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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the claimed listing filed on 02/28/2024.
Claims 1-16 are pending.
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 1-3, 5, 9-11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPAP Pub. No. 2024/0025427 A1 (Hereinafter: Pub25427, pub. date 01/25/2024), in view of FCA-Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, “Dealer Service Instructions for: Safety Recall ZB7 / NHTSA 22V-865 Loss of Motive Power”, 2022, downloaded from https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2022/RCRIT-22V865-0023.pdf , 11 pages (hereinafter: FCA), and in view of Zhang, CN-117555565-A.
As per Claim 1: Pub25427 discloses the limitations in bold below:
1. A firmware over-the-air (FOTA) flash update control system for a vehicle, the FOTA flash update control system comprising:
a FOTA supervisor module configured to control receipt of an FOTA flash update via a wireless communication medium; and
a power inverter module (PIM) connected to the [ FOTA] supervisor module via a controller area network (CAN) and configured to [ receive the FOTA flash update and an FOTA flash update status], wherein the PIM comprises:
(FIG.2 PIM # 252, connected to Other Secondary Controller 272, in FD-CAN 11 # 288).
Per above limitations, Pub25427 does not disclose the limitations of “A firmware over-the-air (FOTA) flash update control system for a vehicle, the FOTA flash update control system comprising: a FOTA supervisor module configured to control receipt of an FOTA flash update via a wireless communication medium”,
Pub25427 discloses the next limitations in bold as below:
a hybrid control processor (HCP) and an auxiliary HCP (AHCP), wherein the HCP is configured to wakeup the AHCP via a hardwired wakeup line and the AHCP is configured to provide a stay awake request to the HCP via the hardwire wakeup line,
(See FIG. 2, PIM #252, and text [0006]
“In some implementations, the network is a CAN-FD network of a vehicle. In some implementations, the
vehicle is an EV and the primary controller is an HCP and the secondary controller is an auxiliary HCP, and wherein the HCP and the auxiliary HCP are both part of a PIM. In some implementations, the HCP and the auxiliary HCP are connected to different primary CAN buses FD-CAN3 and FD-CAN14, respectively, of the CAN-FD network. In some implementations, the primary CAN buses FD-CAN3 and FD-CAN14 are utilized to communicate wake-up and shutdown commands to the HCP and the auxiliary HCP.”)
Pub25427 discloses the next limitations in bold as below:
[wherein the HCP is configured to perform the FOTA flash update before the AHCP], during which the AHCP is configured to temporarily disable the stay awake request to the HCP via the hardwired wakeup line to allow the HCP to reset, and [wherein the AHCP is configured to perform the FOTA flash update after the HCP has successfully performed the FOTA flash update], during which the HCP is configured to temporarily disable a wakeup request to the AHCP via the hardwired wakeup line
(Pub25427: In [0011],
“there exists an opportunity for improvement in the relevant art. Accordingly, improved (more robust) techniques are presented allow secondary controllers to remain awake ‘ahcp’ (irrespective of shutdown commands from their primary controller) as well as keeping the primary controller awake ‘hcp’ until the remaining activities/tasks ( e.g., housekeeping) are complete, after which the secondary controllers can independently shutdown followed by the primary controller. This could also be described as two-way, or symmetric primary/secondary controller communication. CAN flexible data-rate (CAN-FD) is a newer protocol for high performance vehicle communication.”) (Note: the superscripts of ‘ahcp’ and ‘hcp’ are edited),
Per above limitations, Pub25427 does not disclose the limitations of “wherein the HCP is configured to perform the FOTA flash update before the AHCP” and “ wherein the AHCP is configured to perform the FOTA flash update after the HCP has successfully performed the FOTA flash update”
and Pub25427 does not disclose the limitations in the squared brackets below:
[wherein the HCP and the AHCP are configured to perform a firmware rollback in the event of a failed or incomplete FOTA flash update by one of the HCP, the AHCP], or another related module on the CAN.
So, within the claimed limitation in bold, Pub25427 discloses an Electric Vehicle (EV) controlled by CAN network operated by PIM with HCV and AHCP, but
Pub25427 does not discloses the limitations as addressed, shown in italics above.
Per above limitations,
FCA discloses,
“A firmware over-the-air (FOTA) flash update control system for a vehicle, the FOTA flash update control system comprising:
a FOTA supervisor module configured to control receipt of an FOTA flash update via a wireless communication medium”
(See FCA: in p. 2, in box Special Tools, “The following special tools are required to perform this repair: … ‘wiTECH MicroPod II’, ‘Laptop Computer’, ‘wiTECH Software’”.
Note: WiTech is common term for Wireless Infrastructure Technology Centre. The special tools, including the labtop, used in software update/repair are wireless and remote from the car. )
and FCA discloses the limitations of
“wherein the HCP is configured to perform the FOTA flash update before the AHCP” and
“ wherein the AHCP is configured to perform the FOTA flash update after the HCP has successfully performed the FOTA flash update”
(See FCA: in p. 3, item 11,
“NOTE: The PIM contains two processors, Hybrid Control Processor
(HCP) and Auxiliary Hybrid Control Processor (AHCP). The HCP and
AHCP are combined into one PIM software update. The software update
must begin with updating the HCP. The AHCP will update immediately
following the HCP.”).
Thus, Pub25427 discloses operative elements in an electric cars where these elements are operated by software, and FCA discloses the update of software into these elements wirelessly.
Therefore, it would be obvious to an ordinary of skills in the art before the effective filing of the Application to combine the teaching of software operated elements used to operate an electric car of Pub25427 and the wireless software update correspondingly to these elements of FCA, the combination would yield predictable results because all software operatable elements require update as part of software development, and in the automobile industry the software update over the air is widely used as for conforming to the availability of the wireless technology.
Pub25427 and FCA do not explicitly discloses the limitations of,
“wherein the HCP and the AHCP are configured to perform a firmware rollback in the event of a failed or incomplete FOTA flash update by one of the HCP, the AHCP”
as per above recitations.
With HCP, and AHCP as partitions of vehicle operation,
Zhang, With partitions of vehicle operation, Zhang discloses further limitations of,
“wherein the HCP and the AHCP are configured to perform a firmware rollback in the event of a failed or incomplete FOTA flash update by one of the HCP, the AHCP”
(Zhang, in Abstract, p. 1, “if the verification is successful, restarting the equipment, and switching the operation partition into a backup partition; if the verification fails, a rollback flow is started, and the new firmware is written into the operation… ”, where HCP and the AHCP, read on partitions in the vehicle under FOTA.
Therefore, it would be obvious to an ordinary of skills in the arts before the effective filing of the application to further combine the teaching firmware rollback in FOTA when verification fails of Zhang and the teachings of software operative elements in EV as in Pub25427 and in FCA.
The combination would be obvious because the rollback update is a formal and a must process when the update process fails. This is only for conforming to the standard procedure software update.
As per Claim 2: Pub25427 and combining FCA and Zhang, where
Pub25427 further discloses:
2. The FOTA flash update control system of claim 1, wherein the HCP and the AHCP are separate cores of a multi-core processor of the PIM .
(See Pub25427: FIG. 2, #252).
As per Claim 3: Pub25427 and combining FCA and Zhang, where
FCA discloses the limitation in bold below:
3. The FOTA flash update control system of claim 1, wherein the HCP is configured to perform the firmware rollback before the AHCP performs the firmware rollback.
(FCA: See FCA: in p. 3, item 11, the NOTE)
Zhang, discloses “firmware rollback” (As incorporated with the verification fails, as in Abstract. Since )
Therefore, it would be obvious to an ordinary of skills in the arts before the effective filing of the application to further combine the teaching FOTA update to elements, and performing rollback when verification fails of Zhang, and the teachings update software in HCP and AHCP of FCA as in combined with Pub25427. The combination would be obvious because the rollback updates would be performed in any order when elements are separated, then rollback before other rollback is only the choice of users.
As per Claim 5: Pub25427 and combining FCA and Zhang, where
FCA discloses the limitation in bold below:
5. The FOTA flash update control system of claim 1, wherein the AHCP is configured to perform the firmware rollback before the HCP performs the firmware rollback.
And Zhang discloses “firmware rollback” .
The claim has the functionality similarly to the functionality of Claim 3. The rejection is addressed with the same rationale as of claim 3.
As per claims 9-11, 13: Claims are directed to a method having the claimed functionality corresponding to the claimed recitations in claims 1-3, 5. Claims are rejected with the same rationale of claims 1-3, 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6-8, 12, 14-16 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ted T Vo whose telephone number is (571)272-3706. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm ET.
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, Wei Y Mui can be reached at (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 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.
TTV
January 22, 2026
/Ted T. Vo/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191