DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/20/2026 has been entered.
3. Applicant's amendment and response received 02/20/2026, responding to the 10/20/2025 Office Action provided in the rejections of claims 1-8, wherein at least independent claim 1 has been amended. Claims 1, 2 and 4-8 remain pending in the application; which has been fully considered by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments with respect to newly amended independent claim 1 and claims 2, 4-8 on pages 4-8 of the response have been fully considered but they are not persuasive are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection- see Acharya (Art newly made of record), Fang (Art of record) and Glaum (Art of record) as applied below, as they further teach such use.
Specification Objection
5. The disclosure is objected to under 37 CFR 1.71, as being so incomprehensible as to preclude a reasonable search of the prior art by the examiner. For example, the following items are not understood: Claim 1 recites “software-level error” and “hardware malfunction”. The Applicant’s disclosure does not set forth any written description of such “software-level error” or such “hardware malfunction”.
Appropriate correction is required. Applicant is required to submit an amendment which clarifies the disclosure so that the examiner may make a proper comparison of the invention with the prior art.
The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a). 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. Any amendment to the disclosure must be supported by the disclosure as originally filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
7. Claims 1, 2 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
Claim 1 recites “in a case where update of the program has failed due to a software-level error” and “the update reason contained in the received update program, and not based on a hardware malfunction” (emphasis added). Applicant’s disclosure does not set forth any written description and is devoid of such “software-level error” or such “hardware malfunction” hence its meaning is unclear and undefined.
Claims 2 and 4-8 are also rejected for being dependent on rejected base claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VanBlon et al., U.S. Patent No. 10,579,360 (hereinafter VanBlon) in view of Glaum et al., U.S. Patent No. 7,549,042 (hereinafter Glaum) in view of Fang et al., U.S. 2024/0073093 (hereinafter Fang) in view of Acharya et al., U.S. Patent No. 11,914,987 (hereinafter Acharya).
In regards to claim 1, VanBlon teaches:
An in-vehicle device comprising a processor configured to: store a program (column 9, lines 17-21 , see further, the output device 125 may include a component of a smart phone, a personal digital assistant, a television, a table computer, a notebook (laptop) computer, a personal computer, a vehicle dashboard, or the like), (column 3, lines 10-12, see a program product for controlling application updates at an electronic device includes a computer readable storage medium that stores code executable by a processor), (column 3, lines 10-18, see a program product for controlling application updates at an electronic device includes a computer readable storage medium that stores code executable by a processor) and (column 4, lines 1-14, see embodiments may take the form of a program product embodied in one or more computer readable storage devices storing machine-readable code, computer readable code, and/or program code, referred hereafter as code. The storage devices may be tangible, non-transitory, and/or non-transmission. The storage devices may not embody signals. In a certain embodiment, the storage devices only employ signals for accessing code) (emphasis added).
activate the program; and receive an update program (column 21, lines 22-29, see in one embodiment, the update module 225 and/or update controller 115 immediately applies 635 the received update. Immediately applying 635 the received update may include the update controller 115 overriding a previously defined application update policy 160 to install the received update).
and an update reason of the program and update the program with the update program (Fig. 6, Immediately apply update, 635) and (column 13, lines 28-44, see in some embodiments, the update module 225 may analyze the received (or available) update and determine a type or significance of the update. For example, the available update may be a major revision to the application (or a feature thereof), a minor revision, a patch, a security update, and the like. Examples of major revisions include, but are not limited to, service packs, new versions, new baselines, revisions that add or remove functionality, complete rewrites of code, and revisions which may cause incompatibility with interfacing systems. Examples of minor revisions include, but are not limited to, patches, bug fixes, and changes that do not affect the application's Application Programming Interface (“API”). As used herein, a security update may be categorized separately from minor revisions, the security update distinguishable by addressing security vulnerabilities of the updatable application 150, as opposed to other patches or fixes) (emphasis added).
VanBlon doesn't explicitly teach:
in a case where update of the program has failed due to a software-level error occurring after initiating an update process, the processor is configured to activate the program in an activation mode corresponding to the update reason.
However, Glaum teaches such use: (Abstract, see various types of software updates may be applied, and updates may contain executable code and/or data. Following a reboot, an initial program loader determines an update mode, and if updating, boots to a special update loader. The update loader processes update packages to apply the updates. Kernel partition, system partition and reserve section updates may be updated with entire files or binary difference files, with failure handling mechanisms are provided for each type of update) (emphasis added).
VanBlon and Glaum are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, software updates.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teaching of VanBlon and Glaum before him or her, to modify the system of VanBlon to include the teachings of Glaum, as a system for applying custom images, and accordingly it would enhance the system of VanBlon, which is focused on application update control, because that would provide VanBlon with the ability to install software in a failsafe manner, as suggested by Glaum (Abstract, column 5 line 67-column 6, line 1).
VanBlon and Glaum, in particular VanBlon doesn't explicitly teach:
in a case where the update reason is to take measures against a defect of a partial function of the program, the processor is further configured to activate the program in a function restriction mode of restricting the partial function having the defect to be inexecutable.
However, Fang teaches such use: (p. 9, [140], see in certain embodiments, the lost functions may be replaced in part, for example a less capable end point may perform some critical functions of end point Z, allowing continued operation which may be degraded. In certain embodiments, the functionality replacement may be very limited, but still could be important, for example allowing the vehicle to continue operation in a limp-home mode to allow the operator to move the vehicle to a safe location, and/or allowing some functionality).
VanBlon, Glaum and Fang are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, software updates.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teaching of VanBlon, Glaum and Fang before him or her, to modify the system of VanBlon and Glaum, in particular VanBlon to include the teachings of Fang, as a system for providing update zones, and accordingly it would enhance the system of VanBlon, which is focused on application update control, because that would provide VanBlon with the ability to resolve difficulties of updating various networks, as suggested by Fang (p. 9, [140], p. 29, [0270]).
VanBlon, Glaum and Fang, in particular VanBlon doesn't explicitly teach:
the activation mode is selected exclusively based on the update reason contained in the received update program, and not based on a hardware malfunction or loss of communication.
However, Acharya teaches such use (column 20, lines 43-52, see an example flow diagram 700 for performing the software update is illustrated in FIG. 7 . After starting at 702, the agent receives the payload (for performing the software update, such as the delta) at 704, and may receive payload meta data at 706. The agent, such as the master agent, may examine the meta data and the payload in order to determine one or more aspects of the software updates) and (column 22, lines 28-35, see At 728, the agent may receive the status of the update, such as whether the ECU reports that the update has been performed successfully or not. At 730, the agent determines whether there is a failure in the software update. If so, at 734, a rollback is performed depending on policy. Policy may be determined by the agent in one of several ways. In one way, the policy may be included in the meta data received (such as at 706) (emphasis added).
VanBlon, Glaum, Fang, and Acharya are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, software updates.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teaching of VanBlon, Glaum, Fang and Acharya before him or her, to modify the system of VanBlon, Glaum and Fang, in particular VanBlon to include the teachings of Acharya, as a master update system for vehicles, and accordingly it would enhance the system of VanBlon, which is focused on application update control, because that would provide VanBlon with the ability to upgrade software to prevent hacking, as suggested by Acharya (column 22, lines 28-35,column 26, lines 14-35).
In regards to claim 4, VanBlon teaches:
processor is further configured to include a plurality of storage surfaces that store the program (column 4, lines 1-14, see embodiments may take the form of a program product embodied in one or more computer readable storage devices storing machine-readable code, computer readable code, and/or program code, referred hereafter as code. The storage devices may be tangible, non-transitory, and/or non-transmission. The storage devices may not embody signals. In a certain embodiment, the storage devices only employ signals for accessing code).
in a case where the update reason is to improve a function of the program, the processor is further configured to activates the program which is stored in any of the plurality of storage surfaces and is activatable (Fig. 6, see process arrow flow, 630 Significant update?, yes, 635 Immediately apply update) and (column 13, lines 28-32, see in some embodiments, the update module 225 may analyze the received (or available) update and determine a type or significance of the update. For example, the available update may be a major revision to the application (or a feature thereof) (emphasis added).
10. Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VanBlon in view of Glaum in view of Fang in view of Acharya in view of Smith et al., U.S. 2018/0285217 (hereinafter Smith).
In regards to claim 1, the rejections above are incorporated respectively.
In regards to claim 2, VanBlon, Glaum, Fang and Acharya, in particular VanBlon doesn't explicitly teach:
in a case where the update reason is to take measures against security vulnerability of the program, the processor is further configured to activates the program in a degeneration mode of performing only the update of the program.
However, Smith teaches such use: (p. 2, [0016], see rollbacks can be used for fixing security vulnerabilities and other bugs, improving the device's functionality by adding new features, improving power consumption and performance, repairing failed programmable devices, etc. Rollbacks may be viewed as important features in the lifecycles of programmable devices. Additional details about software recovery services are described below in connection with one or more of FIGS. 1-4) and (Fig. 4, see process arrow flow, Install replicant Image of program 413, Failure resolved 416, No, Decommission filed client device 412, Monitor computer program installed on client device 402, local failure detection 405, Yes Are program locally recoverable? 409, Yes, Install Replicant Image of program 413) (emphasis added).
VanBlon, Glaum, Fang, Acharya and Smith are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, software updates.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teaching of VanBlon, Glaum, Fang, Acharya and Smith before him or her, to modify the system of VanBlon, Glaum, Fang and Acharya, in particular VanBlon to include the teachings of Smith, as a system for a failover response, and accordingly it would enhance the system of VanBlon, which is focused on application update control, because that would provide VanBlon with the ability to resolve update scalability problems, as suggested by Smith (p. 2, [0016], p. 14, [0109]).
In regards to claim 6, VanBlon, Glaum, Fang and Acharya, in particular VanBlon doesn't explicitly teach:
a diagnostic device that is connected to a vehicle in which the in-vehicle device according to claim 1 is mounted.
However, Smith teaches such use (Fig. 1, Client Device(S) 130A… 130N, Watchdog Device(s) 104A… 104N), (Abstract, see when a self-reliance logic/module fails to respond to a watchdog communication, the distributed ledger can be updated to include this failure), (p. 2, [0018], see the connections between interconnected programmable devices are established using either wired or wireless communication links… the communication mechanisms also include networking hardware (e.g., switches, gateways, routers, network bridges, modems, wireless access points, networking cables, line drivers, switches, hubs, repeaters, etc.) and (p. 6, [0036], see as such, each device that includes the ledger may require access to a sizable amount of computational resources. On programmable devices with fixed or limited computational resources (e.g., mobile devices, vehicles, smartphones, lap tops, tablets, and media players, micro consoles, IoT devices, etc.), processing a ledger may prove difficult) (emphasis added).
the diagnostic device is configured to transmit the update reason to the vehicle via a cable.
However, Smith teaches such use (Fig. 4, see process arrow flow, Remote Failure Detection 406, Yes, Send failure message to the self-reliance logic/module of the failed device 407, Are program(s) locally recoverable 409, Yes Install replicant Image of program(s) 413)..
VanBlon, Glaum, Fang, Acharya and Smith are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, software updates.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teaching of VanBlon, Glaum, Fang, Acharya and Smith before him or her, to modify the system of VanBlon, Glaum, Fang and Acharya, in particular VanBlon to include the teachings of Smith, as a system for a failover response, and accordingly it would enhance the system of VanBlon, which is focused on application update control, because that would provide VanBlon with the ability to resolve update scalability problems, as suggested by Smith (p. 2, [0016], p. 14, [0109]).
11. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VanBlon in view of Glaum in view of Fang in view of Acharya in view of Nagia et al., U.S. 2012/0124571 (hereinafter Nagia).
In regards to claim 1, the rejections above are incorporated respectively.
In regards to claim 5, VanBlon, Glaum, Fang and Acharya, in particular VanBlon doesn't explicitly teach:
a vehicle on which the in-vehicle device according to claim 1 is mounted; and a server device that is connected to the vehicle via a wireless communication network and transmits the update program and the update reason to the vehicle.
However, Nagia teaches such use: (p. 4, [0054], see the communication interface 107 is used for communicating with servers and other terminals outside the vehicle-mounted device 100. The communication interface 107 may be of a wireless or wire communication interface, both of which may also be used depending on circumstance) and (p. 2, [0052], see an operation of the update processing unit 122 is implemented along with a flowchart shown in FIG. 4, in which the update file is downloaded from the center terminal 102 via the communication interface 107 and network 103 to write the update program in the storage device 106).
VanBlon, Glaum, Fang, Acharya and Nagia are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, software updates.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teaching of VanBlon, Glaum, Fang, Acharya and Nagia before him or her, to modify the system of VanBlon, Glaum, Fang, and Acharya, in particular VanBlon to include the teachings of Nagia, as a system for online vehicle updates, and accordingly it would enhance the system of VanBlon, which is focused on application update control, because that would provide VanBlon with the ability to update vehicles once they are in the market, as suggested by Nagia (p. 4, [0054], p. 8, [0128]).
12. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VanBlon in view of Glaum in view of Fang in view of Acharya in view of Heigi et al., DE 102012023647 (hereinafter Heigi).
In regards to claim 1, the rejections above are incorporated respectively.
In regards to claim 7, VanBlon, Glaum, Fang and Acharya, in particular VanBlon doesn't explicitly teach:
determine whether or not an activation surface is determinable from a plurality of storage surfaces included in the processor; determine, in response to a notification that the activation surface cannot be determined, the activation mode of the program stored in the processor; and activate the program in the activation mode.
However, Heigi teaches such use (Abstract, see determination is made to check whether a mistake in form of an incorrect transfer of data or storage of data is occurred is performed. A specific vehicle mode is activated in depending on type of control devices when the mistake is determined) and (p. 2, 9th para., see in a method according to the invention for updating data stored on a control unit of a motor vehicle, data by means of which an operating mode of the control unit is predetermined is transmitted to a storage unit of the control unit, after which the data are stored on the storage unit of the control unit. Subsequently, it is checked whether an error in the form of a faulty data transmission and / or storage has taken place. The inventive method is characterized in that, if such an error is detected, a corresponding at least in dependence on the type of the control device corresponding predetermined vehicle mode is activated).
VanBlon, Glaum, Fang, Acharya and Heigi are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, software updates.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teaching of VanBlon, Glaum, Fang, Acharya and Heigi before him or her, to modify the system of VanBlon, Glaum, Fang and Acharya, in particular VanBlon to include the teachings of Heigi, as a system for updating stored data to control a device of a motor vehicle, and accordingly it would enhance the system of VanBlon, which is focused on application update control, because that would provide VanBlon with the ability to update stored data and checking for faulty data, as suggested by Heigi (p. 2, 9th para., p. 2, 10th para.).
13. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VanBlon in view of Glaum in view of Fang in view of Acharya in view of Heigi in view of Huang et al., US 20170245296 (hereinafter Huang).
In regards to claims 1 and 7, the rejections above are incorporated accordingly.
In regards to claim 8, VanBlon, Glaum, Fang, Acharya and Heigi, in particular VanBlon doesn't explicitly teach:
the processor is further configured to refer to a predetermined update reason table, specify the activation mode corresponding to the update reason, and notify processor of the activation mode.
However, Huang teaches such use (p. 8, [0070], see the schedule update field 602 may be a single octet in length, in which the first two bits may be used to indicate the type of scheduling update and the remaining 6 bits may indicate a reason for the update) and (p. 5, [0049], see in some embodiments, the communication device 300 may be a mobile device).
VanBlon, Glaum, Fang, Acharya, Heigi and Huang are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, software updates.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teaching of VanBlon, Glaum, Fang, Acharya,Heigi and Huang before him or her, to modify the system of VanBlon, Glaum, Fang, Acharya and Heigi, in particular VanBlon to include the teachings of Huang, as a system for scheduled updates, and accordingly it would enhance the system of VanBlon, which is focused on application update control, because that would provide VanBlon with the ability to defined periodic schedules for negotiation between two devices, as suggested by Huang (p. 8, [0070], p. 12, [0115]).
Conclusion
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Application Publications
Olinsky US 2018/0165157 teaches in examples of the disclosure, IoT devices are updated securely and are updated in such a way that the IoT device updates are both self-managing and robust to failures. In some examples, upon detection of an update failure, self-managing update failure recovery occurs, for which the exact process may vary depending on the type of update failure detected. For instance, in some failures, upon detection of a “buggy” update, auto-rollback is performed. In some examples, the IoT device update is robust to a variety of different type of failures including corruption, forgeries, bugs, erratic behavior, and/or the like. The devices can include everyday objects such as toasters, coffee machines, thermostat systems, washers, dryers, lamps, automobiles, and the like. The network communications can be used for device automation, data capture, providing alerts, personalization of settings, and numerous other applications
Sarkar US 2019/0324858 teaches A system, computer-program product and computer-implemented method of updating a software configuration of a vehicle. A communication interface communicate with a plurality of electronic control units (ECUs) of the vehicle, and a processor. The processor performs an updating operation on the plurality of ECUs to change the software configuration for the plurality of ECUs from a first software configuration to an intended software configuration, identifies at least one ECU from the plurality of ECUs that fails to update to the intended software configuration after performing the updating operation. The processor rolls back the at least one successfully updated ECU to the previous version of software configuration.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Evral Bodden whose telephone number is 571-272-3455. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 9am to 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chat Do, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3721. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automatedinterview-request-air-form.
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EVRAL E BODDEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights