exception. For example, "restricting" in the context of this claim encompasses merely limiting functions during update. See in the MPEP §§2106.05(f). The "perform" limitation in #7 above. As claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is mere instructions to apply an exception. For example, perform in the context of this claim encompasses merely activating update program. See in the MPEP §§2106.05(f). The "downloading the update data" limitations in #1 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, downloading in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering. See in the MPEP §§ 2106.05(g). The "store user data" limitations in #3 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, "store user data" in the context of this claim encompasses merely storing data gathered. See in the MPEP §§ 2106.05(g). The "make an inquiry" limitations in #8 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, "inquiry" in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering. See in the MPEP §§ 2106.05(g). Additionally, the claims recite the following additional element: in-vehicle device, vehicle, memory, processor, human-machine interface, server The element that is recited in the claims are stated at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. See the MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea(s). Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step. Additionally, with regards to #1, 3, and 8 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll), the courts have recognized the following computer function(s) as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; Claim(s) 4 recite(s): wherein the processor is further configured to make the inquiry through the human-machine interface mounted on the vehicle. Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter? Yes. Claim 4 is a machine Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes: (an) abstract idea(s). Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No. The limitations in #12 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, "make the inquiry" in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering. See in the MPEP §§ 2106.05(g). Additionally, the claims recite the following additional element: processor, human-machine interface The element that is recited in the claims are stated at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. See the MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea(s). Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step. Claim(s) 5 recite(s): wherein the processor is further configured to make the inquiry through a mobile terminal of the user. Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter? Yes. Claim 5 is a machine Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes: (an) abstract idea(s). Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No. The limitations in #1 3 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, "make the inquiry" in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering. See in the MPEP §§ 2106.05(g). Additionally, the claims recite the following additional element: processor, mobile terminal The element that is recited in the claims are stated at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. See the MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea(s). Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step. Claim(s) 6 recite(s): wherein the plurality of types of software are classified based on urgency of the update. Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter? Yes. Claim 6 is a machine Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes: (an) abstract idea(s). Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No. The limitation in #14 above. As claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is mere instructions to apply an exception. For example, "classified based on" in the context of this claim encompasses merely classifying data. See in the MPEP §§2106.05(f). Additionally, the claims recite the following additional element: in-vehicle device The element that is recited in the claims are stated at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. See the MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea(s). Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step. Claim(s) 7 recite(s): wherein the plurality of types of software are classified based on time periods required for the update. Step 1: are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter? Yes. Claim 7 is a machine Step 2A, Prong I; Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes: (an) abstract idea(s). Step 2A Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No. The limitation in #15 above. As claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is mere instructions to apply an exception. For example, "classified based on" in the context of this claim encompasses merely classifying data. See in the MPEP §§2106.05(f). Additionally, the claims recite the following additional element: in-vehicle device The element that is recited in the claims are stated at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. See the MPEP §§ 2106.05(f). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitation on practicing the abstract idea(s). Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide the inventive step. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim(s) 1 and 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by US 20220253301 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Harata), US 20200356354 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Mitra), and US 20150339114 A1 (Hereinafter referred to as Rockwell). Regarding claim 1, Harata teaches: An in-vehicle device mounted on a vehicle including a human-machine interface and configured to manage an update of software for the vehicle, the in-vehicle device comprising: a memory configured to store update data of the software; and a processor configured to: communicate with the human-machine interface and a server via a network (Fig. 3, Harata shows an in-vehicle display capable of communicating with a server. [Abstract], Harata shows "An electronic control system for vehicle includes a center device that manages a program update of a vehicle, and a vehicular master device that is communicable with the center device") , and perform the update through a plurality of phases including: downloading the update data of the software from the server, installing the software on in-vehicle equipment to be updated, and activating the software (Para. [49], Harata shows "The separate approval is separately approving a respective one of the campaign notification phase, the download phase, the installation phase, and the activation phase.") , at each phase of the plurality of phases, the user data is set based on a user selection obtained via a plurality of buttons of the human-machine interface for selecting whether the user consent is necessary for the plurality of phases (Para. [49], Harata shows "The collective approval is collectively approving all of the campaign notification phase, the download phase, the installation phase, and the activation phase. The separate approval is separately approving a respective one of the campaign notification phase, the download phase, the installation phase, and the activation phase. For example, a user may select the collective approval when he/she cannot afford to see the program update to the end, and may select the separate approval when he/she can afford to see the program update to the end") , the processor is configured to: determine whether the user consent is necessary at each phase of the plurality of phases (Para. [79], Harata shows "when the user selected the collective approval, the program rewrite unit 32b performs all of the phases of rewriting of the application program at once, so that batch rewriting not requiring a phase-by-phase basis approval is performed. Specifically, when the user selected the collective approve for the program update by using the mobile terminal 6 or the in-vehicle display 7, the approval screen of the campaign notification is displayed on the mobile terminal 6 or the in-vehicle display 7 at the first place but thereafter the program update proceeds without displaying of a screen for approving the download, a screen for approving the installation nor a screen for approving the activation. On the other hand, when the user selected the separate approval, the program rewrite unit 32b perform rewriting of the application program separately on a phase-by-phase basis, so that separate rewriting requiring the phase-by-phase basis approval is performed. Specifically, when the user selected the separate approval for the program update by using the mobile terminal 6 or the in-vehicle display 7, the approval screen of the campaign notification is displayed on the mobile terminal 6 or the in-vehicle display 7 at the first place, and thereafter, the screen for approving the download, the screen for approving the installation and the screen for approving the activation are displayed sequentially, so that each time the screen is displayed, the user can gives approval, so that the program update proceeds") ; and make an inquiry to a user as to whether to perform the update of the software at the plurality of phases in a case where determination is made that the user consent is necessary (Para. [49], Harata shows "The collective approval is collectively approving all of the campaign notification phase, the download phase, the installation phase, and the activation phase. The separate approval is separately approving a respective one of the campaign notification phase, the download phase, the installation phase, and the activation phase. For example, a user may select the collective approval when he/she cannot afford to see the program update to the end, and may select the separate approval when he/she can afford to see the program update to the end") , Harata does not disclose: wherein the memory is configured to store user data indicating whether a user consent is necessary for a plurality of types of software the plurality of types of software includes a first type of software of which a function restriction of the vehicle occurs during the update, determine whether the user consent is necessary based on a type of the software to be updated perform the update of the software automatically in a case where determination is made that the user consent is not necessary; and the processor is further configured to: determine whether the software to be updated is the first type of software; determine that the user consent is necessary in a case where determination is made that the software to be updated is the first type of software; and determine that the user consent is not necessary in a case where determination is made that the software to be updated is not the first type of software. However, in the analogous art of automated updates, Mitra teaches: determine whether the user consent is necessary based on a type of the software to be updated (Fig.9 (924); Para. [63], Mitra shows "Additional settings for automated updates in the lower section 920 include a fourth selectable option 922 for authorizing the automated process (“Auto-Update Software During OS Upgrade?”). If this is selected or authorized, other options can become available or selectable, such as a fifth selectable option 924 (“Select software that should not be updated without your authorization”) " Examiner notes the above citation shows selecting if a software should require user consent to be updated or proceed automatically. First determining if the software has been listed under the option of requiring the software to be updated with authorization) . wherein the memory is configured to store user data indicating whether a user consent is necessary for a plurality of types of software (Para. [63], Mitra shows "Additional settings for automated updates in the lower section 920 include a fourth selectable option 922 for authorizing the automated process (“Auto-Update Software During OS Upgrade?”). If this is selected or authorized, other options can become available or selectable, such as a fifth selectable option 924 (“Select software that should not be updated without your authorization”) ") perform the update of the software automatically in a case where determination is made that the user consent is not necessary (Para. [63], Mitra shows "Additional settings for automated updates in the lower section 920 include a fourth selectable option 922 for authorizing the automated process (“Auto-Update Software During OS Upgrade?”). If this is selected or authorized, other options can become available or selectable, such as a fifth selectable option 924 (“Select software that should not be updated without your authorization”) ") ; and the processor is further configured to: determine whether the software to be updated is the first type of software; determine that the user consent is necessary in a case where determination is made that the software to be updated is the first type of software; and determine that the user consent is not necessary in a case where determination is made that the software to be updated is not the first type of software (Fig.9 (924); Para. [63], Mitra shows "Additional settings for automated updates in the lower section 920 include a fourth selectable option 922 for authorizing the automated process (“Auto-Update Software During OS Upgrade?”). If this is selected or authorized, other options can become available or selectable, such as a fifth selectable option 924 (“Select software that should not be updated without your authorization”) " Examiner notes the above citation shows selecting if a software should require user consent to be updated or proceed automatically. First determining if the software has been listed under the option of requiring the software to be updated with authorization) . In addition, in the analogous art of vehicle software updating, Rockwell teaches: the plurality of types of software includes a first type of software of which a function restriction of the vehicle occurs during the update (Para. [] , Rockwell shows " The user interface 304 -B may further include a description label 404 to indicate to the user how much time may be required to perform the installation of the available software updates 212 , as well as that certain features of the vehicle 31 may be unavailable during the installation process. For instance, in some cases the VCS 1 may be unable to switch to other VCS 1 applications, such as navigation, when software updates 212 are being installed. In other cases, if the vehicle modules 202 to be updated are important to the functioning of the vehicle 31 (e.g., the BCM, PCM, BSCM, etc.), the VCS 1 may be configured to inform the user that the vehicle 31 may not be placed into motive mode when those modules 202 are being updated. The user interface 304 -B may further include a list control 406 configured to display a selectable list of entries 408 (e.g., as illustrated again including the “proceed with updates” entry 408 -A and the “perform updates later” entry 408 -B), but in this case to request confirmation that the amount of time for updates is acceptable for the user" Examiner notes the citation above shows displaying restrictions that are enabled by the update execution process and based on software type and function) , 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 teachings of Mitra into the teachings of Harata to implement ". The modification would have been obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide users with tools for the improved management of software updates installed on devices (Mitra, Para. [4]). Additionally, 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 teachings of Rockwell into the teachings of Harata to implement “ the plurality of types of software includes a first type of software of which a function restriction of the vehicle occurs during the update ”. The modification would have been obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to notify and prevent access to users for components inaccessible during updates(Rockwell, Para. [44]). Regarding claim 4, Harata as modified teaches claim 1 as cited above and teaches: wherein the processor is further configured to make the inquiry through the human-machine interface mounted on the vehicle (Para. [26], Harata shows "Specifically, a campaign notification indicating that a program rewriting is available is given via a mobile terminal and/or an in-vehicle display, and the rewriting of the program is performed when the user gives approval for program update by using the mobile terminal and/or the in-vehicle display.") Regarding claim 5, Harata as modified teaches claim 1 as cited above and teaches: wherein the processor is further configured to make the inquiry through a mobile terminal of the user (Para. [26], Harata shows "Specifically, a campaign notification indicating that a program rewriting is available is given via a mobile terminal and/or an in-vehicle display, and the rewriting of the program is performed when the user gives approval for program update by using the mobile terminal and/or the in-vehicle display.") Regarding claim 6, Harata as modified teaches claim 1 as cited above, but does not disclose: wherein the plurality of types of software are classified based on urgency of the update However, in the analogous art of configuration of system updates, Mitra teaches: wherein the plurality of types of software are classified based on urgency of the update (Para. [53], Mitra shows " In this example, at a first stage 412 , the system determines that the version currently installed on the client device for first software 410 will be incompatible after the upgrade. In some implementations, such a determination can trigger a query to an online store or central software repository 450 from which information and update packages for software may be obtained. The system confirms that an update is available for the first software 410 at a second stage 414 . In some implementations, the system can also identify the priority classification for the software. In this case, the first software 410 is low priority, and the system can initiate an automated update for the first software in a third stage 416 during or even after the OS upgrade." Examiner notes the above citation shows classifying updates that still need to be installed by urgency and updating automatically based on the classification) 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 teachings of Mitra into the teachings of Harata as modified to implement "wherein the plurality of types of software are classified based on urgency of the update . The modification would have been obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide users with tools for the improved management of software updates installed on devices (Mitra, Para. [4]). Regarding claim 7, Harata as modified teaches claim 1 as cited above, but does not disclose: wherein the plurality of types of software are classified based on time periods required for the update. However, in the analogous art of updating vehicle software, Mitra teaches: wherein the plurality of types of software are classified based on time periods required for the update (Col. [2] lines [35-45], Mitra shows " the user can view how each software item was classified with respect to priority (“View prioritization calculator”), and access to options for adjusting the prioritization classification currently applied. In one implementation, this information can be shown in order of the software's priority in the queue, the time left for the update to achieve full deployment, or the software can be otherwise sorted by alphabetical order, size of update, total update time, and/or a user designated sort" Examiner notes the citation above shows viewing updating priority and sorting the priority by update time or update size) . 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 teachings of Mitra into the teachings of Harata as modified to implement “ wherein the plurality of types of software are classified based on time periods required for the update ”. The modification would have been obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide users with tools for the improved management of software updates installed on devices (Mitra, Para. [4]). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments regarding 35 USC 101 filed 3/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As per the 101 arguments on pg. 7 of the remarks that the amended independent claims are allowable under 35 USC 101 because the independent claim had been amended to implement physical components. The claims are still directed toward an abstract idea. Determining whether software is the first type of software to be updated requiring user consent even using a processor is directed toward an abstract idea which a person can do in their mind. Therefore, the examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive and maintains that the rejection under 35 USC 101 is proper. Applicant's arguments regarding 35 USC 112 filed 3/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are persuasive. Applicant's arguments regarding 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1 and 4-5 filed 3/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that amended claim 1 recites that the processor is configured to determine whether the software to be updated is the first type of software of which a function restriction of the vehicle occurs during the update, and determine that the user consent is necessary in a case where the first type of software is to be updated. Endo merely describes that a restriction portion turns on a control flag when the update necessity determination portion determines that the update is required, the control flag enabling a restriction on an operation of part or all of the automatic driving function or the driving support function. In addition, Mitra does not mention a function restriction on the vehicle during the update. However, Rockwell teaches “The user interface 304 -B may further include a description label 404 to indicate to the user how much time may be required to perform the installation of the available software updates 212 , as well as that certain features of the vehicle 31 may be unavailable during the installation process. For instance, in some cases the VCS 1 may be unable to switch to other VCS 1 applications, such as navigation, when software updates 212 are being installed. In other cases, if the vehicle modules 202 to be updated are important to the functioning of the vehicle 31 (e.g., the BCM, PCM, BSCM, etc.), the VCS 1 may be configured to inform the user that the vehicle 31 may not be placed into motive mode when those modules 202 are being updated. The user interface 304 -B may further include a list control 406 configured to display a selectable list of entries 408 (e.g., as illustrated again including the “proceed with updates” entry 408 -A and the “perform updates later” entry 408 -B), but in this case to request confirmation that the amount of time for updates is acceptable for the user” Harata, Mitra and Rockwell are used in the new rejection of claim 1, which is necessitated by the amendments to claim 1. The 103 rejection for claims 4-5 is maintains as they have not been amended and the rejection to claim 1 is maintained as well. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20220014604 A1 – This prior art teaches restricting vehicles during updates 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 ZEERICK A MALIK whose telephone number is (571)272-8110. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs, 7-5. 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, Chat Do can be reached at (571) 272-3721. 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. /Z.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2193 /Chat C Do/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/437,695 Page 2 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/437,695 Page 3 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/437,695 Page 4 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/437,695 Page 5 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/437,695 Page 6 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/437,695 Page 7 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/437,695 Page 8 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/437,695 Page 9 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/437,695 Page 10 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/437,695 Page 11 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/437,695 Page 12 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/437,695 Page 13 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/437,695 Page 15 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/437,695 Page 16 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/437,695 Page 17 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/437,695 Page 18 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/437,695 Page 19 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/437,695 Page 20 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/437,695 Page 21 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/437,695 Page 22 Art Unit: 2193
Prosecution Insights