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. This communication is in response to the communication filed on 11/22/2023.
3. Acknowledgment is made of Foreign Applications: JAPAN 2023-035200 filed 03/08/2023.
4. Claims filed 02/21/2024 have been acknowledged. Claims 1-15 are pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
6. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
8. Claim(s) 6 and 13 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 6 states: “... when current time indicated by the time information is outside business hours of a facility adjacent to a location corresponding to the position information of the vehicle”; the claim is unclear and silent regarding acquiring an actual “existing time”, and the correlation of said time with a facility’s business hours, which is a dynamic number that is not determined by the time information nor provided by a source for said determination, rendering the claim indefinite. Examiner will be interpreting current claim language as merely a time determination based on vehicle’s position.
Moreover claim 13 states: “…output information that an accuracy of the position information is poor when the accuracy is poor”; the claim is unclear and confusing when there is no determination/acquisition of a correctness state, in this case what is “poor” or incorrect data, rendering the claim indefinite. The Examiner will be interpreting the current claim language as merely providing position information. Appropriate correction is needed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
10. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
11. Claims 1,3-15 are rejected under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arai (Pub. No. US 2019/0315293 A1; hereinafter referred to as Arai).
As per claim 1, Arai discloses an information processing apparatus comprising: a memory; and a memory; and a hardware processor coupled to the memory (See Figs. 1-2), the hardware processor being configured to:
determine whether an update process of updating a program or data for providing a function of an in-vehicle device mounted on the vehicle is executable (See abstract – updating process for vehicle), based on position information of a vehicle, map information, and a prohibition condition indicating a condition for prohibiting execution of the update process (See p. [0031, 0035] – position, map and condition information); and
cause the in-vehicle device to execute the update process when the determining that the update process is executable (See p. [0101] – permitting execution).
As per claim 3, Aria discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (See claim 1 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 102(a)(1)), wherein the hardware processor is configured to determine whether the update process is executable, further based on location information indicating information regarding a location corresponding to the position information of the vehicle (See p. [0031, 0035] – position, map and condition information).
As per claim 4, Aria discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 3 (See claim 3 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 102(a)(1)), wherein the location information includes information indicating a degree of congestion of other vehicles, and the hardware processor is configured not to permit execution of the update process when the degree of congestion indicated by the location information is equal to or greater than a threshold (See p. [0037, 0101, 0117, 0119] – traffic congestion determination).
As per claim 5, Aria discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (See claim 1 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 102(a)(1)), wherein the hardware processor is configured to determine whether the update process is executable, further based on time information (See p. [0084, 0102] – based on time).
As per claim 6, the information processing apparatus according to claim 5 (See claim 5 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 102(a)(1)), wherein the hardware processor is configured not to permit execution of the update process when current time indicated by the time information is outside business hours of a facility adjacent to a location corresponding to the position information of the vehicle (See p. [0102] – time intervals and position).
As per claim 7, Aria discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (See claim 1 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 102(a)(1)), wherein the hardware processor is configured to determine whether the update process is executable, further based on communication state information indicating a communication state between the information processing apparatus and an outside (See p. [0068] – communication state and order between states).
As per claim 8, Aria discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (See claim 1 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 102(a)(1)), wherein the hardware processor is further configured to perform control to output information indicating a location where the update process is determined to be executable or not, in the map information (See p. [0035] – map information).
As per claim 9, Aria discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (See claim 1 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 102(a)(1)), wherein the hardware processor is further configured to perform control to output information that the vehicle enters a location where the update process is determined to be executable or not, when the vehicle enters the location (See Fig. 7 – position/location).
As per claim 10, Aria discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (See claim 1 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 102(a)(1)), wherein the hardware processor is further configured to perform control to output information that the vehicle stops in a location where the update process is determined to be not executable, when the vehicle stops in the location (See Fig. 7 – based on location).
As per claim 11, Aria discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 10 (See claim 10 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 102(a)(1)), wherein the hardware processor is configured to perform control to output a reason why the update process is not executable (See Fig. 7 – provision of details).
As per claim 12, Aria discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 10 (See claim 10 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 102(a)(1)), wherein the hardware processor is configured to perform control to output a measure necessary for execution of the update process(See abstract – determination unit).
As per claim 13, Aria discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (See claim 1 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 102(a)(1)), wherein the hardware processor is further configured to perform control to output information that an accuracy of the position information is poor when the accuracy is poor (See p. [0035, 0117-0118] – topography data).
Claims 14-15 are essentially the same as claims 1 except that they are set forth the claimed invention as a method and a non-transitory computer readable medium, and they are rejected with the same reasoning as applied hereinabove.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
12. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
13. 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.
14. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
15. Claim(s) 2 is rejected under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Arai (Pub. No. US 2019/0315293 A1; hereinafter referred to as Arai); in view of Harata, Yuzo et al. (WO 2020/032044 A1; hereinafter referred to as Harata).
As per claim 2, Aria discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (See claim 1 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 102(a)(1)).
However, Aria does not explicitly states - wherein the hardware processor is configured to determine whether the update process is executable, further based on vehicle information including at least a size or a type of the vehicle.
Harata discloses - wherein the hardware processor is configured to determine whether the update process is executable, further based on vehicle information including at least a size or a type of the vehicle (See page 174 – “vehicle type”).
Aria and Harata are directed to software program development, which are analogous prior art.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (first inventor to file provisions of the AIA ) to incorporate and combine Aria’s restrictions when performing a program upgrade on a vehicle; and further combine it with Harata’s specification data provision when performing updates in vehicles; thus, the combination allows specific information required for safety and proper performance when updating components/subcomponents of vehicles (See Aria’s and Harata’s abstracts and backgrounds).
16. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
KOBAYASHI, NAOTO – WO 2018117016 A1; which teaches: VEHICLE-MOUNTED UPDATING DEVICE, UPDATING SYSTEM, AND PORTABLE COMMUNICATION DEVICE.
17. Please see M.P.E.P. 2111 Claim Interpretation; Broadest Reasonable Interpretation [R-9]; 2111.01 Plain Meaning [R-9]: III. “Plain Meaning” Refers to the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art”
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. Claims must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation during examination, and limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claims (See M.P.E.P. 2111 [R-I]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCISCO JAVIER APONTE whose telephone number is (571)270-7164. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-4.
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, James Trujillo can be reached on (571)272-3677. 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.
/FRANCISCO J APONTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151 04/23/2026.
Prosecution Insights