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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on 06/17/2026. Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 7, 8, 13 and 18-20 are independent claims. Claim 9 is canceled. This Office Action is made Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
3. Claims 8, 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 8 recites the limitation “the update data” in “… transmitting the update data and the hash value calculated for the update data” in the last limitation. It’s not clear to the examiner which update data it’s referring to, where it’s the first update data being transmitted by a streaming manner or the update data transmitted by a storage manner. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 10-12 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their independent claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claims 1, 7, 8, 13 and 18-20 are corresponding to one of four statutory categories including method, system, and method respectively under step 1.
The claim 1 recites “an onboard communication system comprising: a center device that is configured to transmit update data as a distribution package by a streaming manner to an electronic control unit installed in a vehicle; a master device that is installed in the vehicle and is configured to receive the distribution package and transfer the update data to the electronic control unit, wherein, in the streaming manner, the master device transfers at least a portion of the update data to the electronic control unit while receiving the distribution package from the center device; and the electronic control unit that is configured to write the update data transferred from the master device to a storage unit, wherein the center device also transmits a hash value calculated for the update data to the master device, the electronic control unit calculates a hash value for the update data and transmits the hash value to the master device, the master device compares the hash value transmitted from the center device with the hash value transmitted from the electronic control unit to verify integrity of the update data, and the master device issues an installation instruction to the electronic control unit to write the update data to the storage unit when the integrity is verified and issues a rollback instruction when the integrity is not verified”.
The claim 7 recites “an onboard communication system comprising: a center device that is configured to transmit update data as a distribution package by a streaming manner to an electronic control unit installed in a vehicle; a master device that is configured to receive the distribution package and transfer the update data to the electronic control unit; and the electronic control unit that is configured to write the update data transferred from the master device to a storage unit, wherein the center device also transmits a hash value calculated for the update data to the master device, and the master device calculates a hash value for each predetermined data size for the update data to obtain a hash value for a whole update data while receiving the distribution package from the center device, and compares the hash value with the hash value transmitted from the center device to verify integrity of the update data, and the master device issues an installation instruction to the electronic control unit to write the update data to the storage unit when the integrity is verified and issues a rollback instruction when the integrity is not verified”.
The claim 8 recites “a center device comprising: a communication interface; one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the center device to: when transmitting update data to an electronic control unit installed in a vehicle by a streaming manner, transmit a hash value calculated for the update data; when transmitting a plurality of update data to a plurality of electronic control units installed in the vehicle, transmit a plurality of hash values calculated for the respective update data; and when transmitting update data to a part of the plurality of electronic control units by a storage manner, transmit the update data and the hash value calculated for the update data”.
The claim 13 recites “a vehicle-side system comprising: a master device that is installed in a vehicle and is configured to receive a distribution package, which includes update data and is transmitted from a center device by a streaming manner; and an electronic control unit that is installed in the vehicle and is configured to write the update data transferred from the master device to a storage portion, wherein, in the streaming manner, the master device transfers at least a portion of the update data to the electronic control unit while receiving the distribution package from the center device; wherein the master device receives a hash value calculated for the update data and transmitted by the center device, the electronic control unit calculates a hash value for the update data and transmits the hash value to the master device, the master device compares the hash value transmitted from the center device with the hash value transmitted from the electronic control unit to verify integrity of the update data, and the master device issues an installation instruction to the electronic control unit to write the update data to the storage portion when the integrity is verified and issues a rollback instruction when the integrity is not verified”.
The claim 18 recites “a vehicle-side system comprising: a master device that is installed in a vehicle and is configured to receive update data transmitted by a streaming manner from a center device as a distribution package; and an electronic control unit that is installed in the vehicle and is configured to write the update data transferred from the master device to a storage portion, wherein the center device transmits a hash value calculated for the update data to the master device, the master device receives a hash value calculated for the update data by the center device, calculates a hash value for each predetermined data size for the update data to obtain a hash value for a whole update data while receiving the distribution package from the center device, and compares the hash value with the hash value transmitted from the center device to verify integrity of the update data, and the master device issues an installation instruction to the electronic control unit to write the update data to the storage unit when the integrity is verified and issues a rollback instruction when the integrity is not verified”.
The claim 19 recites “a method for verifying update data of onboard communication comprising: when a center device transmits update data by a streaming manner to an electronic control unit installed in a vehicle, transferring distribution package to the electronic control unit when a master device installed in the vehicle receives the update data as the distribution package wherein, in the streaming manner, a master device installed in the vehicle transfers at least a portion of the update data to the electronic control unit while receiving the distribution package from the center device, by the center device, transmitting, by the center device, a hash value calculated for the update data to the master device, transmitting, by the electronic control unit, a hash value calculated for the update data to the master device, verifying, by the master device, integrity of the update data by comparing the hash value transmitted from the center device with the hash value transmitted from the electronic control unit, and issuing an installation instruction, by the master device, to the electronic control unit to write the update data to a storage unit when the integrity is verified and issuing a rollback instruction when the integrity is not verified”.
The claim 20 recites “a method for verifying update data of onboard communication comprising, when a center device transmits update data by a streaming manner to an electronic control unit installed in a vehicle, transferring a distribution package to the electronic control unit when a master device installed in the vehicle receives the update data as the distribution package, transmitting by the center device, a hash value calculated for the update data to the master device, receiving, by the master device, a hash value for the update data calculated by the center device, by the master device, obtaining a hash value for a whole update data while receiving the distribution package from the center device by calculating a hash value for each predetermined data size for the update data, verifying by the master device, integrity of the update data by comparing the hash value with the hash value transmitted from the center device, and issuing an installation instruction to the electronic control unit to write the update data to a storage unit when the integrity is verified and issuing a rollback instruction when the integrity is not verified”.
The limitation of the claims 1, 7, 8, 13 and 18-20 of “the electronic control unit calculates a hash value for the update data,”(claim 1), “the master device calculates a hash value for each predetermined data size for the update data to obtain a hash value for a whole update data” (claim 7), “a hash value calculated for the update data to an electronic control unit installed in a vehicle” (claim 8), “a hash value calculated for the update data by the center device, the electronic control unit calculates a hash value for the update data”(claim 13), “the master device calculates a hash value for each predetermined data size for the update data to obtain a hash value for a whole update data,” (claim 18), “a hash value calculated for the update data to the master device“(claim 19) and “a hash value for the update data calculated by the center device” and “obtaining, by the master device, a hash value for a whole update data by calculating a hash value for each predetermined data size for the update data” (claim 20) as drafted, is a mathematical operation that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “calculating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may calculate a hash value for the update data with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operations” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 7, 13 and 18-20 of “the master device compares the hash value transmitted from the center device with the hash value transmitted from the electronic control unit to verify integrity of the update data” (claim 1), “compares the hash value with the hash value transmitted from the center device to verify integrity of the update data” (claim 7), “the master device compares the hash value transmitted from the center device with the hash value transmitted from the electronic control unit to verify integrity of the update data” (claim 13), “compares the hash value with the hash value transmitted from the center device to verify integrity of the update data” (claim 18), “verifying, by the master device, integrity of the update data by comparing the hash value transmitted from the center device with the hash value transmitted from the electronic control unit” (claim 19), and ” verifying, by the master device, integrity of the update data by comparing the hash value with the hash value transmitted from the center device” (claim 20) as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “comparing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may compare the hash value transmitted from the center device with the hash value transmitted from the electronic control unit to verify integrity of the update data with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1, 7, 8 19 and 20 recite additional elements such as “a center device that is configured to transmit update data as a distribution package by a streaming manner to an electronic control unit installed in a vehicle”. “a center device that is configured to transmit update data as a distribution package by a streaming manner to an electronic control unit installed in a vehicle”, “a center device that transmits update data by a streaming manner to an electronic control unit installed in a vehicle”, “when a center device transmits update data by a streaming manner to an electronic control unit installed in a vehicle,” and “when a center device transmits update data by a streaming manner to an electronic control unit installed in a vehicle,”
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1, 7, 8 19 and 20 recite additional elements such as “the master device transfers at least a portion of the update data to the electronic control unit while receiving the distribution package from the center device (claim 1)”, “obtain a hash value for a whole update data while receiving the distribution package from the center device (claim 7)”, “when transmitting update data to an electronic control unit installed in a vehicle by a streaming manner, transmit a hash value calculated for the update data (claim 8)”, “the master device transfers at least a portion of the update data to the electronic control unit while receiving the distribution package from the center device (claim 13)”, “obtain a hash value for a whole update data while receiving the distribution package from the center device (claim 18)”, “in the streaming manner, a master device installed in the vehicle transfers at least a portion of the update data to the electronic control unit while receiving the distribution package from the center device (claim 19)” and “obtaining a hash value for a whole update data while receiving the distribution package from the center device (claim 20)”
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1, 7, 13, 18, 19 and 20 recite additional elements such as “a master device that is installed in the vehicle and is configured to receive the distribution package and transfer the update data to the electronic control unit”, “a master device that is configured to receive the distribution package and transfer the update data to the electronic control unit”, “a master device that is installed in a vehicle and is configured to receive a distribution package, which includes update data and is transmitted from a center device by a streaming manner;”, “a master device that is installed in a vehicle and is configured to receive update data transmitted by a streaming manner from a center device as a distribution package;”, “transferring distribution package to the electronic control unit when a master device installed in the vehicle receives the update data as the distribution package” and “transferring a distribution package to the electronic control unit when a master device installed in the vehicle receives the update data as the distribution package”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1, 4, 7, 11 and 13 and 18 recite additional elements such as “the electronic control unit that is configured to write the update data transferred from the master device to a storage unit”, “the master device transfers the update data to an electronic control unit supporting the storage manner”, “the electronic control unit that is configured to write the update data transferred from the master device to a storage unit”, “when the update data is transmitted by a storage manner for a part of the plurality of electronic control units; the center device transmits the update data”, “an electronic control unit that is installed in the vehicle and is configured to write the update data transferred from the master device to a storage portion” and “an electronic control unit that is installed in the vehicle and is configured to write the update data transferred from the master device to a storage portion”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data storing under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1, 7, 8, 11, 13, 18, 19 and 20 recite additional elements such as “wherein the center device also transmits a hash value calculated for the update data to the master device”, “wherein the center device also transmits a hash value calculated for the update data to the master device”, “the center device transmits the hash value calculated for the update data”, “a center device that transmits a hash value calculated for the update data to an electronic control unit installed in a vehicle”, “wherein the master device receives a hash value calculated for the update data and transmitted by the center device”, “wherein the center device transmits a hash value calculated for the update data to the master device”, “transmitting, by the center device, a hash value calculated for the update data to the master device”, and “transmitting, by the center device, a hash value calculated for the update data to the master device”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1, 7, 11, 13, 18, 19 and 20 recite additional elements such as “the master device issues an installation instruction to the electronic control unit to write the update data to the storage unit when the integrity is verified and (claim 1)”, “the master device issues an installation instruction to the electronic control unit to write the update data to the storage unit when the integrity is verified and (claim 7)”, “the master device issues an installation instruction to the electronic control unit to write the update data to the storage portion when the integrity is verified (claim 13)”, “the master device issues an installation instruction to the electronic control unit to write the update data to the storage unit when the integrity is verified (claim 18)”, “issuing an installation instruction, by the master device, to the electronic control unit to write the update data to a storage unit when the integrity is verified (claim 19)” and “issuing an installation instruction to the electronic control unit to write the update data to a storage unit when the integrity is verified (claim 20)”
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data storing under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1, 7, 11, 13, 18, 19 and 20 recite additional elements such as “issues a rollback instruction when the integrity is not verified (claim 1)”, “issues a rollback instruction when the integrity is not verified (claim 7)”, “issues a rollback instruction when the integrity is not verified (claim 13)”, “issues a rollback instruction when the integrity is not verified (claim 18)”, “issuing a rollback instruction when the integrity is not verified (claim 19)” and “issuing a rollback instruction when the integrity is not verified (claim 20)”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to apply it under MPEP § 2106.05(f): Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1, 13, 18, 19 and 20 recite additional elements such as “the electronic control unit transmits the hash value to the master device”, “the electronic control unit transmits the hash value to the master device”, “the master device receives a hash value calculated for the update data by the center device”, “transmitting, by the electronic control unit, a hash value calculated for the update data to the master device” and “receiving, by the master device, a hash value for the update data calculated by the center device”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 2, 4, 8, 14 and 16 recite additional elements such as “wherein the center device transmits a plurality of hash values calculated for each update data to the master device when a plurality of update data is respectively written to a plurality of electronic control units, the master device transfers each of the update data to each of the electronic control units”, “when update data is transmitted to a part of the plurality of electronic control units in a storage manner, the center device transmits the update data and the hash value calculated for the update data to the master device”, “wherein when transmitting the update data to each of a plurality of electronic control units, the center device also transmits a plurality of hash values calculated for each update data” and “wherein when the center device transmits a plurality of update data to a plurality of electronic control units, the master device also receives a plurality of hash values calculated and transmitted for each of the update data and transfers each update data to each electronic control unit,”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
The limitation of the claims 2, 4, 14 and 16 of “each of the electronic control units calculates a hash value for the update data and transmits the hash value to the master device” and “the master device calculates a hash value for the update data” as drafted, is a mathematical operation that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “calculating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may calculate a hash value for the update data with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operations” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 2, 4, 14 and 16 of “the master device compares each of the hash values transmitted from the electronic control units with the corresponding hash value transmitted from the center device” and “the master device compares the calculated hash value with the corresponding hash value transmitted from the center device to verify integrity of the update data, and when the integrity of the update data is verified” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “comparing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may compare the hash value transmitted from the center device with the hash value transmitted from the electronic control unit to verify integrity of the update data with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 3, 10,
and 15 recite additional elements such as “wherein a hash value calculated for the plurality of hash values is defined as a high-order hash value, the center device also transmits the high-order hash value to the master device, and the master device calculates a high-order hash value for the hash values received from the electronic control units, and compares the calculated high-order hash value with the high-order hash value transmitted from the center device”, “wherein the hash value calculated for the plurality of hash values is defined as a high-order hash value, and the high-order hash value is also transmitted” and “wherein the master device also receives a hash value that is calculated and transmitted by the center device for the hash values as a high-order hash value, and when the master device calculates a high-order hash value for the plurality of hash values received from the plurality of electronic control units, the master device compares the calculated high-order hash value with the high-order hash value transmitted from the center device”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 5 and 12 recite additional elements such as “wherein the center device adds the hash value to download metadata including at least an address of a data acquisition destination, a data name, a data size, an ID of an electronic control unit to which the update data is distributed, and information of a data transfer manner, and transmits to the master device”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 6 and 17 recite additional elements such as “a portable information terminal capable of receiving the update data from the center device, wherein the master device is able to receive the update data via the portable information terminal”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Dependent claims 2-6, 10-12 and 14-17 are also similar rejected under same rationale as cited above wherein these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These claims are merely further elaborate the mental process itself or providing additional definition of process which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 2-6, 10-12 and 14-17 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their independent claims 1, 8 and 13 respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyama (US PGPub 20190163466), in view of Hirota (US PGPub 20190268144).
As per Claim 8, Kiyama teaches of a center device comprising: a communication interface; one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the center device to: when transmitting update data to an electronic control unit installed in a vehicle by a streaming manner, transmit a hash value calculated for the update data; (Par 206, “Note that, in the in-vehicle software distribution system 1 according to this embodiment, the hash value comparison processing performed in step S623 of FIG. 14 may also be carried out by software update apparatus 210 installed in the vehicle 20 instead of by the campaign management unit 112 of the telematics center 10 [center device]. In the foregoing case, in the processing performed in step S515 of FIG. 13, in transmitting the update software to the vehicle 20, the telematics center 10 [center device] transmits the update software together with the verification hash value 1247 that was registered in the update software test campaign.” Par 209, “As explained hereinabove, in the in-vehicle software distribution system 1 according to this embodiment, the telematics center 10 which is the in-vehicle software distribution server manages updates to an identical function by means of a campaign (main campaign) and distributes software based on the campaign remotely in target vehicles of the campaign.”)
Kiyama does not specifically teach, however Hirota teaches of when transmitting a plurality of update data to a plurality of electronic control units installed in the vehicle, transmit a plurality of hash values calculated for the respective update data; and (Par 45-46, In the above-described disclosure, the control device stores hash values for the data in association with the encrypted data corresponding to the data. when the hash values associated with encrypted data are verified, since it is possible to verify data without decrypting encrypted data, a time required for verification can be shortened. Par 201, On the other hand, the support device 200 stores hash values for update data calculated using the same hash function as when hash values for original data are calculated. The support device 200 transfers the update data and the hash values to the control devices 100a to 100c. Par 204, For example, hash values for original data are transferred from the control devices 100a to 100c to the support device 200, and the support device 200 may compare the hash values transferred from the control devices 100a to 100c with hash values for update data stored therein.)
when transmitting update data to a part of the plurality of electronic control units by a storage manner, transmit the update data and the hash value calculated for the update data (Par 201, Specifically, the plurality of control devices 100a to 100c store hash values for original data in association with encrypted data in the storages 106a to 106c in advance. On the other hand, the support device 200 stores hash values for update data calculated using the same hash function as when hash values for original data are calculated. The support device 200 transfers the update data and the hash values to the control devices 100a to 100c.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add when transmitting a plurality of update data to a plurality of electronic control units installed in the vehicle, transmit a plurality of hash values calculated for the respective update data; and when transmitting update data to a part of the plurality of electronic control units by a storage manner, transmit the update data and the hash value calculated for the update data, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Kiyama, into that of Hirota because this modification can help ensure the software update integrity and security by verifying for each ECU software update for the vehicle.
As per Claim 11, Kiyama further teaches of the center device according to claim 8, wherein when the update data is transmitted by a storage manner for a part of the plurality of electronic control units, the center device transmits the update data and the hash value calculated for the update data. (Abstract, An in-vehicle software distribution system 1 is configured comprising an in-vehicle software distribution server (telematics center 10) which manages updates to an identical function by means of a campaign for an in-vehicle system (an engine ECU 241, for example) of a plurality of vehicles 20 and distributes software of the campaign remotely to target vehicles, a terminal 30, and a software update apparatus 210 which is mounted in each of the plurality of vehicles 20. Furthermore, in the telematics center 10, a campaign management unit 112 categorizes the campaign target vehicles into groups based on a predetermined criterion and creates a plurality of sub-campaigns which are subordinate to the campaign for each of the categorized groups, and a software distribution unit (an update software distribution unit 113) distributes software remotely to the target vehicles for each of the sub-campaigns. Par 206, Note that, in the in-vehicle software distribution system 1 according to this embodiment, the hash value comparison processing performed in step S623 of FIG. 14 may also be carried out by software update apparatus 210 installed in the vehicle 20 instead of by the campaign management unit 112 of the telematics center 10 [center device]. In the foregoing case, in the processing performed in step S515 of FIG. 13, in transmitting the update software to the vehicle 20, the telematics center 10 [center device] transmits the update software together with the verification hash value 1247 that was registered in the update software test campaign.)
9. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyama (US PGPub 20190163466), in view of Hirota (US PGPub 20190268144), and further in view of Houdek (US Patent 4903194).
As per Claim 10, neither Kiyama nor Hirota specifically teaches, however Houdek teaches of the center device according to claim 8, wherein the hash value calculated for the plurality of hash values is defined as a high-order hash value, and the high-order hash value is also transmitted. (Col 6, lines 1-14, The I/O hash bits from the I/O generate logic 26 are compared with the high order hash bits in the address register 20 by compare logic 27 which for example can be logical and circuits. If the generated hash bits do not compare with the hash bits from the address register 20, an error condition exists and a signal noting that condition is sent to the I/O unit over line 28. This indicates to the IOP that the address sent for the data transfer was invalid. Consequently the data transfer operation is ended. Note that the hash bits by this arrangement not only are used for detecting a boundary crossing error, but enable detection of a WRITE to a READ only area in storage as a storage addressing error.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the hash value calculated for the plurality of hash values is defined as a high-order hash value, and the high-order hash value is also transmitted, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Houdek, into that of Kiyama and Hirota because this modification can help provide superior security and data integrity by enabling faster verification and detection of unauthorized tampering.
10. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyama (US PGPub 20190163466), in view of Hirota (US PGPub 20190268144), in view of Rivas Silva (US PGPub 20180196660).
As per Claim 12, neither Kiyama nor Hirota specifically teaches, however Rivas Silva teaches of the center device according to claim 8, wherein the center device adds a hash value to at least an address of a data acquisition destination, a data name, a data size, an ID of an electronic control unit to which the update data is distributed, and information of a data transfer manner and transmit them. (Par 44, in general, the system for the reprogramming of ECU devices (Electronic Control Units) in vehicles via digital radio, in accordance with the present invention, consists of: means for encrypting audio files with software files for updating or reprogramming ECUs of vehicles generating a first encrypted packet and means to encrypt in parallel files of data and vehicle information files by adding a header with the data referring to the vehicle model (data of the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM), model of the vehicle, vehicle year, vehicle platform [obviously including destination address], ECU identification data (ID), data packet size, software file key, end of file data) and the specific ECU that will be the final recipient of the information, generating a second encrypted packet; means for mixing said first encrypted packet and said second packet encrypted via digital radio technology to be transmitted simultaneously from a radio broadcasting station in digital format. Par 46 and 48, In the preferred embodiment of the invention, the data files with vehicle information files adding a header with data referring to the vehicle model and the specific ECU that will be the final recipient of the information, contain an identification key, data from the original equipment manufacturer (OEM), vehicle model, year of the vehicle, vehicle platform, ECU identification (ID) data, data packet size; key of the software file, end of file data, which make up data packets that are mixed with the audio files.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the center device adds the hash value to download metadata including at least an address of a data acquisition destination, a data name, a data size, an ID of an electronic control unit to which the update data is distributed, and information of a data transfer manner, and transmits to the master device, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Rivas Silva, into that of Kiyama and Hirota because this modification can help verify the software update for the specific ECUs in vehicles by utilizing more specific metadata for the software update data and the target ECUs.
Reasons for Allowance
11. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior-art, Ishikawa (US PGPub 20220276853), in view of Kiyama (US PGPub 20190163466), in view of Hirota (US PGPub 20190268144), in view of Hong (US PGPub 20200183677), and further in view of Murakami (US PGPub 20180145977) failed to disclose of an onboard communication system comprising: a center device that is configured to transmit update data as a distribution package by a streaming manner to an electronic control unit installed in a vehicle; a master device that is installed in the vehicle and is configured to receive the distribution package and transfer the update data to the electronic control unit, wherein, in the streaming manner, the master device transfers at least a portion of the update data to the electronic control unit while receiving the distribution package from the center device; and the electronic control unit that is configured to write the update data transferred from the master device to a storage unit, wherein the center device also transmits a hash value calculated for the update data to the master device, the electronic control unit calculates a hash value for the update data and transmits the hash value to the master device, the master device compares the hash value transmitted from the center device with the hash value transmitted from the electronic control unit to verify integrity of the update data, and the master device issues an installation instruction to the electronic control unit to write the update data to the storage unit when the integrity is verified and issues a rollback instruction when the integrity is not verified, as recited by the independent claim 1.
Regarding Claim 1, the closest prior-art found, Ishikawa, Kiyama, Hirota, Hong and Murakami discloses of an onboard communication system comprising: a center device that is configured to transmit update data as a distribution package by a streaming manner to an electronic control unit installed in a vehicle; a master device that is installed in the vehicle and is configured to receive the distribution package and transfer the update data to the electronic control unit, wherein, in the streaming manner; and the electronic control unit that is configured to write the update data transferred from the master device to a storage unit, wherein the center device also transmits a hash value calculated for the update data to the master device, the electronic control unit calculates a hash value for the update data and transmits the hash value to the master device, the master device compares the hash value transmitted from the center device with the hash value transmitted from the electronic control unit to verify integrity of the update data, and the master device issues an installation instruction to the electronic control unit to write the update data to the storage unit when the integrity is verified and issues a rollback instruction when the integrity is not verified.
The prior-art, Ishikawa, Kiyama, Hirota, Hong and Murakami failed to disclose of an onboard communication system comprising: a center device that is configured to transmit update data as a distribution package by a streaming manner to an electronic control unit installed in a vehicle; a master device that is configured to receive the distribution package and transfer the update data to the electronic control unit; and the electronic control unit that is configured to write the update data transferred from the master device to a storage unit, wherein the center device also transmits a hash value calculated for the update data to the master device, and the master device calculates a hash value for each predetermined data size for the update data to obtain a hash value for a whole update data while receiving the distribution package from the center device, and compares the hash value with the hash value transmitted from the center device to verify integrity of the update data, and the master device issues an installation instruction to the electronic control unit to write the update data to the storage unit when the integrity is verified and issues a rollback instruction when the integrity is not verified, as recited by the independent claim 7.
Regarding Claim 7, the closest prior-art found, Ishikawa, Kiyama, Hirota, Hong and Murakami discloses of an onboard communication system comprising: a center device that is configured to transmit update data as a distribution package by a streaming manner to an electronic control unit installed in a vehicle; a master device that is configured to receive the distribution package and transfer the update data to the electronic control unit; and the electronic control unit that is configured to write the update data transferred from the master device to a storage unit, wherein the center device also transmits a hash value calculated for the update data to the master device, and compares the hash value with the hash value transmitted from the center device to verify integrity of the update data, and the master device issues an installation instruction to the electronic control unit to write the update data to the storage unit when the integrity is verified and issues a rollback instruction when the integrity is not verified,
The prior-art, Ishikawa, Kiyama, Hirota, Hong and Murakami failed to disclose of a vehicle-side system comprising: a master device that is installed in a vehicle and is configured to receive a distribution package, which includes update data and is transmitted from a center device by a streaming manner; and an electronic control unit that is installed in the vehicle and is configured to write the update data transferred from the master device to a storage portion, wherein, in the streaming manner, the master device transfers at least a portion of the update data to the electronic control unit while receiving the distribution package from the center device; wherein the master device receives a hash value calculated for the update data and transmitted by the center device, the electronic control unit calculates a hash value for the update data and transmits the hash value to the master device, the master device compares the hash value transmitted from the center device with the hash value transmitted from the electronic control unit to verify integrity of the update data, and the master device issues an installation instruction to the electronic control unit to write the update data to the storage portion when the integrity is verified and issues a rollback instruction when the integrity is not verified, as recited by the independent claim 13.
Regarding Claim 13, the closest prior-art found, Ishikawa, Kiyama, Hirota, Hong and Murakami discloses of a vehicle-side system comprising: a master device that is installed in a vehicle and is configured to receive a distribution package, which includes update data and is transmitted from a center device by a streaming manner; and an electronic control unit that is installed in the vehicle and is configured to write the update data transferred from the master device to a storage portion; wherein the master device receives a hash value calculated for the update data and transmitted by the center device, the electronic control unit calculates a hash value for the update data and transmits the hash value to the master device, the master device compares the hash value transmitted from the center device with the hash value transmitted from the electronic control unit to verify integrity of the update data, and the master device issues an installation instruction to the electronic control unit to write the update data to the storage portion when the integrity is verified and issues a rollback instruction when the integrity is not verified.
The prior-art, Ishikawa, Kiyama, Hirota, Hong and Murakami failed to disclose of a vehicle-side system comprising: a master device that is installed in a vehicle and is configured to receive update data transmitted by a streaming manner from a center device as a distribution package; and an electronic control unit that is installed in the vehicle and is configured to write the update data transferred from the master device to a storage portion, wherein the center device transmits a hash value calculated for the update data to the master device, the master device receives a hash value calculated for the update data by the center device, calculates a hash value for each predetermined data size for the update data to obtain a hash value for a whole update data while receiving the distribution package from the center device, and compares the hash value with the hash value transmitted from the center device to verify integrity of the update data, and the master device issues an installation instruction to the electronic control unit to write the update data to the storage unit when the integrity is verified and issues a rollback instruction when the integrity is not verified, as recited by the independent claim 18.
Regarding Claim 18, the closest prior-art found, Ishikawa, Kiyama, Hirota, Hong and Murakami discloses of a vehicle-side system comprising: a master device that is installed in a vehicle and is configured to receive update data transmitted by a streaming manner from a center device as a distribution package; and an electronic control unit that is installed in the vehicle and is configured to write the update data transferred from the master device to a storage portion, wherein the center device transmits a hash value calculated for the update data to the master device, the master device receives a hash value calculated for the update data by the center device, calculates a hash value for each predetermined data size for the update data, and compares the hash value with the hash value transmitted from the center device to verify integrity of the update data, and the master device issues an installation instruction to the electronic control unit to write the update data to the storage unit when the integrity is verified and issues a rollback instruction when the integrity is not verified.
The prior-art, Ishikawa, Kiyama, Hirota, Hong and Murakami failed to disclose of a method for verifying update data of onboard communication comprising: when a center device transmits update data by a streaming manner to an electronic control unit installed in a vehicle, transferring distribution package to the electronic control unit when a master device installed in the vehicle receives the update data as the distribution package wherein, in the streaming manner, a master device installed in the vehicle transfers at least a portion of the update data to the electronic control unit while receiving the distribution package from the center device, by the center device, transmitting, by the center device, a hash value calculated for the update data to the master device, transmitting, by the electronic control unit, a hash value calculated for the update data to the master device, verifying, by the master device, integrity of the update data by comparing the hash value transmitted from the center device with the hash value transmitted from the electronic control unit, and issuing an installation instruction, by the master device, to the electronic control unit to write the update data to a storage unit when the integrity is verified and issuing a rollback instruction when the integrity is not verified, as recited by the independent claim 19.
Regarding Claim 19, the closest prior-art found, Ishikawa, Kiyama, Hirota, Hong and Murakami discloses of a method for verifying update data of onboard communication comprising: when a center device transmits update data by a streaming manner to an electronic control unit installed in a vehicle, transferring distribution package to the electronic control unit when a master device installed in the vehicle receives the update data as the distribution package, transmitting, by the center device, a hash value calculated for the update data to the master device, transmitting, by the electronic control unit, a hash value calculated for the update data to the master device, verifying, by the master device, integrity of the update data by comparing the hash value transmitted from the center device with the hash value transmitted from the electronic control unit, and issuing an installation instruction, by the master device, to the electronic control unit to write the update data to a storage unit when the integrity is verified and issuing a rollback instruction when the integrity is not verified.
The prior-art, Ishikawa, Kiyama, Hirota, Hong and Murakami failed to disclose of a method for verifying update data of onboard communication comprising, when a center device transmits update data by a streaming manner to an electronic control unit installed in a vehicle, transferring a distribution package to the electronic control unit when a master device installed in the vehicle receives the update data as the distribution package, transmitting by the center device, a hash value calculated for the update data to the master device, receiving, by the master device, a hash value for the update data calculated by the center device, obtaining, by the master device, a hash value for a whole update data while receiving the distribution package from the center device by calculating a hash value for each predetermined data size for the update data, verifying by the master device, integrity of the update data by comparing the hash value with the hash value transmitted from the center device, and issuing an installation instruction to the electronic control unit to write the update data to a storage unit when the integrity is verified and issuing a rollback instruction when the integrity is not verified, as recited by the independent claim 20.
Regarding Claim 20, the closest prior-art found, Ishikawa, Kiyama, Hirota, Hong and Murakami discloses of a method for verifying update data of onboard communication comprising, when a center device transmits update data by a streaming manner to an electronic control unit installed in a vehicle, transferring a distribution package to the electronic control unit when a master device installed in the vehicle receives the update data as the distribution package, transmitting by the center device, a hash value calculated for the update data to the master device, receiving, by the master device, a hash value for the update data calculated by the center device, verifying by the master device, integrity of the update data by comparing the hash value with the hash value transmitted from the center device, and issuing an installation instruction to the electronic control unit to write the update data to a storage unit when the integrity is verified and issuing a rollback instruction when the integrity is not verified.
However, the prior-art, Ishikawa, Kiyama, Hirota, Hong and Murakami failed to disclose the following subject matter such as “wherein, in the streaming manner, the master device transfers at least a portion of the update data to the electronic control unit while receiving the distribution package from the center device” for Claim 1, “the master device calculates a hash value for each predetermined data size for the update data to obtain a hash value for a whole update data while receiving the distribution package from the center device” for Claim 7, “wherein, in the streaming manner, the master device transfers at least a portion of the update data to the electronic control unit while receiving the distribution package from the center device” for Claim 13, “the update data to obtain a hash value for a whole update data while receiving the distribution package from the center device” for Claim 18, “wherein, in the streaming manner, a master device installed in the vehicle transfers at least a portion of the update data to the electronic control unit while receiving the distribution package from the center device, by the center device, transmitting, by the center device” for Claim 19 and “obtaining, by the master device, a hash value for a whole update data while receiving the distribution package from the center device by calculating a hash value for each predetermined data size for the update data” for Claim 20.
Therefore, the prior-art, Ishikawa, Kiyama, Hirota, Hong and Murakami failed to teach a system of claim 1 and a system of claim 7 and a system of claim 13, a system of claim 18, a method of claim 19 and a method of claim 20 as well as their dependent claims. Thus, claims 1-8 and 10-20 contain allowable subject matter.
12. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
13. Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims 1-8 and 10-20 and their dependent claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the first argument w.r.t 101 Abstract Idea rejection of the remark on pages 15-16 that the amendment to the claims 1, 7 and 18-20 integrate a judicial exception into a practical application, the examiner would like to point out that in order to determine if additional element is integrating the abstract idea into a practical application, 1) The specification should describe the claimed improvement to achieve the desired goal and 2) The claimed improvement should be reflected at least in the additional elements by specifying how the claimed improvement performs the additional element to improve functioning of a computer or existing technical field.
2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field [R-07.2022]
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art.
I. RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS FOR EVALUATING WHETHER ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS INTEGRATE A JUDICIAL EXCEPTION INTO A PRACTICAL APPLICATION
The Supreme Court and Federal Circuit have identified a number of considerations as relevant to the evaluation of whether the claimed additional elements demonstrate that a claim is directed to patent-eligible subject matter. The list of considerations here is not intended to be exclusive or limiting. Additional elements can often be analyzed based on more than one type of consideration and the type of consideration is of no import to the eligibility analysis. Additional discussion of these considerations, and how they were applied in particular judicial decisions, is provided in MPEP § 2106.05(a) through (c) and MPEP § 2106.05(e) through (h).
Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
• An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
14. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 8, 10-12 regarding the prior art rejection on page 16-17 of the remark 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JAE UK JEON whose telephone number is (571)270-3649. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-6pm. 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 on 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.
/JAE U JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights