DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is in response to communication filed 12/15/2025.
The instant application having application No. 18/517,912 filed on November 22, 2023, claims priority to KR10-2023-0071284, filed 6/7/2023.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 3, 7-10, 12, 16, and 20 are amended, claims 2, 11, and 19 are canceled. Accordingly, claims 1, 3-10, 12-18, and 20 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Amendment
(A). Regarding claim objections: Applicant’s amendments to claims appropriately addressed the objections to claims 1-19, the objections are withdrawn.
(B). Regarding 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection: The amended claims are still abstract idea without significantly more, the rejections are maintained as set forth in the office action below.
(C). Regarding art rejection: In regards to pending claims, Applicant's amendments necessitated further search, and new grounds of rejections are presented in the following art rejection.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-10, 12-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claim 10, This claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directed to a method claim under Step 1.
Under Prong 1, Step 2A:
However, the limitations of claim 10,
“determining whether an Over The Air (OTA) update of vehicle software is required based on the location information of the vehicle
wherein the determining whether the OTA update is required includes determining that the OTA update is required based on (i) the location information of the vehicle indicating that the vehicle is located within the geofence area and (ii) the parking state of the vehicle being parking,
wherein [the OTA update is initially performed on a subset of vehicles among a plurality of vehicles], and, based on a determination that a problem has not occurred for a predetermined time, [the update is performed on remaining vehicles among the plurality of vehicle].”
as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. e.g. human can manually determine whether OTA update of vehicle software is required based on the available information as defined in the claim. Similarly, human can manually determine whether the OTA update is required based on the conditions as defined in the claim, and can manually determine whether to perform the update to the remains vehicles based on the condition as defined in the claim. Thus these claim limitations fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A.
Under Prong 2, Step 2A:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements
“a computing device”, “one or more processors”, “a memory”,
“receiving vehicle information including a vehicle number [[and]] location information of the vehicle, and a parking state of the vehicle;”
“…the preset update environment including a geofence area set for each vehicle;” and
“transmitting, based on a determination that the OTA update is required, an OTA update request for the vehicle software for[[ a]] the vehicle having the vehicle number to an OTA server,”
“… [the OTA update is initially performed on a subset of vehicles among a plurality of vehicles], …, [the update is performed on remaining vehicles among the plurality of vehicle].”
The computing device, processors and memory are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer or computer component performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The “receiving” and “transmitting” processes are insignificant extra-solution activity such as gathering and transmitting data, according to MPEP 2106.05(g); thus, not indicative of an integration into a practical application. “…the preset update environment including a geofence area set for each vehicle;” as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). “… [the OTA update is initially performed on a subset of vehicles among a plurality of vehicles], …, [the update is performed on remaining vehicles among the plurality of vehicle].” Is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Under Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements, the computing device, processors and memory are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer component) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component. “receiving …;” and “transmitting …” are insignificant extra-solution activity such as gathering and transmitting data which is recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). “…the preset update environment including a geofence area set for each vehicle;” as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). “… [the OTA update is initially performed on a subset of vehicles among a plurality of vehicles], …, [the update is performed on remaining vehicles among the plurality of vehicle].” Is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and does not constitute an inventive concept. see MPEP § 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
With respect to claim 1, This claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directed to a fleet server (system) under Step 1.
This claim recites a fleet server to implement a method that is disclosed in claim 10 and therefore recites the same abstract idea as claim 10, please see the office action analysis regarding claim 10.
Claim 1 recites more additional elements that are not recited in claim 10, i.e. “A fleet server”, and “a communication interface”, but these elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer component) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component.
With respect to claim 20, This claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directed to A non-transitory computer-readable medium (product) under Step 1.
This claim recites A non-transitory computer-readable medium to implement a method that is disclosed in claim 10 and therefore recites the same abstract idea as claim 10, please see the office action analysis regarding claim 10.
Claim 20 recites more additional elements that are not recited in claim 10, i.e. “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program” and “a computer”, but these elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer or computer component) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component.
With respect to claims 3 and 12, “wherein the preset update environment further includes a vehicle number for each vehicle, update status information indicating whether an update is required, and update schedule information including an update schedule, and
wherein determining whether the OTA update is required includes determining that the OTA update is required, based on the update status information indicating that the update is required” further defines the determining limitation of the claims 1 and 10 respectively by further defining the information based on which the determination is made, and is the same mental process. E.g. the user can manually determine whether the OTA update is required based on the information as defined in the claim.
With respect to claims 4 and 13, “wherein the geofence area is a garage area.” as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
With respect to claims 5 and 14, “wherein the geofence area is an area expanded from a boundary of a garage area by a predetermined distance.” as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
With respect to claims 6 and 15, “wherein the vehicle software is safety-related firmware that is updated based on the vehicle being stationary.” as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
With respect to claims 7 and 16, “wherein the OTA update request is transmitted to [[an]] the OTA server,
wherein the OTA server transmits a latest version of the vehicle software to the vehicle having the vehicle number, and
wherein the vehicle having the vehicle number is configured to update the vehicle software from a prior version to the latest version.”
Wherein the “transmits” and “transmitted” processes are insignificant extra-solution activity such as transmitting data which is recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). “update the vehicle software from a prior version to the latest version” is like retrieving and storing data which is insignificant extra-solution activity and is recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). The OTA server and the vehicle are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer system) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer system.
With respect to claims 8 and 17, “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to block ”
as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind. E.g. the user can manually make the decision, i.e. do not transmit the OTA update request based on the update status information.
With respect to claims 9 and 18, “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to
receive
transmit ”
the “receive” and “transmit” processes are insignificant extra-solution activity such as gathering and transmitting data which is recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
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 of this title, 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, 7, 10, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAUSHI et al. (US 20180024826 A1, hereinafter “CAUSHI”) in view of Sharma et al. (US 20230094805 A1, hereinafter “Sharma”) and Silakov et al. (US 11768672 B1, hereinafter “Silakov”).
With respect to claim 1 (Currently Amended), CAUSHI discloses A fleet server configured to perform a software update for a vehicle based on geofence (e.g. Fig. 2, 202 In-Vehicle Software Update Server), comprising:
a communication interface;
one or more processors; and
a memory (e.g. para [0030], “… the computing platform 104 may communicate with the IVSU 202 via the network 156 to establish an account. ... The IVSU 202 may receive these communications from the vehicles 102, and may maintain a data store of the hardware configurations and software (e.g., firmware, etc.) versions linked to identifiers of the vehicles 102, e.g., linked to VIN of the vehicle 102. The IVSU 202 may further maintain a data store of the stored region identifier 228 defining the previously-determined region 210 associated with the vehicle 102.” The paragraph indicates that the sever IVSU comprises a communication interface, one or more processors, and a memory)
receive, (e.g. para [0030], “… the computing platform 104 may send the IVSU 202 the interrogator log 212 that includes information identifying the specific vehicle 102 and information related to a current software version of the controllers of the vehicle 102. …” para [0028], “… The interrogator log 212 may include information identifying the specific vehicle 102 as well as one or more of the vehicle controllers 148 using parameters and values such as, but not limited to, controller name, controller serial number, VIN, hardware part number, …”), [[and]] location information of the vehicle, and [a parking state of the vehicle] (e.g. Fig. 3, steps A-D, wherein region reads on location information),
determine the preset update environment including a geofence area set for each vehicle (e.g. Fig. 4, steps A-D, para [0048], “… the IVSU 202 determines the software updates 220 and creates the instructions 216 at time index (D). …”), and
transmit, based on the vehicle having the vehicle number, through the communication interface to an OTA server (e.g. Fig. 4, Step B to Step E. para [0046], “At time index (B), the computing platform 104 sends an update request, e.g., sends the interrogator log 212, to the IVSU 202. …” para [0050], “The IVSU 202 sends the instructions 216 to the vehicle 102 at time index (E). …”),
wherein the one or more processors is configured to determine the OTA update is required based on (i) the location information of the vehicle indicating that the vehicle is located within the geofence area (e.g. para [0047], “ At time index (C), the IVSU 202 determines the region 210 associated with the vehicle 102 based on the current region identifier 230 maintained in the data store in association with an identifier of the vehicle 102. Using the current region identifier 230 and the RSDN data 226, the region receiver 222 of the IVSU 202 may determine which regional software delivery network 204 is intended to serve the software updates 220 for the vehicle 102.” Wherein region reads on geofence area) and [(ii) the parking state of the vehicle being parking], and
CAUSHI does not appear to explicitly disclose
(wherein the one or more processors is configured to determine the OTA update is required based on (i) the location information of the vehicle indicating that the vehicle is located within the geofence area) and (ii) the parking state of the vehicle being parking, and
wherein the OTA update is initially performed on a subset of vehicles among a plurality of vehicles, and, based on a determination that a problem has not occurred in the subset of vehicles for a predetermined time, the update is performed on remaining vehicles among the plurality of vehicle.
However, in analogous art, Sharma discloses
(wherein the one or more processors is configured to determine the OTA update is required based on (i) the location information of the vehicle indicating that the vehicle is located within the geofence area) and (ii) the parking state of the vehicle being parking (e.g. para [0007], “Determining that the at least one vehicle operating condition allows the firmware update may comprise determining that a parking brake of the vehicle is engaged.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of CAUSHI with the invention of Sharma because it provides techniques for safe over-the-air update of electronic control units in vehicles. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for safe over-the-air update of electronic control units in vehicles as suggested by Sharma (see Abstract, para [0134, 0142]).
CAUSHI as modified by Sharma does not appear to explicitly disclose
wherein the OTA update is initially performed on a subset of vehicles among a plurality of vehicles, and, based on a determination that a problem has not occurred in the subset of vehicles for a predetermined time, the update is performed on remaining vehicles among the plurality of vehicle.
However, this is taught in analogous art, Silakov (e.g. Fig.3, Fig. 4. Col 6, lines 4-11, “In one aspect, wave schedules may indicate when each update wave should be started (e.g., with which latency from an update detection) and/or the time latency between each update wave. …”. Col 6, lines 45-54, “In some aspects, when an updated instance or node is determined to have a health (e.g., functionality or performance) issue, update controller 104 automatically cancels the next update wave. In one aspect, user 402 may set up a threshold amount (or percent) of nodes and/or instances with such issues after which the current update installation is stopped and the next waves are cancelled. In one aspect, before launching next update wave, the controller performs a “health check” to ensure that current (and previous) update went fine.”. Col 6, lines 55-58, “Health checks may be performed by update controller 104 once an update has been completed on a node or after a some predefined time.” wherein updating computing nodes is analogous to updating software on vehicles, hence Silakov renders the claim feature obvious.)
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 invention of Silakov because it provides techniques for automatic user-controlled deployment of software updates.. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for automatic user-controlled deployment of software updates as suggested by Silakov (see col 1, lines 36-57).
With respect to claim 7 (Currently Amended), CAUSHI as modified by Sharma and Silakov discloses The fleet server of claim 1, CAUSHI further discloses
wherein the OTA server transmits a latest version of the vehicle software to the vehicle having the vehicle number (e.g. Fig. 4, step G, wherein the RSDN reads on OTA server), and
wherein the vehicle having the vehicle number is configured to update the vehicle software from a prior version to the latest version (e.g. Fig. 4, step H).
Sharma discloses wherein the OTA update request is transmitted to [[an]] the OTA server (e.g. Fig. 10A, step 1220. For motivation to combine, please refer to office action regarding claim 1 above).
With respect to claim 10 (Currently Amended), it is directed to a method disclosed in claim 1, please see the rejections directed to claim 1 above which also cover the limitations recited in claim 10.
With respect to claim 16 (Currently Amended), it recites same features as claim 7, and is rejected for the same reason.
With respect to claim 20 (Currently Amended), it is directed to A non-transitory computer-readable medium to implement the method disclosed in claim 1, please see the rejections directed to claim 1 above which also cover the limitations recited in claim 20. The memory storing instructions of claim 1 reads on non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program of claim 20.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAUSHI in view of Sharma and Silakov as applied to claims 1 and 10 respectively, in further view of WITHUN et al. (US 20200117438 A1, hereinafter “WITHUN”).
With respect to claim 3 (Currently Amended), CAUSHI as modified by Sharma and Silakov discloses The fleet server of claim 1, CAUSHI discloses wherein the preset update environment further includes a vehicle number for each vehicle (e.g. Fig. 2, Interrogator Log 212, para [0028] “… The interrogator log 212 may include information identifying the specific vehicle 102 … such as, but not limited to, controller name, controller serial number, VIN, hardware part number, …”),
Sharma discloses
update status information indicating whether an update is required (e.g. para [0127], “Based on the determination made in step 1210, at step 1220, the OEM server sends a firmware update message (for “ECM_123”) to the OTA update server 800. The firmware update message includes both an ECU firmware update and a list of vehicle identifiers associated with the OTA update server 800 and which are to receive the ECU firmware update. …” For motivation to combine, please refer to office action regarding claim 1 above), and update schedule information including an update schedule,
wherein determining whether the OTA update is required includes determining that the OTA update is required, based on the update status information indicating that the update is required(e.g. para [0127] as cited above, For motivation to combine, please refer to office action regarding claim 1 above),
CAUSHI as modified by Sharma and Silakov does not appear to explicitly disclose
and update schedule information including an update schedule,
and a current time being included in the update schedule.
However, this is taught in analogous art, WITHUN (e.g. para [0035], “If so, then the vehicle 102 may further confirm whether the current time is within the times allowed for installation of software updates 116. …” wherein times allowed for installation of software updates indicates update schedule).
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 invention of WITHUN because it provides techniques for simplifying scheduling of vehicle operations such as software updates. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for simplifying scheduling of vehicle operations such as software updates as suggested by WITHUN (see para [0001-0005]).
With respect to claim 12 (Currently Amended), it recites same features as claim 3, and is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAUSHI in view of Sharma and Silakov as applied to claims 1 and 10 respectively, in further view of LOPEZ et al. (US 20230333838 A1, hereinafter “LOPEZ”).
With respect to claim 4, CAUSHI as modified by Sharma and Silakov discloses The fleet server of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the geofence area is a garage area. However, this is taught in analogous art, LOPEZ (e.g. para [0058], “The computers ECU1, ECU2, ECU3 can be updated in a garage. The updating of
software in a garage fulfills a specific procedure (case 1 of FIG. 1) during which the operator becomes responsible for the vehicle with which they have been entrusted. …”)
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 invention of LOPEZ because it provides techniques for updating vehicle software that save time and enhance security. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for updating vehicle software that save time and enhance security as suggested by LOPEZ (see para [0029]).
With respect to claim 13, it recites same features as claim 4, and is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAUSHI in view of Sharma and Silakov as applied to claims 1 and 10 respectively, in further view of AUST (US 20200125355 A1, hereinafter “AUST”).
With respect to claim 5, CAUSHI as modified by Sharma and Silakov discloses The fleet server of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the geofence area is an area expanded from a boundary of a garage area by a predetermined distance. However, this is taught in analogous art, AUST (e.g. para [0004], “… In the second related art, a condition for software update by wireless communication is that a vehicle is present at a predetermine location such as near home (home parking, for example), a dealer, a repair shop, or the like.. …” wherein near home parking reads on an area expanded from a boundary of a garage area by a predetermined distance.)
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 invention of AUST because it improves the security of OTA software update for a vehicle. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of improving the security of OTA software update for a vehicle as suggested by AUST (see para [0074]).
With respect to claim 14, it recites same features as claim 5, and is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAUSHI in view of Sharma and Silakov as applied to claims 1 and 10 respectively, in further view of ISHIKAWA et al. (US 20240069893 A1, hereinafter “ISHIKAWA”).
With respect to claim 6, CAUSHI as modified by Sharma and Silakov discloses The fleet server of claim 1, Sharma discloses … that is updated based on the vehicle being stationary (e.g. para [0007], “Determining that the at least one vehicle operating condition allows the firmware update may comprise determining that a parking brake of the vehicle is engaged.”), but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the vehicle software is safety-related firmware (that is updated based on the vehicle being stationary).
However, in analogous art, ISHIKAWA discloses wherein the vehicle software is safety-related firmware (e.g. para [0051], “… More particularly, when the approval request signal requests approval for an update process for software (e.g. software
about safety) for which early update is recommended, …. Alternatively, the OTA center 500 may determine a reception period based on the status of the target vehicle. For example, when the user is driving to park the target vehicle, the OTA center 500 may extend the reception period to allow the user to make a reply after parking is completed... …”)
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 invention of ISHIKAWA because it improves the convenience for the user of OTA software update for a vehicle. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of improving the convenience for the user of OTA software update for a vehicle as suggested by ISHIKAWA (see para [0075]).
With respect to claim 15, it recites same features as claim 6, and is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAUSHI in view of Sharma, Silakov and WITHUN as applied to claims 3 and 12 respectively, in further view of Patil (US 10437581 B1, hereinafter “Patil”).
With respect to claim 8 (Currently Amended), CAUSHI as modified by Sharma, Silakov and WITHUN discloses The fleet server of claim 3, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to block However, this is taught in analogous art, Patil (e.g. col 17 line 26 to col 18 line 13 “… For example, the platform application 138 can create a withhold command 166 that identifies the M2M device 102B and commands
the firmware scheduler server 170 to prohibit the scheduling of a firmware update by instructing the firmware scheduler server 170 not to send the firmware update
request 178 to the FOTA server 180 until instructed by the platform application 138. …”)
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 invention of Patil because it can help to prevent and/or mitigate potential congestion of the network 124 by disallowing
firmware updates to multiple M2M devices 102 unless certain conditions are met (e.g., exceeding the usage threshold 158). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of helping to prevent and/or mitigate potential congestion of the network 124 by disallowing firmware updates to multiple M2M devices 102 unless certain conditions are met (e.g., exceeding the usage threshold 158) as suggested by Patil (see col 17 line 26 to col 18 line 13).
With respect to claim 17, it recites same features as claim 8, and is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAUSHI in view of Sharma and Silakov as applied to claims 1 and 10 respectively, in further view of KOTANI et al. (US 20150113520 A1, hereinafter “KOTANI”).
With respect to claim 9 (Currently Amended), CAUSHI as modified by Sharma and Silakov discloses The fleet server of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to
receive However, this is taught in analogous art, KOTANI (e.g. para [0049], “… After that, the update server 22 receives from the in-vehicle equipment 23 the configuration information after applying the update software, …, and when deciding that the update of the software has failed, the update server 22 instructs the in-vehicle equipment 23 to roll back the update processing.”)
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 invention of KOTANI because he success or failure in the update of the software is decided by the update server 22, a reliability of the ECU 24 after the update is improved and any defect of the ECU 24 after the update may be prevented beforehand. Further, since the update server 22 selects the appropriate update software, a load for the ECU 24 and the in-vehicle equipment 23 caused by the update of the software of each ECU 24 of the automobile 21 may be reduced. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of improving reliability of the ECU 24 after the update and reducing load for the ECU 24 and the in-vehicle equipment 23 caused by the update of the software of each ECU 24 of the automobile as suggested by KOTANI (see para [0051]).
With respect to claim 18, it recites same features as claim 9, and is rejected for the same reason.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
At p1 under title “Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101” to p2 first paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that the amended claims do not recite a judicial exception. Particularly, at p1 last to p2 first paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “These features recite complex network coordination and telematics processing that cannot be practically performed in the human mind. The claimed operations involve monitoring dynamic location data against geofences for a plurality of vehicles, verifying machine states (parking status), and managing a closed-loop verification process for software deployment (sample vs. remaining)-all of which require specialized server functionality and real-time communication with an OTA server beyond mental processes.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, receiving data and transmitting data through a communication interface are insignificant extra-solution activities which are recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). Determining if an update is required based on received data as defined in the claim is mental process, because human can manually determine if an update is required based on the received the data as defined in the claim. The claimed system/computer is merely used as a tool to implement the identified abstract idea. Thus, these claim features are mental processes with additional elements which are either insignificant extra-solution activities or merely used as a tool to implement the identified abstract idea.
At p2 second paragraph to p3 first paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “even assuming the claims involve "mental processes," as asserted by the Office Action, under Prong Two, the claims integrate the concept into a practical application.” Particularly, at p2 last to p3 first paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “These features enable safe, automatic remote management of firmware without human intervention or physical service center visits.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, as explained above, these claim features are mental processes with additional elements which are either insignificant extra-solution activities or merely used as a tool to implement the identified abstract idea. The “safe, automatic remote management of firmware without human intervention or physical service center visits” is the benefit of using existing technology including computer and communication networks, wherein the existing technology is not affected, i.e. they do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
At p3 second paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “These operations are not generic computer functions; they represent a logical structure and process that improves the functioning of fleet maintenance technology by incorporating a safety- verified, staged update loop. This approach enhances the reliability of mass software deployment and optimizes fleet uptime-technical improvements that cannot be achieved through conventional manual methods or mental processes.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, these operations can be accomplished/implemented on any existing computer with software developed with the existing software technology, i.e. they are generic computer functions. A safety-verified, staged update loop is a mental process, because human designs and implements the safety-verified, staged update loop. Even if the functioning of fleet maintenance is improved and the fleet uptime is optimized, the improvement and the optimization are due to the mental process and the benefit of using the existing computer and communication network technology, and the existing computer and communication network technology is not affected.
At p3 third paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued “Accordingly, the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application that improves a technological process-automated OTA fleet maintenance-consistent with Enfish and the reasoning in Ex parte Desjardins.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, as explained above, the claims do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. Enfish and Ex parte Desjardins cases are not applicable. Regarding Enfish, its self-referential data table was a data table of the memory controller of the computer itself and thus the improvement was to the computer itself. By contrast, in the instant application, nothing of the computer itself is being altered, it functions as it ordinarily would and is merely used as a tool to perform the instant claimed functionalities. Regarding Ex parte Desjardins, it provides improvements as to how the machine learning model itself operates, including training a machine learning model to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks to overcome the problem of “catastrophic forgetting” encountered in continual learning systems. The instant claims do not recite any feature similar to those of Enfish or Ex parte Desjardins.
At p3 fourth and fifth paragraphs of the Remarks, Applicant argued that the claims amount to significantly more and any alleged abstract idea. Particularly, at p3 fifth paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “However, the combination of features-including the structurally integrated system components (fleet server, communication interface, OTA server) functioning to execute a conditional update based on simultaneous geofence and parking state verification, followed by a time-dependent problem verification step on a subset of vehicles-is not well-understood, routine, or conventional. These operations recite specialized telematics control and risk-mitigation logic, which go beyond generic computer implementation. Accordingly, the claims amount to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, the system components, fleet server, communication interface, and OTA server are cited as generic computer or computer/software components and are merely used as tools to implement the identified abstract idea. The conditional update based on simultaneous geofence and parking state verification, and a time-dependent problem verification are mental processes because human can manually perform the tasks. Thus, the additional claim elements do not amount to significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
At p3 sixth paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “For these reasons, amended claim 1 is not "directed to" an abstract idea and, even if it is, the claim integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application that involves OTA vehicle software update technology and recites "significantly more" than any alleged abstract idea. Independent claims 10 and 20 are similarly directed, as are their dependent claims. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections under § 101.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, as explained above, amended claim 1 is abstract idea without significantly more. Similarly claims 10 and 20 are abstract idea without significantly more. Even viewed as a whole, the claims do not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
At p4 to p5 third paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued with respect to art rejections that the cited references do not disclose the new amendment features. These arguments are moot upon new ground of rejections made in the office action above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zengpu Wei whose telephone number is 571-270-1302. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8:00AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bradley Teets, can be reached on 571-272-3338. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
/ZENGPU WEI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2197
/BRADLEY A TEETS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2197