DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial Office action based on the application submitted on February 29, 2024.
Claims 1-7 are pending.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
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.
The following title is suggested: DISTRIBUTING UPDATE DATA OF SOFTWARE FOR IN-VEHICLE DEVICES TO A VEHICLE.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 5-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the update data.” It should read -- the update data of software --.
Claims 5 and 6 recite “wherein the processor is configured to.” It should read -- wherein the processor is further configured to --.
Claim 7 recites “the one or more processors.” It should read -- the one or more processors of the distribution server --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim Interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the limitations of Claim 1 are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to a distribution system, which is a machine, and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 1 recites the limitation:
(a) determine whether the configuration of the in-vehicle network is normal, based on the configuration information and the normal configuration information.
The recited step, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers performance of the step in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, other than reciting:
(1) a vehicle that includes an in-vehicle network configured by in-vehicle devices;
(2) a distribution server configured to […];
(3) the distribution server includes a processor and a storage unit […];
(4) the vehicle is configured to […]; and
(5) the processor is configure to […].
Nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the limitation (a) in the context of the claim encompasses a human observing the configuration of the in-vehicle network in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to determine whether the configuration of the in-vehicle network is normal. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements:
(1) a vehicle that includes an in-vehicle network configured by in-vehicle devices;
(2) a distribution server configured to […];
(3) the distribution server includes a processor and a storage unit […];
(4) the vehicle is configured to […]; and
(5) the processor is configure to […].
The additional elements (1) to (5) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The vehicle and distribution server are used as tools to perform the various steps of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Also, the claim recites the additional elements:
(6) […] distribute update data of software for the in-vehicle devices to the vehicle;
(7) […] that stores normal configuration information that indicates a normal configuration of the in-vehicle network;
(8) […] transmit configuration information on the in-vehicle network to the distribution server; and
(9) notify, when the configuration of the in-vehicle network is determined not to be normal, a user of the vehicle that the configuration of the in-vehicle network is not normal.
The additional elements (6) to (9) are mere data storing/transmitting/outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data storing/transmitting/outputting, and, as such, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional elements amount to necessary data storing/transmitting/outputting. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(10) updating the software with the update data is performed on a condition that a configuration of the in-vehicle network is normal.
The additional element (10) fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional element recites only the idea of updating the software with the update data without details on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the updating solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem of updating the software with the update data with no restriction on how the updating is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the updating, and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites the additional elements:
(1) a vehicle that includes an in-vehicle network configured by in-vehicle devices;
(2) a distribution server configured to […];
(3) the distribution server includes a processor and a storage unit […];
(4) the vehicle is configured to […]; and
(5) the processor is configure to […].
The additional elements (1) to (5) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Also, the claim recites the additional elements:
(6) […] distribute update data of software for the in-vehicle devices to the vehicle;
(7) […] that stores normal configuration information that indicates a normal configuration of the in-vehicle network;
(8) […] transmit configuration information on the in-vehicle network to the distribution server; and
(9) notify, when the configuration of the in-vehicle network is determined not to be normal, a user of the vehicle that the configuration of the in-vehicle network is not normal.
The additional elements (6) to (9) simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) expressly states that the courts have recognized the computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, storing and retrieving information in memory, and presenting offers and gathering statistics as well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activities. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the computing art to distribute update data of software, store configuration information, transmit the configuration information, and notify a user. Therefore, the limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activities even upon reconsideration and do not amount to significantly more.
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(10) updating the software with the update data is performed on a condition that a configuration of the in-vehicle network is normal.
The additional element (10) does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem of updating the software with the update data with no restriction on how the updating is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the updating, and does not provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components, insignificant extra-solution activities, and only the idea of a solution or outcome, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more for at least the reasons stated above.
Claim 2 recites the limitations:
(a) wherein the vehicle is configured to transmit the configuration information to the distribution server, when there is a change in the configuration of the in-vehicle network.
The claim is dependent on Claim 1, but does not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the judicial exception deficiencies of Claim 1.
Claim 2 recites a further additional element that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because it is mere data transmitting recited at a high level of generality, and thus is an insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and thus, is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Thus, Claim 2 does not add any steps or additional elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert Claim 1 into patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, Claims 1 and 2 are not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim Interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the limitations of Claim 3 are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Claim 3 is directed to a distribution server, which is a machine, and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 3 recites the limitation:
(a) determine whether the configuration of the in-vehicle network is normal, based on configuration information on the in-vehicle network that is acquired from the vehicle and the normal configuration information.
The recited step, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers performance of the step in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, other than reciting:
(1) [a] distribution server configured to […], the distribution server comprising;
(2) a processor;
(3) a storage unit […]; and
(4) the processor is configured to […].
Nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the limitation (a) in the context of the claim encompasses a human observing the configuration of the in-vehicle network in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to determine whether the configuration of the in-vehicle network is normal. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements:
(1) [a] distribution server configured to […], the distribution server comprising;
(2) a processor;
(3) a storage unit […]; and
(4) the processor is configured to […].
The additional elements (1) to (4) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The distribution server is used as a tool to perform the various steps of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Also, the claim recites the additional elements:
(5) […] distribute update data of software for in-vehicle devices in a vehicle that includes an in-vehicle network configured by the in-vehicle devices to the vehicle […];
(6) […] that stores normal configuration information that indicates a normal configuration of the in-vehicle network; and
(7) notify, when the configuration of the in-vehicle network is determined not to be normal, a user of the vehicle that the configuration of the in-vehicle network is not normal.
The additional elements (5) to (7) are mere data transmitting/storing/outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data transmitting/storing/outputting, and, as such, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional elements amount to necessary data transmitting/storing/outputting. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(8) updating the software with the update data is performed on a condition that a configuration of the in-vehicle network is normal.
The additional element (8) fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional element recites only the idea of updating the software with the update data without details on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the updating solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem of updating the software with the update data with no restriction on how the updating is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the updating, and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites the additional elements:
(1) [a] distribution server configured to […], the distribution server comprising;
(2) a processor;
(3) a storage unit […]; and
(4) the processor is configured to […].
The additional elements (1) to (4) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Also, the claim recites the additional elements:
(5) […] distribute update data of software for in-vehicle devices in a vehicle that includes an in-vehicle network configured by the in-vehicle devices to the vehicle […];
(6) […] that stores normal configuration information that indicates a normal configuration of the in-vehicle network; and
(7) notify, when the configuration of the in-vehicle network is determined not to be normal, a user of the vehicle that the configuration of the in-vehicle network is not normal.
The additional elements (5) to (7) simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) expressly states that the courts have recognized the computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, storing and retrieving information in memory, and presenting offers and gathering statistics as well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activities. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the computing art to distribute update data of software, store configuration information, and notify a user. Therefore, the limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activities even upon reconsideration and do not amount to significantly more.
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(8) updating the software with the update data is performed on a condition that a configuration of the in-vehicle network is normal.
The additional element (8) does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem of updating the software with the update data with no restriction on how the updating is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the updating, and does not provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components, insignificant extra-solution activities, and only the idea of a solution or outcome, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more for at least the reasons stated above.
Claim 4 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the configuration information includes version information on the software of the in-vehicle devices.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 5 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the processor is configured to prohibit a distribution of the update data to the vehicle in which the configuration of the in-vehicle network is determined not to be normal.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 6 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the processor is configured to notify a mobile information terminal of the user that the configuration of the in-vehicle network is not normal.
These claims are dependent on Claim 1, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the judicial exception deficiencies of Claim 1.
Claim 4 recites a further mental step which can be practically performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper and thus, fail to make the claim any less abstract (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claim 6 recites a further additional element that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because it is mere data outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus is an insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and thus, is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5 recites a further additional element that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because it does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), and thus, is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Thus, Claims 4-6 do not add any steps or additional elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert Claim 3 into patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, Claims 3-6 are not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim Interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the limitations of Claim 7 are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Claim 7 is directed to a distribution server, which is a machine, and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 7 recites the limitation:
(a) determining whether the configuration of the in-vehicle network is normal, based on configuration information on the in-vehicle network that is acquired from the vehicle and the normal configuration information.
The recited step, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers performance of the step in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, other than reciting:
(1) [a] non-transitory recording medium storing instructions that are executable by one or more processors of a distribution server […], and that cause the one or more processors to perform functions, wherein;
(2) the distribution server includes a storage unit […]; and
(3) the functions include […].
Nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the limitation (a) in the context of the claim encompasses a human observing the configuration of the in-vehicle network in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to determine whether the configuration of the in-vehicle network is normal. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements:
(1) [a] non-transitory recording medium storing instructions that are executable by one or more processors of a distribution server […], and that cause the one or more processors to perform functions, wherein;
(2) the distribution server includes a storage unit […]; and
(3) the functions include […].
The additional elements (1) to (3) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The non-transitory recording medium and distribution server are used as tools to perform the various steps of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Also, the claim recites the additional elements:
(4) […] that distribute update data of software for in-vehicle devices in a vehicle that includes an in-vehicle network configured by the in-vehicle devices to the vehicle […];
(5) […] that stores normal configuration information that indicates a normal configuration of the in-vehicle network; and
(6) notifying, when the configuration of the in-vehicle network is determined not to be normal, a user of the vehicle that the configuration of the in-vehicle network is not normal.
The additional elements (4) to (6) are mere data transmitting/storing/outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data transmitting/storing/outputting, and, as such, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional elements amount to necessary data transmitting/storing/outputting. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(7) updating the software with the update data is performed on a condition that a configuration of the in-vehicle network is normal.
The additional element (7) fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional element recites only the idea of updating the software with the update data without details on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the updating solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem of updating the software with the update data with no restriction on how the updating is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the updating, and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites the additional elements:
(1) [a] non-transitory recording medium storing instructions that are executable by one or more processors of a distribution server […], and that cause the one or more processors to perform functions, wherein;
(2) the distribution server includes a storage unit […]; and
(3) the functions include […].
The additional elements (1) to (3) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Also, the claim recites the additional elements:
(4) […] that distribute update data of software for in-vehicle devices in a vehicle that includes an in-vehicle network configured by the in-vehicle devices to the vehicle […];
(5) […] that stores normal configuration information that indicates a normal configuration of the in-vehicle network; and
(6) notifying, when the configuration of the in-vehicle network is determined not to be normal, a user of the vehicle that the configuration of the in-vehicle network is not normal.
The additional elements (4) to (6) simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) expressly states that the courts have recognized the computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, storing and retrieving information in memory, and presenting offers and gathering statistics as well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activities. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the computing art to distribute update data of software, store configuration information, and notify a user. Therefore, the limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activities even upon reconsideration and do not amount to significantly more.
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(7) updating the software with the update data is performed on a condition that a configuration of the in-vehicle network is normal.
The additional element (7) does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem of updating the software with the update data with no restriction on how the updating is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the updating, and does not provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components, insignificant extra-solution activities, and only the idea of a solution or outcome, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0113520 (hereinafter “Kotani”) in view of US 2018/0205602 (hereinafter “Roman”).
[Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to distributing update data of software for in-vehicle devices to a vehicle (specification, page 1, paragraph [0005]). As for the “same field of endeavor” test, Kotani is generally directed to updating software via a network (Kotani, paragraph [0002]). And as for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Roman is generally directed to installing and managing network devices on a wireless network (Roman, paragraph [0001]). Thus, Kotani and Roman are both analogous art to the claimed invention (even if they address different problems or are not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).]
As per Claim 1, Kotani discloses:
A distribution system (Figure 2) comprising:
a vehicle that includes an in-vehicle network configured by in-vehicle devices (paragraph [0046], “The automobile 21 [a vehicle] includes in-vehicle equipment 23 [an in-vehicle network] and an ECU 24A, an ECU 24B, and an ECU 24C [in-vehicle devices].”); and
a distribution server configured to distribute update data of software for the in-vehicle devices to the vehicle (paragraph [0047]1, “The in-vehicle equipment 23 [the in-vehicle devices] receives update software from the update server 22 [a distribution server] and gives an instruction to apply the received update software to the ECU 24 of the update target.”; paragraph [0050], “[…] the update software may be the software with a format that is applied to the software in which a defect has been found, or may be the one with a format that is replaced with the software in which a defect has been found. Specifically, the update software is a software patch.”), wherein:
[1Examiner’s Remarks: Note that Kotani discloses the in-vehicle equipment receives update software from the update server. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that the update server distributes the update software to the in-vehicle equipment.]
updating the software with the update data is performed on a condition that a configuration of the in-vehicle network is normal (paragraph [0053], “The update server 22, when receiving the configuration information, decides whether or not the software may be updated on the basis of the received configuration information. When deciding that the software may be updated, the update server 22 selects the update software and calculates the white list in which values of the configuration information of each unit of software are stored when applying the selected software has succeeded (emphasis added).”);
the distribution server includes a processor and a storage unit that stores normal configuration information that indicates a normal configuration of the in-vehicle network (paragraph [0049], “The update server 22, by using a real machine that has the configuration similar to the vehicle or a simulator that have been prepared according to the configuration information, calculates a white list in which values of the configuration information of each software when applying the selected software has succeeded, are stored (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0142], “The update server 22 includes a CPU (Central Processing Unit) 401, […] a storage device 403 […].”);
the vehicle is configured to transmit configuration information on the in-vehicle network to the distribution server (paragraph [0049], “The update server 22 transmits, to the in-vehicle equipment 23, a request to acquire the configuration information of the ECU 24, and receives, as a response thereto, the configuration information of the ECU 24.”; paragraph [0053], “The automobile 21 [the vehicle], when receiving the request to acquire the configuration information, collects the configuration information from each ECU 24 and transmits to the update server 22 the collected configuration information (S102) (emphasis added).”); and
the processor is configured to:
determine whether the configuration of the in-vehicle network is normal, based on the configuration information and the normal configuration information (paragraph [0053], “The update server 22, when receiving the configuration information after processing of installing the update software, verifies whether or not the software has been updated normally by comparing the received configuration information with the values of the white list. Then, the update server 22 transmits a final instruction to the automobile 21 on the basis of the success or failure of the update of the software (S105) (emphasis added).”); and
when the configuration of the in-vehicle network is determined not to be normal (paragraph [0053], “On the other hand, in the final instruction, the instruction for rollback is given to the automobile 21 when it is decided that the processing of installing the update software has not been performed normally (emphasis added).”).
Kotani discloses “the vehicle,” “the in-vehicle network,” and “when the configuration of the in-vehicle network is determined not to be normal,” but Kotani does not explicitly disclose:
notify, when the configuration of the in-vehicle network is determined not to be normal, a user of the vehicle that the configuration of the in-vehicle network is not normal.
However, Roman discloses:
notify […] a user […] that the configuration […] is not normal (paragraph [0056], “In some implementations, if a device is still missing configuration settings (i.e., either assistant device 105 does not have those configuration settings or the rules do not allow it to provide those configuration settings), then assistant device 105 can alert the user that the device is missing some configuration settings [notify {…} a user {…} that the configuration {…} is not normal]. For example, an alert can be provided on the display screen of assistant device 105 (emphasis added).”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Kotani and Roman are both analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Roman into the teaching of Kotani to include “notify, when the configuration of the in-vehicle network is determined not to be normal, a user of the vehicle that the configuration of the in-vehicle network is not normal.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to allow a user of a vehicle to manually input configuration settings that need to be set up (Roman, paragraph [0056]). Making the modification would improve Kotani’s invention of updating software via a network (Kotani, paragraph [0002]) because Roman’s teaching would allow for corrections of configurations of in-vehicle devices. This would be beneficial to Kotani because Kotani’s updating of software can be improved by alerting a user so that the user can make changes to correct the configurations of the in-vehicle devices and thus, allowing the installation of the update software for the in-vehicle devices.
As per Claim 2, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Kotani further discloses:
wherein the vehicle is configured to transmit the configuration information to the distribution server, when there is a change in the configuration of the in-vehicle network (paragraph [0049], “The update server 22 transmits, to the in-vehicle equipment 23, a request to acquire the configuration information of the ECU 24, and receives, as a response thereto, the configuration information of the ECU 24.”; paragraph [0053], “The automobile 21 [the vehicle], when receiving the request to acquire the configuration information, collects the configuration information from each ECU 24 and transmits to the update server 22 the collected configuration information (S102) (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0066], “FIG. 7 illustrates an example of a configuration of a white list Z.” and “[…] the management unit 31 acquires the ‘B-TT78’ for example from corporation B, and prepares the white list Z by updating the information of each field of the record in which the name of the software 41 of the white list Y is the ‘B-TT77’ to the corresponding information of the ‘B-TT78’ [when there is a change in the configuration of the in-vehicle network].”).
Claim 3 is a distribution server claim corresponding to the distribution system claim hereinabove (Claim 1). Therefore, Claim 3 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
As per Claim 6, the rejection of Claim 3 is incorporated; and Kotani discloses “the in-vehicle network,” but Kotani does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the processor is configured to notify a mobile information terminal of the user that the configuration of the in-vehicle network is not normal.
However, Roman discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to notify a mobile information terminal of the user that the configuration […] is not normal (paragraph [0047], “As previously discussed, assistant device 105 can be a smartphone. However, assistant device 105 can also be a tablet, smartwatch, or other mobile device [a mobile information terminal of the user].”; paragraph [0056], “In some implementations, if a device is still missing configuration settings (i.e., either assistant device 105 does not have those configuration settings or the rules do not allow it to provide those configuration settings), then assistant device 105 can alert the user that the device is missing some configuration settings [notify {…} the user {…} that the configuration {…} is not normal]. For example, an alert can be provided on the display screen of assistant device 105 (emphasis added).”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Roman is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Roman into the teaching of Kotani to include “wherein the processor is configured to notify a mobile information terminal of the user that the configuration of the in-vehicle network is not normal.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to allow a user of a vehicle to manually input configuration settings that need to be set up using an assistant device, such as a smartphone (Roman, paragraph [0056]). Making the modification would improve Kotani’s invention of updating software via a network (Kotani, paragraph [0002]) because Roman’s teaching would allow for corrections of configurations of in-vehicle devices using an assistant device, such as a smartphone. This would be beneficial to Kotani because Kotani’s updating of software can be improved by alerting a user so that the user can make changes to correct the configurations of the in-vehicle devices using the assistant device, such as a smartphone and thus, allowing the installation of the update software for the in-vehicle devices.
Claim 7 is a non-transitory recording medium claim corresponding to the distribution system claim hereinabove (Claim 1). Therefore, Claim 7 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotani in view of Roman as applied to Claim 3 above, and further in view of US 2015/0301822 (hereinafter “Takahashi”).
[Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to distributing update data of software for in-vehicle devices to a vehicle (specification, page 1, paragraph [0005]). As for the “same field of endeavor” test, Takahashi is generally directed to updating a program installed in an electronic control unit mounted to a vehicle (Takahashi, paragraph [0002]). Thus, Takahashi is an analogous art to the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).]
As per Claim 4, the rejection of Claim 3 is incorporated; and the combination of Kotani and Roman does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the configuration information includes version information on the software of the in-vehicle devices.
However, Takahashi discloses:
wherein the configuration information includes version information on the software of the in-vehicle devices (paragraph [0038], “Specifically, the program management process references the database 12 and determines whether or not the latest version of the ECU program is installed in the ECUs 30 through 44. The vehicle 20 corresponding to the vehicle ID may include the ECU (at least one of the ECUs 30 through 40) that needs to update the ECU program to the latest version (emphasis added).”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Takahashi is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Takahashi into the combined teachings of Kotani and Roman to include “wherein the configuration information includes version information on the software of the in-vehicle devices.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to update software of in-vehicle devices to the latest version (Takahashi, paragraph [0038]). Making the modification would improve Kotani’s invention of updating software via a network (Kotani, paragraph [0002]) because Takahashi’s teaching would allow for updating software of in-vehicle devices to the latest version. This would be beneficial to Kotani because Kotani’s updating of software can be improved by installing the latest version of the update software for the in-vehicle devices.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotani in view of Roman as applied to Claim 3 above, and further in view of US 2018/0095745 (hereinafter “Mine”).
[Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to distributing update data of software for in-vehicle devices to a vehicle (specification, page 1, paragraph [0005]). As for the “same field of endeavor” test, Mine is generally directed to remotely updating software of a terminal (Mine, paragraph [0001]). Thus, Mine is an analogous art to the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).]
As per Claim 5, the rejection of Claim 3 is incorporated; and Kotani discloses “in which the configuration of the in-vehicle network is determined not to be normal,” but the combination of Kotani and Roman does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the processor is configured to prohibit a distribution of the update data to the vehicle in which the configuration of the in-vehicle network is determined not to be normal.
However, Mine discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to prohibit a distribution of the update data to the vehicle […] (paragraph [0072], “[…] the computer system may also set a distribution prohibition flag in the update file which did not operate normally in the test vehicle, and prohibit the distribution of the update file to the general vehicles until the update file is corrected and the prohibition flag is cancelled (emphasis added).”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Mine is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Mine into the combined teachings of Kotani and Roman to include “wherein the processor is configured to prohibit a distribution of the update data to the vehicle in which the configuration of the in-vehicle network is determined not to be normal.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to prohibit a software update from being distributed to a vehicle when the software update did not operate normally in the vehicle (Mine, paragraph [0072]). Making the modification would improve Kotani’s invention of updating software via a network (Kotani, paragraph [0002]) because Mine’s teaching would allow for prohibiting a software update from being distributed to in-vehicle devices. This would be beneficial to Kotani because Kotani’s updating of software can be improved by prohibiting the software update from being distributed to the in-vehicle devices when the software update did not operate normally in the in-vehicle devices.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure. They are as follows:
US 2022/0024472 (hereinafter “Hachisuwa”) discloses a control apparatus for controlling a vehicle.
US 2022/0317992 (hereinafter “Inoue”) discloses performing a program update for an ECU.
US 2022/0317994 (hereinafter “Nagamitsu”) discloses a network system for updating a program of an electronic control unit.
US 2023/0315440 (hereinafter “Clark”) discloses tracking vehicle configurations across the vehicle lifecycle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Qing Chen whose telephone number is 571-270-1071. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Wei 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 more 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.
/Qing Chen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191