DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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.
Status of the application
This Office Action is in response to Applicant's Application filed on 02/23/2024. Claims 1-12 are pending for this examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/23/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Foreign Priority Claimed
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 03/03/2023. A certified copy of the application 2023-032890 has been received.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
a) Claim 1 recites “select which of the first communication device and the second communication device to use to receive the update data, based on a traveling circumstance of the vehicle.” Here “select” is a is mental process since this limitation could be reasonably performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion.
b) Claim 1 further recites “A software management system for a vehicle including a first communication device”, “wireless LAN, and a second communication device”, “a cellular line”, “software management system comprising a processing circuit”. Here above-mentioned articles are computers or generic computer components. Hence these limitations recite mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or generic computer components which merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f)
c) Claim 1 further recites “receive update data of software”, and “receive the update data”. Here “receive” recite insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering, transmission and display. Common types of limitations that recite insignificant extra solution activity are gathering, transmitting, storing, displaying data. MPEP 2106.05(g)
Under step 2A, Prong 1, above limitations of listed under item (a) above are functions that can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, thus it is reasonable to identify these limitation as reciting a mental process. Hence not eligible subject matter under 2A, Prong 1.
Under step 2A prong 2, the above limitations listed under item (b) above are computers or generic computer components used as a tool to perform an abstract idea. They do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. As such, the claim is not eligible subject matter under Step 2A, Prong 2.
See MPEP 2106.05(f). Limitations under item (c) are merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as data gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under step 2B, the limitations in items (b) and (c) generic computer and computer components, and merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as data gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2105(d). Therefore, none of the additional elements recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 11 is a method claim which has substantially similar claim limitations as above can be shown to be an abstract idea using the same rationale.
Claim 12 is a non-transitory storage medium, which has substantially similar claim limitations as above. The claim can be rejected using the same rationale as above. The claim has an additional item “non-transitory storage medium”. This item is a generic computer component used as a tool to perform an abstract idea. This does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. As such, the claim is not eligible subject matter under Step 2A, Prong 2 and also under step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 2 recites “processing circuit” and “acquire a vehicle speed of the vehicle as the traveling circumstance of the vehicle”.
Claim 3 recites “the processing circuit”, and “to select the second communication device when the vehicle speed is equal to or greater than a predetermined speed.”
Claim 4 recites “processing circuit”, “acquire a traveling area in which the vehicle is traveling as the traveling circumstance of the vehicle”.
Claim 5 recites “select the second communication device when the traveling area is an area where a connection with the wireless LAN is able to be established and the connection has a possibility of being disconnected”.
Claim 6 recites “processing circuit”, “to acquire position information of the vehicle and map information of an access point for the wireless LAN as the traveling circumstance of the vehicle”.
Claim 7 recites ““processing circuit”, “select the second communication device when a distance between the vehicle and the access point is equal to or greater than a predetermined distance”.
Claim 8 recites “processing circuit”, “select the second communication device when the traveling circumstance satisfies a predetermined traveling condition.”
Claim 9 recites “processing circuit”, “acquire a radio wave strength of the cellular line”, “select, when the radio wave strength satisfies a predetermined radio wave condition, the second communication device regardless of whether the traveling circumstance satisfies the predetermined traveling condition.”
Claim 10 recites “processing circuit”, “acquire an amount of charge of a mobile information terminal when the update data is received via the wireless LAN”, “using tethering of the mobile information terminal,” “select, when the amount of charge is equal to or smaller than a predetermined amount of charge, the second communication device regardless of whether the traveling circumstance satisfies the predetermined traveling condition.”
In the above claims “processing circuit” and “mobile information terminal” are additional elements of generic computer components 2106.05(f). “Select” is a mental process. “Acquire” is an additional element of data gathering. 2106.05(g). As shown above these claims makes the claimed invention patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 11 and 12 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aust et al. (hereinafter Aust, Publication No.: US 2020/0125355) in view of Frantz et al. (hereinafter Frantz, Publication No.: US 2019/0258467).
As per claim 1, Aust teaches,
A software management system for a vehicle including a first communication device configured to receive update data of software via a wireless LAN, and
a second communication device configured to receive the update data via a cellular line, (Aust Fig. 17 shows two communication devices, for LAN and cellular lines. Aust recites in [0103] “FIG. 17 is a flowchart of OTA communication via
a cellular network and OTA communication via WLAN. In the initial state, software update is available in the OTA server 201, and the OTA client 203 is in a sleep state.”)
the software management system comprising a processing circuit configured to select which of the first communication device and the second communication device to use to receive the update data, (Aust recites in [0104] “When there is an available cellular access, a wakeup sequence as an SMS message is transmitted from the OTA server 201 to the OTA client 203 (S81). A wake-up message is transmitted to wake the OTA client 203 up from a sleep state.” Aust recites in [0105] “When the WLAN access is available, a wake-up message is transmitted via a wireless access point of WLAN (S85). The fact that the OTA client 203 woke up and is in an active state is informed to the OTA server 201 (S86).” Here depending on availability of either cellular or WLAN communication, appropriate communication device is selected.)
Aust teaches vehicle software update. Aust does not explicitly mention “based on a traveling circumstance of the vehicle.” However, in analogous art of vehicle software update Frantz teaches,
[receive the update data,] based on a traveling circumstance of the vehicle. (Frantz recites in [0027] “The available connectivity 202 may reflect any type of wireless connections available to the vehicle 102 at a particular location and time. For instance, the connectivity 202 may include information about any available WiFi connections that the vehicle 102 has access to at a particular location (e.g. user's home WiFi, or public WiFi), cellular network coverage, available vehicle-to-everything (V2X) connections.” This shows that communication network is selected based on the location of the vehicle.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the above teaching of vehicle software update of Aust by incorporating the teaching “[receive the update data,] based on a traveling circumstance of the vehicle.” of Frantz. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills of the art would have implemented the function of downloading the software update depending on a preferred location, where available network and speed is acceptable.
As per claim 2, Aust teaches,
wherein the processing circuit is configured to acquire a vehicle speed of the vehicle as the traveling circumstance of the vehicle. (Aust recites in [0003] starting at line 22, “The base station determines that the vehicle is in a state where update can be made when the ignition switch of the vehicle is on, the parking brake switch is on, the drive position of the automatic transmission is P range, and the vehicle speed is zero.” This shows that vehicle speed is considered as a condition for deciding software update.)
As per claim 4, Frantz teaches,
wherein the processing circuit is configured to acquire a traveling area in which the vehicle is traveling as the traveling circumstance of the vehicle. (Franz recites in [0037] “Next, the server 182 may be configured to collect network connectivity data 202 near the route 206 from other sources 184. In the example illustrated in FIG. 3, the route 206 spans across multiple network coverage areas with different speed. In area 316 near the starting location 302, the cellular network speed is fast at 10-20 megabits per second (Mbps) for the wireless carrier that the vehicle 102 or the mobile device 140 is subscribed to. As the route 206 is traversed, the vehicle 102 later enters area 318 where the cellular network speed reduces to 1-10 Mbps.”)
As per claim 6, Aust teaches,
wherein the processing circuit is configured to acquire position information of the vehicle and map information of an access point for the wireless LAN as the traveling circumstance of the vehicle. (Aust recites in [0004] starting at line 9, “The position of the vehicle is detected by a position acquisition sensor such as Global Positioning System (GPS). Further, home position information (for example, address) in input by the user via a user interface.” Aust further recites in [0019] “a control unit that transmits, via the communication unit, a wake-up request from a wireless access point registered in advance, and when receiving a response by wireless communication from a device that received the wake-up request ….”.)
Claim 3 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aust and Frantz as applied to claim 2 and further in view of Lei et al. (hereinafter Lei, Pub. No.: US 2019/0208451)
As per claim 3, Aust and Franz teach vehicle software update. They do not explicitly teach, “wherein the processing circuit is configured to select the second communication device when the vehicle speed is equal to or greater than a predetermined speed.” However, in analogous art of software update Lei teaches,
wherein the processing circuit is configured to select the second communication device when the vehicle speed is equal to or greater than a predetermined speed. (Lei Fig. 4 step 404 and 408 show selecting the second communication device.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the above teaching of vehicle software update of Aust and Franz by incorporating the teaching “wherein the processing circuit is configured to select the second communication device when the vehicle speed is equal to or greater than a predetermined speed.” of Lei. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills of the art would have implemented modifying the function of downloading the software update with the change of vehicle speed because some downloading networks may not be available at a higher speed.
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aust and Frantz as applied to claims 4 and 1 and further in view of Radko et al. (hereinafter Radko, Pub. No.: US 2020/0008122)
As per claim 5, Aust and Frantz teach software update for vehicles. They do not explicitly mention, “wherein the processing circuit is configured to select the second communication device when the traveling area is an area where a connection with the wireless LAN is able to be established and the connection has a possibility of being disconnected.” However, in analogous art of software update, Radko teaches,
wherein the processing circuit is configured to select the second communication device when the traveling area is an area where a connection with the wireless LAN is able to be established and the connection has a possibility of being disconnected. (Radko recites in [0062] “In one embodiment, the first and second communication connections include a satellite connection and a terrestrial network connection. For example, in one embodiment, the first connection is a satellite communication connection while the second communication connection is for a cellular connection, such that the vehicle is proactively switched from using a satellite connection to using a cellular connection before the satellite connection becomes unavailable.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the above teaching of vehicle software update of Aust and Frantz by incorporating the teaching “wherein the processing circuit is configured to select the second communication device when the traveling area is an area where a connection with the wireless LAN is able to be established and the connection has a possibility of being disconnected.” of Radko. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills of the art would have implemented the function of downloading the software update using a cellular communication when a LAN connection is not very reliable.
As per claim 8, Aust and Frantz teach software update for vehicles. They do not explicitly mention, “wherein the processing circuit is configured to select the second communication device when the traveling circumstance satisfies a predetermined traveling condition.” Radko teaches,
wherein the processing circuit is configured to select the second communication device when the traveling circumstance satisfies a predetermined traveling condition. (Radko recites in [0062] “In one embodiment, the first and second communication connections include a satellite connection and a terrestrial network connection. For example, in one embodiment, the first connection is a satellite communication connection while the second communication connection is for a cellular connection, such that the vehicle is proactively switched from using a satellite connection to using a cellular connection before the satellite connection becomes unavailable.” Here the predetermined condition is when a satellite connection may become unavailable, connection switches to a cellular connection.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the above teaching of vehicle software update of Aust and Frantz by incorporating the teaching wherein the processing circuit is configured to select the second communication device when the traveling circumstance satisfies a predetermined traveling condition.” of Radko. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills of the art would have implemented the function of downloading the software update using different connections depending on traveling conditions.
Claim 9 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aust, Frantz and Radko as applied to claim 8 and further in view of Noguchi et al. (hereinafter Noguchi, Pub. No.: US 2021/0294578)
As per claim 9, Aust, Frantz and Radko teach software update for vehicles. They do not explicitly mention, “wherein the processing circuit is configured to:
acquire a radio wave strength of the cellular line, and select, when the radio wave strength satisfies a predetermined radio wave condition, the second communication device regardless of whether the traveling circumstance satisfies the predetermined traveling condition.” However, in analogous art of software update, Noguchi teaches,
wherein the processing circuit is configured to:
acquire a radio wave strength of the cellular line, and select, when the radio wave strength satisfies a predetermined radio wave condition, the second communication device regardless of whether the traveling circumstance satisfies the predetermined traveling condition. (Noguchi recites in [0071] starting at line 4 “Here, when the communication environment is equal to or higher than a predetermined level, for example, the strength of the radio wave (for example, the radio wave of the network 35) used for communication by the communication device 30 is strong enough to download the software used for the rewriting process from the software distribution server 500 smoothly. The rewriting processing unit 621 can determine whether the communication environment is equal to or higher than a predetermined level, for example, based on the detection result of the radio wave intensity sensor included in the vehicle sensor 14.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the above teaching of vehicle software update of Aust, Frantz and Radko by incorporating the teaching “wherein the processing circuit is configured to: acquire a radio wave strength of the cellular line, and select, when the radio wave strength satisfies a predetermined radio wave condition, the second communication device regardless of whether the traveling circumstance satisfies the predetermined traveling condition.” of Noguchi. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills of the art would have implemented the function of downloading the software update when the network wave strength is good for the download.
References of Note
Examiner has cited particular columns, line numbers, references, or figures in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses to fully consider the reference in entirety, as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention. See MPEP §§ 2141.02 and 2123.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSSAIN MORSHED whose telephone number is (571)272-3335. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday12:00 PM – 9 PM Eastern Time. The email address for the examiner is hossain.morshed@uspto.gov.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Wei Mui can be reached on (571)272-3708.
/HOSSAIN M MORSHED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191 February 2, 2026