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 .
Detail Action
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 3/11/2026.
Claims 1-14 and 16-21 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the periodic interval" in “the periodic interval is one day”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 depends on claim 6, claim 6 recites “periodic intervals” instead of “periodic interval”.
Claim 13 recite the limitation of “the user” in notifying the user”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (CN 210737443 U), Pillilli et al. (US 20210224061 A1) in view of Sayyed et al. (US 2022/0374221 Al) and further in view of Murata et al. (WO 2011161778A1)
Per claim 1,
Jiang discloses
updating software to a machine with rechargeable battery (pp. 6, discloses software update to machine vehicle with battery that can be charged)
Jiang does not, however, Pillilli discloses
determining that a software update exists for the software;
([0075], discloses an indication that a firmware update is available)
(c) updating the software via remote flashing. ([0015], discloses access firmware code from storage 120 and have a flash image… since the firmware code 122 is in storage 120 that is outside/remote from 102 and is considered remote flashing.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Pillilli into the teachings of A to include the limitation disclosed by Pillilli. The modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to want to perform software update to fix bugs to introduce newer capabilities as suggested by Pillilli ([0002])
Jiang/Pillilli does not, however, Sayyed discloses
(b) determining whether the rechargeable battery is connected to a charging module, wherein either:
in an event that the rechargeable battery is connected to a charging module the method proceeds to step (c);
or in an event that the rechargeable battery is not connected to a charging module, step (c) is delayed until the rechargeable battery is connected to a charging module; and ([0038], discloses battery health indicator related to firmware update risk…only performing firmware update when the information handling system is connected to AC power source, and therefore, the update is delayed until AC power source is connected.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Sayyed into the teachings of Jiang/Pillilli to include the limitation disclosed by Sayyed. The modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to want to reduce firmware update risk mitigating poor battery health condition as suggested by Pillilli([0038])
Jiang/Pillilli/Sayyed does not disclose, however, Murata discloses
(d) preventing removal of the rechargable battery from the charging module via an interlock while updating the software. (pp. 6, discloses connector lock function to lock charging connector while reprogramming corresponding to updating the software.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Sayyed into the teachings of Jiang/Pillilli/Sayyed to include the limitation disclosed by Murata. The modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to want no interruption during software upate via locking as suggested by Murata (pp. 6)
Per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated;
Jiang/Pillilli/Sayyed/Murata discloses
wherein step (b) further comprises determining whether the rechargeable battery is undergoing charging. (Sayyed, [0038], only performing the firmware update when information handling system is connected to AC power source appears to show such determining.)
Per claim 14, see rejection of claim 1.
Claim(s) 2, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (CN 210737443 U), Pillilli et al. (US 20210224061 A1) in view of Sayyed et al. (US 2022/0374221 Al), Murata et al. (WO 2011161778A1) and further in view of SHIZUKA et al.(US 2023/0138510 A1)
Per claim 2,
Jiang/Pillilli/Sayyed/Murata does not, however, SHIZUKA discloses
wherein during step (c) the rechargeable battery is prevented from charging. ( [0042], discloses software update when power supplied to battery is not being charged.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of SHIZUKA into the teachings of Jiang/ Jiang/Pillilli/Sayyed/ Murata to include the limitation disclosed by SHIZUKA. The modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to want to prevent high voltage from being applied to device during update process potentially causing damage. (see Shizuka, [0042])
Per claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated;
Jiang/Pillilli/Sayyed/ Murata does not, however, SHIZUKA discloses
wherein in the event that the rechargeable battery is undergoing charging the charging is paused until step (c) is complete. ([0042], discloses software update when power supplied to battery is not being charged.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of SHIZUKA into the teachings of Jiang/Pillilli/Sayyed/ Murata to include the limitation disclosed by SHIZUKA. The modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to want to prevent high voltage from being applied to device during update process potentially causing damage by pausing charging the battery as suggested by Shizuka. (see Shizuka, [0042])
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (CN 210737443 U), Pillilli et al. (US 20210224061 A1) in view of Sayyed et al. (US 2022/0374221 Al), Murata et al. (WO 2011161778A1) and further in view of Sakabibara et al. (US 2022/0334822 A1)
Jiang/Pillilli/Sayyes/Murata does not specifically disclose, however, Sakabibara discloses
, wherein in the event that the rechargeable battery is undergoing charging step (b) further comprises determining a charging speed, and wherein either: in the event that the charging speed is above a threshold the method waits to proceed to step (c) until charging is completed; or in the event that the charging speed is below the threshold, charging is paused and the method proceeds to step (c). ([0086], discloses determining battery is fully charged and starting action of updating software. Since the battery can be fully charged, it is inherently disclosing a charging speed that minimally increase the battery charging level.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Sakabibara into the teachings of Jiang/Pillilli/Sayyes/Murata to include the limitation disclosed by Sakabibara. The modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to want to wait until the battery is fully charged before updating software to avoid issues.
Claim(s) 6, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (CN 210737443 U), Pillilli et al. (US 20210224061 A1) in view of Sayyed et al. (US 2022/0374221 Al), Murata et al. (WO 2011161778A1) and in view of Joshi et al. (US 20170031671 A1)
Per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated;
Jiang/Pillilli/Sayyed/Murata does not, however, Joshi discloses
wherein step (a) further comprises checking whether a software update exists for the software at periodic intervals. ([0050], discloses check available firmware update on regular interval.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Joshi into the teachings of Jiang/Pillilli/Sayyed/Murata to include the limitation disclosed by Joshi. The modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to want to improve performance, adding new features or fixing bugs as suggested by Joshi (see Joshi, [0025])
Per claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 incorporated;
Jiang/Pillilli/Sayyed/Murata/Joshi discloses
wherein the periodic interval is one day. (Joshi, [0050], see check firmware update on daily interval)
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (CN 210737443 U), Pillilli et al. (US 20210224061 A1) in view of Sayyed et al. (US 2022/0374221 Al), Murata et al. (WO 2011161778A1) and in view of Joshi et al. (US 20170031671 A1) and further in view of Khachaturian et al. (US 20180303342 A1)
Per claim 8, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated;
Jiang/Pillilli/Sayyed/Murata/Joshi does not specifically disclose, however Khachaturian discloses
wherein in the event that the electric work vehicle is turned off, step (a) further comprises a controller turning on the electric work vehicle at periodic intervals to check whether a software update exists for the software. ([0192] Discloses checking firmware update on a configured interval that upon powered up)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Khachaturian into the teachings of Jiang/Pillilli/Sayyed/Murata/Joshi to include the limitation disclosed by Khachaturian. The modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to want to periodically check firmware upon power up to ensure system function is up to date.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (CN 210737443 U), Pillilli et al. (US 20210224061 A1) in view of Sayyed et al. (US 2022/0374221 Al), Murata et al. (WO 2011161778A1) and in view of Joshi et al. (US 20170031671 A1), Khachaturian et al. (US 20180303342 A1) and further in view of Rockwell (US 2015/0338114 A1)
Per claim 13, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated.
Jiang/Pillilli/Sayyed/Murata/Joshi/Khachaturian does not specifically disclose, however Rockwell discloses
wherein notifying the user comprises at least one of displaying a message on an on-board display screen, sending the user an electronic message and sending the user a text message. ([0042] See Fig. 4 discloses a display screen with text message. “Update are available for your vehicle”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Rockwell into the teachings of Jiang/ Pillilli/Sayyed/Murata/Joshi/Khachaturian to include the limitation disclosed by Rockwell. The modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to want to inform user of available update for user to decide if update is desirable as suggested by Rockwell ([0042])
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (CN 210737443 U), Pillilli et al. (US 20210224061 A1) in view of Sayyed et al. (US 2022/0374221 Al), Murata et al. (WO 2011161778A1) and further in view of Rockwell (US 2015/0339114A1)
Per claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Jiang/Pillilli/Sayyed/Murata does not specifically disclose, however, Rockwell discloses
a step of downloading the software update ([0038], software updates for vehicle to download)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Rockwell into the teachings of Jiang/ Pillilli/Sayyed/Murata to include the limitation disclosed by Rockwell. The modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to want to transfer the software update to target device via download in order to carry out updating the device.
Per claim 10, rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Jiang/Pillilli/Sayyed/Murata does not specifically disclose, however, Rockwell discloses
a step of notifying a user that the software will be updated. ([0039], provide prompt to user and requesting permission to proceed with installation. [0042], discloses user interface indicating available software update to user)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Rockwell into the teachings of Jiang/Pillilli/Sayyed/Murata to include the limitation disclosed by Rockwell. The modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to want notify user of update so as to ensure user safety.
Per claim 11, rejection of claim 9 is incorporated.
Jiang/Pillilli/Sayyed/Murata/Rockwell discloses
a step of authorisation of at least one of downloading the software update and updating the software. ([0042], user consents to installation)
Per claim 12, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Jiang/Pillilli/Sayyed/Murata does not specifically disclose, however, Rockwell discloses
further comprising a step of notifying a user that step (c) is complete. ([0048], discloses indication installation is complete upon key cycle.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Rockwell into the teachings of Jiang/Pillilli/Sayyed/Murata to include the limitation disclosed by Rockwell. The modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to want notify user of update status so as to ensure user safety.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-21 are allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
It is noted that any citation [[s]] to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. [[See, MPEP 2123]]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Philip Wang whose telephone number is 571-272-5934. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 8:00AM -4:00PM. Any inquiry of general nature or relating to the status of this application should be directed to the TC2100 Group receptionist: 571-272-2100.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lewis Bullock, can be reached at 571-272-3759. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/PHILIP WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Prosecution Insights