DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment to application 18/588966, filed on 3/31/2026. Claims 1 and 3-10 are pending; claim 2 is cancelled and claims 8-10 are new. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB 2014/0310701, hereinafter “Chylinski,” and USPGPUB 2020/0174779, hereinafter “David.”
Regarding claim 1, Chylinski discloses “A server (see, e.g., Chylinski, para. 31-32) comprising one or more processors configured to:
transmit updated software to [one or more devices] that is registered; (see, e.g., Chylinski, para. 54; “the SU may relate to a firmware over the air (FOTA) campaign to update the firmware for a particular make and model (e.g., first group) of computing devices (e.g., 13 a). The SU may be provided to these targeted devices by the OTADM server”)
receive information on cancelation of application of the updated software; (see, e.g., Chylinski, para. 55; “the provider or carrier determines that the SU may have a problem”; para. 56; “In step 308, based on the identified potential problem with the SU, a second group of computing devices is created by the OTADM server 41 that will likely be affected by the SU (e.g., meets predetermined criteria). The second group of devices may be the same as the first group or a smaller group within the first group that has a particular configuration that will likely be affected by the SU.”)
receive, from [the one or more devices], status information showing at which stage from start to completion an update to the updated software is; (see, e.g., Chylinski, para. 57, “a notification is sent to the OTADM server 41 indicating that the SU has already been successfully installed (i.e., it is too late for the SU cancellation).”; para. 58, “In step 316, the OTADM server 41 is then notified by the computing device that the SU was successfully removed, which is recorded by the OTADM server 41 (or a server associated therewith, such as database server 28).”) and
in response to receiving the information on cancelation of application of the updated software, and based on the status information, transmitting, to [the one or more devices] which (i) the updated software has already been transmitted and (ii) the update to the update software has not been completed, a cancelation signal ordering cancelation of the update to the updated software.” (see, e.g., Chylinski, para. 59; “the OTADM server 41 continues the SU cancellation campaign until it receives a confirmation (e.g., whether the SU was successfully installed or prevented) from each computing device from the first group.).”).
Chylinski does not disclose that ‘the one or more devices’ comprise “a vehicle.” David discloses (at fig. 4 & associated text; para. 50-51) an over-the-air software update method for a vehicle. David and Chylinski are directed toward over-the-air device software updating and therefore are analogous art. On of before the effective filing date of the instant application, one of ordinary skill in the art would have deemed it obvious to try to combine the software update cancellation method of Chylinski with the vehicle software update method of David, thereby obtaining the invention of the instant claim. A clear and predictable benefit of so combining would have appeared as the ability to cancel undesired software updates without alerting or inconveniencing the user (i.e., driver) of the vehicle. Accordingly, the instant claim is unpatentable over the combination of Chylinski and David.
Regarding claim 3, Chylinski discloses “A method of updating software by a computer, (see, e.g., Chylinski, para. 31-32) the method comprising the computer executing:
transmitting updated software to [one or more devices] that is registered; (see, e.g., Chylinski, para. 54; “the SU may relate to a firmware over the air (FOTA) campaign to update the firmware for a particular make and model (e.g., first group) of computing devices (e.g., 13 a). The SU may be provided to these targeted devices by the OTADM server”)
receiving information on cancelation of application of the updated software; (see, e.g., Chylinski, para. 55; “the provider or carrier determines that the SU may have a problem”; para. 56; “In step 308, based on the identified potential problem with the SU, a second group of computing devices is created by the OTADM server 41 that will likely be affected by the SU (e.g., meets predetermined criteria). The second group of devices may be the same as the first group or a smaller group within the first group that has a particular configuration that will likely be affected by the SU.”)
receive, from [the one or more devices], status information showing at which stage from start to completion an update to the updated software is; (see, e.g., Chylinski, para. 57, “a notification is sent to the OTADM server 41 indicating that the SU has already been successfully installed (i.e., it is too late for the SU cancellation).”; para. 58, “In step 316, the OTADM server 41 is then notified by the computing device that the SU was successfully removed, which is recorded by the OTADM server 41 (or a server associated therewith, such as database server 28).”) and
in response to receiving the information on cancelation of application of the updated software, and based on the status information, transmitting, to [the one or more devices] to which (i) the updated software has already been transmitted and (ii) the update to the updated software has not been completed, a cancelation signal ordering cancelation of the update to the updated software.” (see, e.g., Chylinski, para. 59; “the OTADM server 41 continues the SU cancellation campaign until it receives a confirmation (e.g., whether the SU was successfully installed or prevented) from each computing device from the first group.).”).
Chylinski does not disclose that ‘the one or more devices’ comprise “a vehicle.” David discloses (at fig. 4 & associated text; para. 50-51) an over-the-air software update method for a vehicle. David and Chylinski are directed toward over-the-air device software updating and therefore are analogous art. On of before the effective filing date of the instant application, one of ordinary skill in the art would have deemed it obvious to try to combine the software update cancellation method of Chylinski with the vehicle software update method of David, thereby obtaining the invention of the instant claim. A clear and predictable benefit of so combining would have appeared as the ability to cancel undesired software updates without alerting or inconveniencing the user (i.e., driver) of the vehicle. Accordingly, the instant claim is unpatentable over the combination of Chylinski and David.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Chylinski and David renders obvious “A non-transitory storage medium storing a command that is executable by the computer and that makes the computer execute the method according to claim 3.” (See the rejection of claim 3).
Regarding claim 5, Chylinski discloses “A software update system comprising: a server; and an information processing device that is installed in [one or more devices] and configured to communicate with the server, (see, e.g., Chylinski, para. 31-32) wherein:
the server is configured to
transmit updated software to the information processing device, (see, e.g., Chylinski, para. 54; “the SU may relate to a firmware over the air (FOTA) campaign to update the firmware for a particular make and model (e.g., first group) of computing devices (e.g., 13 a). The SU may be provided to these targeted devices by the OTADM server”) and
receive information on cancelation of application of the updated
software; (see, e.g., Chylinski, para. 55; “the provider or carrier determines that the SU may have a problem”; para. 56; “In step 308, based on the identified potential problem with the SU, a second group of computing devices is created by the OTADM server 41 that will likely be affected by the SU (e.g., meets predetermined criteria). The second group of devices may be the same as the first group or a smaller group within the first group that has a particular configuration that will likely be affected by the SU.”)
the information processing device is configured to receive the updated software from the server, and perform an update to the updated software for an electronic control device installed in the [one or more devices]; (see, e.g., Chylinski, para. 54; “the SU may relate to a firmware over the air (FOTA) campaign to update the firmware for a particular make and model (e.g., first group) of computing devices (e.g., 13 a). The SU may be provided to these targeted devices by the OTADM server”)
transmit, to the server, status information showing at which stage from start to completion the update to the updated software is; (see, e.g., Chylinski, para. 57, “a notification is sent to the OTADM server 41 indicating that the SU has already been successfully installed (i.e., it is too late for the SU cancellation).”; para. 58, “In step 316, the OTADM server 41 is then notified by the computing device that the SU was successfully removed, which is recorded by the OTADM server 41 (or a server associated therewith, such as database server 28).”)
the server is configured to, in response to receiving the information on cancelation of application of the updated software, and based on the status information, transmit, to the [one or more devices] to which (i) the updated software has already been transmitted and (ii) the update to the updated software has not been completed, a cancelation signal ordering cancelation of the update to the updated software; (see, e.g., Chylinski, para. 57-58; “In step 310, an SU cancellation message is sent to the second group.”; para. 59; “the OTADM server 41 continues the SU cancellation campaign until it receives a confirmation (e.g., whether the SU was successfully installed or prevented) from each computing device from the first group.).”) and
the information processing device is configured to, in response to receiving the cancelation signal from the server before completion of the update to the updated software, cancel the update to the updated software.” (see, e.g., Chylinski, para. 57-58; “the download of the SU is prevented or removed silently (e.g., without user awareness)”).
Chylinski does not disclose that the ‘one or more devices’ comprise “a vehicle.” David discloses (at fig. 4 & associated text; para. 50-51) an over-the-air software update for a vehicle. David and Chylinski are directed toward over-the-air device software updating and therefore are analogous art. On of before the effective filing date of the instant application, one of ordinary skill in the art would have deemed it obvious to try to combine the software update cancellation method of Chylinski with the vehicle software update method of David, thereby obtaining the invention of the instant claim. A clear and predictable benefit of so combining would have appeared as the ability to cancel undesired software updates without alerting or inconveniencing the user (i.e., driver) of the vehicle. Accordingly, the instant claim is unpatentable over the combination of Chylinski and David.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Chylinski and David renders obvious “The software update system according to claim 5, wherein: in performing the update to the updated software, the information processing device is configured to perform downloading to receive the updated software from the server, perform installation to store the updated software obtained by the downloading in the electronic control device, (see, e.g., Chylinski, para. 54; “the computing device can download the SU.”)
perform activation to enable the updated software of which the installation has been performed, and transmit, to the server, status information showing at which stage among the downloading, the installation, and the activation the update to the updated software is; (see, e.g., Chylinski, para. 55-57) and
the server is configured to transmit the cancelation signal to the information processing device in which the activation has not been completed.” (see, e.g., Chylinski, para. 57-59).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Chylinski and David renders obvious “The software update system according to claim 6, wherein:
the server is configured to transmit the cancelation signal to the information processing device in which the installation is yet to be executed; (see, e.g., Chylinski, para. 57-58; “In step 310, an SU cancellation message is sent to the second group.”; para. 59; “the OTADM server 41 continues the SU cancellation campaign until it receives a confirmation (e.g., whether the SU was successfully installed or prevented) from each computing device from the first group.).”) and
the information processing device is configured to, in response to receiving the cancelation signal, delete the updated software before storing the updated software in the electronic control device.” (see, e.g., Chylinski, para. 57-58; “the download of the SU is prevented or removed silently (e.g., without user awareness)”).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Chylinski and David renders obvious “The server according to claim 1, wherein the status information shows at which stage among downloading, installation, and activation the update to the updated software is; and the cancelation signal is transmitted in response to determining that activation of the updated software has not been completed.” (see, e.g., Chylinski, para. 59; “the OTADM server 41 continues the SU cancellation campaign until it receives a confirmation (e.g., whether the SU was successfully installed or prevented) from each computing device from the first group.).”)
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Chylinski and David renders obvious “The software update system according to claim 7, wherein the information processing device includes a first memory configured to store the updated software received from the server; (see, e.g., Chylinski, para. 54; “the computing device can download the SU.”; David, para. 50-51) the electronic control device includes a second memory; the installation comprises storing the updated software from the first memory into the second memory; and in response to receiving the cancelation signal before installation is executed, the information processing device deletes the updated software from the first memory without the updated software being stored in the second memory.” (see, e.g., Chylinski, para. 57-58; “the download of the SU is prevented or removed silently (e.g., without user awareness)”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the clams necessitated new and updated grounds of rejection, set forth above. Applicant’s arguments in traversal of the previous grounds of rejection therefore are moot in view of the new and updated grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any new grounds 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D. COYER whose telephone number is (571) 270-5306 and whose fax number is (571) 270-6306. The examiner normally can be reached via phone on Monday-Friday 12pm-10pm Eastern Time. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Wei Mui, can be reached on 571-272-3708. 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). 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.
/Ryan D. Coyer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191
Prosecution Insights