DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the amendment submitted on April 13, 2026.
Claims 1-4 and 7 are pending.
Claims 1, 3, and 7 are currently amended.
Claims 5 and 6 are canceled.
The objection to the title of the invention is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendments to the title of the invention.
The objections to Claims 1 and 5-7 are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendments to the claims or cancellation of the claims.
The 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections of Claims 1-7 are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s arguments and amendments to the claims or cancellation of the claims.
In the interest of facilitating compact prosecution, the Examiner kindly asks the Applicant’s representative to authorize Internet communications with the Examiner by submitting Form PTO/SB/439 using Patent Center.
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.
Response to Amendment
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “distribute update data of software for the in-vehicle devices.” It should read -- distribute update data of software of the in-vehicle devices --.
Claims 1 and 3 recite “the processor is configured to.” It should read -- the processor is further configured to --.
Claims 1, 3, and 7 recite “the update data.” It should read -- the update data of the software of the in-vehicle devices --.
Claims 1, 3, and 7 recite “transmit configuration information on the in-vehicle network.” It should presumably read -- transmit configuration information of the in-vehicle network --.
Claims 1, 3, and 7 recite “the normal configuration information.” It should read -- the normal configuration information of the in-vehicle network --.
Claims 1, 3, and 7 recite “whose configuration of the in-vehicle network.” It should read -- whose configuration of the in-vehicle network of a respective vehicle --.
Claims 1-3 and 7 recite “the configuration of the in-vehicle network.” It should read
-- the configuration of the in-vehicle network of the respective vehicle --.
Claim 2 recites “the vehicle.” It should read -- the respective vehicle --.
Claims 2 and 4 recite “the configuration information.” It should read -- the configuration information of the respective vehicle --.
Claims 3 and 7 recite “distribute update data of software for in-vehicle devices in a plurality of vehicles.” It should read -- distribute update data of software of in-vehicle devices to a plurality of vehicles --.
Claims 3 and 7 recite “each vehicle.” It should read -- each vehicle of the plurality of vehicles --.
Claim 7 recites “the distribution server includes a storage unit.” It should read -- the distribution server includes a processor and a storage unit --.
Claim 7 recites “the functions include:.” It should read -- the functions further include --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 3, and 7 recite the limitation “the configuration of the in-vehicle network of a respective vehicle” at lines 20, 11, and 23, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner subsequently interprets this limitation as reading “a configuration of the in-vehicle network of a respective vehicle” for the purpose of further examination.
Claim 2 depends on Claim 1. Therefore, Claim 2 suffers the same deficiency as Claim 1.
Claim 4 depends on Claim 3. Therefore, Claim 4 suffers the same deficiency as Claim 3.
Claims 1, 3, and 7 recite the limitation “the respective vehicle” at lines 22, 13, and 25, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner subsequently interprets this limitation as reading “a respective vehicle” for the purpose of further examination.
Claim 2 depends on Claim 1. Therefore, Claim 2 suffers the same deficiency as Claim 1.
Claim 4 depends on Claim 3. Therefore, Claim 4 suffers the same deficiency as Claim 3.
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 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0113520 (hereinafter “Kotani”) in view of US 2020/0050442 (hereinafter “Sakurai”), US 2018/0095745 (hereinafter “Mine”), and 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 Sakurai is generally directed to a vehicle information communication system (Sakurai, paragraph [0002]). And Mine is generally directed to remotely updating software of a terminal (Mine, paragraph [0001]). 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, Sakurai, Mine, and Roman are all 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, the vehicle] including 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.]
the distribution server includes a processor and a storage unit that stores […] configuration information received from [the vehicle] (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. The update server 22 grasps a state of each ECU 24 of the automobile 21 on the basis of the received configuration information and selects the most appropriate update software. 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 […].”);
[…] 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).”);
[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 of a respective vehicle is normal, based on the configuration information of the respective vehicle stored in the storage unit 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
notify, when the configuration of the in-vehicle network of a respective vehicle is determined not to be normal, […] that the configuration of the in-vehicle network is not normal by transmitting a configuration abnormality notification to that vehicle […] (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. The automobile 21, when receiving the final instruction, performs processing of fixing the update in accordance with the instructed content. Namely, the automobile 21 validates the update software when it receives the instruction to validate the update software, and the automobile 21 performs rollback when it receives the instruction for rollback (emphasis added).”).
Kotani discloses “a vehicle,” but Kotani does not explicitly disclose:
a plurality of vehicles;
a campaign database;
the processor is configured to register campaign information in the campaign database, the campaign information including the update data […];
included in the campaign information; and
upon registration of the campaign information in the campaign database, for each vehicle of the plurality of vehicles.
However, Sakurai discloses:
a plurality of vehicles (paragraph [0201], “The center apparatus 3 determines the vehicles [a plurality of vehicles] available to the program update by referring to the individual vehicle information DB 213 and campaign DB 217.”);
a campaign database (paragraph [0201], “The center apparatus 3 determines the vehicles [a plurality of vehicles] available to the program update by referring to the individual vehicle information DB 213 and campaign DB 217 (emphasis added).”);
the processor is configured to register campaign information in the campaign database, the campaign information including the update data […] (paragraph [0111], “As shown in FIG. 14, various data is registered in the campaign DB 217. The registered data includes: a campaign ID; a distribution package ID; message information such as text contents concretely indicating update contents as campaign contents; a target VIN list being a list of VINs indicating vehicles available to the corresponding campaign; a vehicle SWID before the update; a vehicle SWID after the update; a list of ECU SWIDs before the update; a list of ECU SWIDs after the update (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0159], “[…] the center computer 310 (update presence/absence check unit 211) accesses the campaign DB 217 via the campaign management unit 3D, and checks whether update due to new program(s) is available. The center computer 310 determines the presence or absence of the available update through comparing the vehicle SWID uploaded from the vehicle system 4 with a before-updated vehicle SWID registered in the campaign DB 217 in association with an after-update vehicle SWID (emphasis added).”);
included in the campaign information (paragraph [0111], “As shown in FIG. 14, various data is registered in the campaign DB 217. The registered data includes: a campaign ID; a distribution package ID; message information such as text contents concretely indicating update contents as campaign contents; a target VIN list being a list of VINs indicating vehicles available to the corresponding campaign; a vehicle SWID before the update; a vehicle SWID after the update; a list of ECU SWIDs before the update; a list of ECU SWIDs after the update (emphasis added).”); and
upon registration of the campaign information in the campaign database, for each vehicle of the plurality of vehicles (paragraph [0111], “As shown in FIG. 14, various data is registered in the campaign DB 217. The registered data includes: a campaign ID; a distribution package ID; message information such as text contents concretely indicating update contents as campaign contents; a target VIN list being a list of VINs indicating vehicles available to the corresponding campaign; a vehicle SWID before the update; a vehicle SWID after the update; a list of ECU SWIDs before the update; a list of ECU SWIDs after the update (emphasis added).”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Kotani and Sakurai 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 Sakurai into the teaching of Kotani to include “a plurality of vehicles; a campaign database; the processor is configured to register campaign information in the campaign database, the campaign information including the update data […]; included in the campaign information; and upon registration of the campaign information in the campaign database, for each vehicle of the plurality of vehicles.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to check whether update due to new program(s) is available for in-vehicle devices (Sakurai, paragraph [0159]). Making the modification would improve Kotani’s invention of updating software via a network (Kotani, paragraph [0002]) because Sakurai’s teaching would allow for checking whether update due to new program(s) is available for the in-vehicle devices. This would be beneficial to Kotani because Kotani’s updating of software can be improved by accessing a campaign database to check whether update due to new program(s) is available for the in-vehicle devices.
Kotani discloses “configuration of the in-vehicle network” and the combination of Kotani and Sakurai discloses “based on the campaign information,” but the combination of Kotani and Sakurai does not explicitly disclose:
transmit a software update guide based on the campaign information to each vehicle of the plurality of vehicles whose configuration of the in-vehicle network is determined to be normal; and
prohibit distribution of the update data to each vehicle of the plurality of vehicles whose configuration of the in-vehicle network is determined not to be normal.
However, Mine discloses:
transmit a software update guide […] to each vehicle of the plurality of vehicles whose configuration of the in-vehicle network is determined to be normal (paragraph [0060], “When the package generation module 110 obtains a negative result in step 1202, the package generation module 110 checks the flag Fr2 (S1204), and, upon determining Fr2=’1’, sets the flag Fr3 to ‘1’ in order to permit the distribution of the software package to the general vehicles on grounds that the updating software operated normally in the ECU of the vehicle as a result of the advance verification of the updating software (S1208), and then returns. In S1204, when the package generation module 110 determines that the flag Fr2=’0’, the package generation module 110 returns without performing this step (emphasis added).”); and
prohibit distribution of the update data to each vehicle of the plurality of vehicles whose configuration […] is determined not to be normal […] (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 Sakurai to include “transmit a software update guide based on the campaign information to each vehicle of the plurality of vehicles whose configuration of the in-vehicle network is determined to be normal; and prohibit distribution of the update data to each vehicle of the plurality of vehicles whose 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 distribute a software update to a vehicle when the software update operated normally in the vehicle and prohibit the software update from being distributed to the vehicle when the software update did not operate normally in the vehicle (Mine, paragraphs [0060] and [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 distributing a software update to in-vehicle devices and prohibiting the software update from being distributed to the in-vehicle devices. This would be beneficial to Kotani because Kotani’s updating of software can be improved by distributing a software update to in-vehicle devices when the software update operated normally in the in-vehicle devices and 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.
Kotani discloses “the respective vehicle” and “the in-vehicle network,” but the combination of Kotani, Sakurai, and Mine does not explicitly disclose:
notify […] a user of the respective vehicle that the configuration of the in-vehicle network is not normal by transmitting a configuration abnormality notification […] to a mobile information terminal of the user.
However, Roman discloses:
notify […] a user […] that the configuration […] is not normal by transmitting a configuration abnormality notification […] to 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. 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 combined teachings of Kotani, Sakurai, and Mine to include “notify […] a user of the respective vehicle that the configuration of the in-vehicle network is not normal by transmitting a configuration abnormality notification […] to a mobile information terminal of the user.” 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 an 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.
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 Sakurai, Mine, and 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, Sakurai, Mine, 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, Sakurai, Mine, 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 an update software for the in-vehicle devices.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1, 3, and 7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the arguments.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights