DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This action is in response to the application filed on 03/19/2024.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs, figures, and line number in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/22/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“being unable retrieve” in line 22 of paragraph [0081] from the Detailed Description section, corrected as --being unable to retrieve--.
“proceeds to 714” in the 2nd to last line of paragraph [0062], corrected as --proceeds to 716-- according to Figure 7.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“being unable retrieve” in line 3 of claim 6, corrected as --being unable to retrieve--.
Appropriate correction is required. It is recommended the correction to be done as an amendment to the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) based upon a public use or sale or other public availability of the invention by Nordbruch (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0029489 A1), hereinafter referred to as Nordbruch.
Regarding Claim 16:
Nordbruch discloses, A method of a vehicle computing system, comprising: establishing communication with a computing system of an over-the-air (OTA) integrated charging station; (Paragraph [0111]-[0112] teaches a method for establishing communication between the electric vehicle and charging station, “The method includes the following steps: establishing 401 a communication link between the electric vehicle and a charging station”. The charging station may be over-the-air via wireless integration as states in paragraph [0039], “The charging station may, for example, be designed as a wireless charging station”.); transmitting one or more vehicle specifics to the computing system of the OTA integrated charging station; and receiving a software update from the computing system of the OTA integrated charging station based on the one or more vehicle specifics. (Paragraph [0119] cites that the OEM inspection provider, “… this OEM inspection provider carrying out the check and transmitting the update data to the charging station, so that it is then able to forward the received update data to the e-vehicle”, identifies the particular software update needed to be transmitted via a check. Paragraph [0010]-[0011] specifies that the check determines whether an electric vehicle needs to have a software update by checking vehicle specific information, stored on the vehicle processing unit, on whether the current software stored on the processing unit may need to be updated. The check is then transmitted to the vehicle processing unit as update data for updating the software to the electric vehicle, with the aid of the charging station.);
Regarding Claim 17:
Nordbruch discloses, The method of claim 16, further comprising receiving a notification of availability of the software update from the computing system of the OTA integrated charging station. (Paragraph [0130] identifies the notification of a software update in the form of a request to the driver for permission to carry out the software update, where “If the software updates suffice … at least the keeper/driver is informed … a permission/request for this service is obtained from the driver/keeper in advance (i.e., prior to an update, in particular prior to a transmission of the update data)”. Paragraph [0130] further specifies the vehicle receives the update data from the charging station during charging, “the check and the transmission of the update data, if necessary, take place during charging”.).
Regarding Claim 18:
Nordbruch discloses, The method of claim 17, wherein the software update is received in response to an installation request, wherein the installation request is transmitted to the computing system of the OTA integrated charging system based on one of user input and predetermined instructions stored in memory. (Paragraph [0130] teaches that a user of the electric vehicle is informed of the software update, where permission is obtained as input in advance, “in particular prior to a transmission of the update data”. Therefore, if permission is given as an approval, then transmission of the update is sent. The driver is informed of the software update through the communication interface linking the electric vehicle and the charging station, as outlined in paragraphs [0105]-[0109]. Paragraph [0118]-[0119] specifies that the charging station assumes functionality of the OEM to carry out the check and transmission of update data, if it is necessary. Paragraph [0113]-[0116] specifies that update data stores the preference of a software update that may be imported in advance, so that the vehicle can receive the instruction on whether to install an update if it is necessary, prior to installation.).
Regarding Claim 20:
Nordbruch discloses, The method of claim 16, wherein the software update is received by a software installer of the vehicle computing system (Paragraph [0119] cites that the OEM inspection provider identifies the particular software update needed to be transmitted to the vehicle via a check, “this OEM inspection provider carrying out the check and transmitting the update data to the charging station, so that it is then able to forward the received update data to the e-vehicle”. Paragraph [0010]-[0011] specifies that the check determines whether an electric vehicle needs to have a software update, based on the current software stored on the vehicle processing unit. The check is then transmitted as update data to instruct the installation of the software update to the electric vehicle, as outlined in paragraph [0122].).
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 1-12, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordbruch (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0029489 A1) in view of Veselov et al. (U.S. Publication No. U.S. Patent No. 10706155 B1), hereinafter referred to as Veselov.
Regarding Claim 1:
Nordbruch discloses, A method for an over-the-air (OTA) integrated charging station, comprising: (In paragraph [0087], “FIG. 1 shows a flow chart of a method for operating a charging station”. In paragraph [0077], “a wireless communication link is thus enabled between the e-vehicle and the charging station”.); establishing communication between a computing system of the OTA integrated charging station and a vehicle computing system of an electric vehicle; (Paragraphs [0099]-[0100] describe how communication is established between the charging station and electric vehicle, “Charging station 201 furthermore includes: a communication interface 203 for establishing a communication link between the charging station and an electric vehicle”. In paragraph [0101], the reference specifies a computing system of the electric vehicle as, “a processing unit of the electric vehicle”. In paragraph [0103], the computing system of the charging station is specified as a processor, “charging station 201 includes a processor”, where paragraph [0082] teaches the mapping of the charging station processor to a higher-level computing system of the communication interface, “a processor of the charging station is designed to carry out the technical method steps … in such a way that it appropriately controls the communication interface”.); determining one or more vehicle specifics of the electric vehicle from the vehicle computing system; (In paragraph [0101], “is possible to check, via the communication link, whether a software stored on a processing unit of the electric vehicle has to be updated”.);
(Examiner’s Note: The term, “vehicle specifics” is mapped to the reference’s vehicle software used to operate the processing unit, in light of the examined case specification clarifying the term usage in paragraph [0056] (“The vehicle specifics may include a current operating software”). In paragraph [0026] of Nordbruch states that “software stored on a processing unit of the e-vehicle”. And paragraph [0029] of Nordbruch states that “Software includes, for example, a program or a number of programs which are used to operate a computer, in particular the processing unit”);
establishing communication between the computing system and an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) system; (Paragraph [0045] specifies that a server may be used by the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) to establish communication, “for example online, i.e., via the communication links”, where “the server is a server of an OEM”. Further, paragraph [0043] describes how communication is established with the charging station by, “a further communication link is established between the charging station and a server via a communication network”. The data communicated from the OEM may then be communicated to the vehicle indirectly, by forwarding the data via the charging station, “the charging station receiving the update data from the server via the further communication link in order to transmit the update data via the communication link to the e-vehicle.”. Note that communication is established with the OEM to include both the charging station computing system and vehicle computing system, indirectly or directly.); [ and installing the software update to the vehicle computing system via a software installer thereof. (In paragraph [0045], “In particular, the server is a server of an OEM inspection provider. Such a provider carries out an inspection of the e-vehicle, i.e., in particular of vehicle systems of the e-vehicle”. Paragraph [0048] further specifies, “The server may thus access the e-vehicle remotely … via the communication link … for example, to install update data”. Moreover, paragraph [0117] recites how the installing of the software update is carried, “the installation of possibly necessary software updates are, in particular, provided via a WLAN communication link”.).
Nordbruch does not but Veselov explicitly discloses, retrieving [a software update from the OEM system]. (See Col. 6, lines 51-56, “A data preparation service or a software program within the computing resource service provider's systems may anonymize and/or encrypt the user data and either send the user data to the scanning service or enable the scanning service to retrieve the user data from a limited-access storage location”.). Nordbruch teaches that the software update is received rather than retrieved by the vehicle (Nordbruch, paragraph [0011], “transmitting … update data for updating the software … to the electric vehicle … so that the software may be updated based on the update data”). Although “retrieving” is not explicitly taught in Nordbruch, Veselov teaches that “retrieving” may be interchangeable with ‘sending” (via transmission) because either method achieves the same outcome of obtaining data. The data, in the context of the examined claim, being the software update obtained by the vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try and incorporate the teaching of Veselov into the method disclosed by Nordbruch. The modification would be obvious to try because there is a finite number of predictable solutions. Assuming all other preconditions are working as expected, the update may only be obtained in two ways; if it is given (i.e., sent), or if taken (i.e., retrieved). It is merely a design choice that results in the same outcome of how the vehicle obtains the software update from the OEM system. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to try either method of obtaining data for an update, in order to process data according to the best available configurations.
Regarding Claim 2:
Nordbruch discloses, The method of claim 1, further comprising determining availability of the software update within the OEM system based on the one or more vehicle specifics. (In paragraph [0116] where there is, “a regular inspection analysis, including a possibly necessary import of software updates (software actualizations) in electric vehicles”. Furthermore, the inspection is specified in paragraph [0119], “this OEM inspection provider carrying out the check and transmitting the update data to the charging station, so that it is then able to forward the received update data to the e-vehicle”. The determination of software update availability is explained in paragraphs [0120]-[0122], “the charging station is connected to all and/or different and/or multiple OEMs. In this way, it is in particular ensured that the latest inspection analyses and software updates, i.e., software actualizations, are always available. If defects and/or necessary software updates are detected during an analysis, it is preferably provided that the update data are transmitted to the e-vehicle”.).
Regarding Claim 3:
Nordbruch discloses, The method of claim 1, further comprising sending a notification of availability of the software update to the electric vehicle. (Paragraph [0130] identifies the notification of a software update in the form of a request to the driver for permission to carry out the software update, where “If the software updates suffice … at least the keeper/driver is informed”.).
Regarding Claim 4:
Nordbruch discloses, The method of claim 3, wherein installing the software update is performed in response to receiving an installation request from the vehicle. (Paragraph [0064] teaches that, “… a driver of the e-vehicle with the aid of the charging station to inform them/him, her of this and/or to request from them/him, her a confirmation for carrying out the update …”. In other words, a software update is performed as a result of an affirmative request to update the vehicle.).
Regarding Claim 5:
Nordbruch discloses, The method of claim 1, wherein establishing communication between the vehicle computing system and the computing system of the OTA integrated charging station comprises one of connecting a charging cable of the OTA integrated charging station to the electric vehicle, the charging cable embedded with a data channel and connecting a dedicated data cable of the charging station to the electric vehicle. (Paragraph [0079] specifies, “a wired communication link between the charging station and the electric vehicle”, with said wired communication link including a patch cable that integrates “a cable conduit including a charging cable”. The electric vehicle includes a communication interface, “designed for a wireless and/or wired communication link, for the wired communication link the communication interface including a patch cable for forming the wired communication link between the charging station and the electric vehicle”. Additionally, paragraph [0078] further specifies, “the charging station is able to receive the update data from the server via the further communication link”, thus allowing the charging cable from the wired communication link to transmit data to the electric vehicle.).
Regarding Claim 6:
Nordbruch discloses, The method of claim 1, wherein establishing communication between the vehicle computing system and the computing system of the OTA integrated charging station is in response to the electric vehicle being unable [ (Paragraph [0130] teaches that a driver of the electric vehicle is informed of the software update, “If the software updates suffice … at least the keeper/driver is informed”, where permission is obtained in advance, “in particular prior to a transmission of the update data”. Therefore, if permission is denied, then transmission of the update is denied. The driver is informed of the software update through the communication interface linking the electric vehicle and the charging station, as outlined in paragraphs [0105]-[0109], “Electric vehicle 301 includes: a processing unit 303 on which software 305 is stored; a communication interface 307 for establishing a communication link between the electric vehicle and a charging station, so that it is possible to check ,via the communication link, whether the software 305 stored on the processing unit of the electric vehicle has to be updated, the communication interface 307 being designed to receive, as a function of the check, update data for updating the software 305 via the communication link from the charging station so that the software may be updated based on the update data.”. Paragraph [0117]-[0119] specifies that the charging station assumes functionality of the OEM to carry out the check and transmission of update data, if it is necessary, “the check and the transmission of the update data, if necessary, take place during charging … the charging station assumes the functionality of an OEM inspection provider … this OEM inspection provider carrying out the check and transmitting the update data to the charging station, so that it is then able to forward the received update data to the e-vehicle”, where the OTA programming to carry out a check on whether to update the software is from, “The analysis and the installation of possibly necessary software updates are, in particular, provided via a WLAN communication link”.
Further, in light of the examined case specifications in the Detailed Description at paragraph [0058], “the user rejecting the software update” is cited as a factor in why the vehicle may be unable to install the software request. In paragraph [0081] of the examined case, “being unable [to] retrieve the software update from the OEM system via OTA programming”, includes the example that is “in response to receiving an installation request from the vehicle” when establishing communication between the computing systems of the OTA integrated charging station and vehicle. Therefore, it is further supported that Nordbruch teaches claim 6, as it also describes a request that takes place prior to installation of the software update. Moreover, Figure 7 of the examined case establishes communication between the OTA integrated charging system and vehicle computing system at step 702; and in response to retrieving a software update at step 712, communication occurs between the charging station and vehicle in the following step 14, where the OEM (connected to the charging station) may communicate a request to the vehicle on whether the software update should be installed through an interface; given as an example in paragraph [0064], [0083] where an installation request is displayed on a vehicle, “a message is transmitted to a keeper and/or to a driver of the e-vehicle with the aid of the charging station to inform them/him, her of this and/or to request from them/him, her a confirmation for carrying out the update”, where “the communication interface of the charging station is accordingly designed to receive a confirmation”. Thus, indicating that communication has occurred between the charging station and the vehicle in response to the request. The answer to the request is transmitted from the vehicle, back to the OEM via the charging station. In the case that the request is denied, then that answer is submitted where the OEM will not continue to transmit the software update to the vehicle. Nordbruch also discloses a request from the vehicle where the denial of transmission is communicated to the OEM so the software update will not continue as a response, as discussed above.).
Nordbruch does not but Veselov explicitly discloses, retrieve [a software update from the OEM system]. (See Col. 6, lines 51-56, “A data preparation service or a software program within the computing resource service provider's systems may anonymize and/or encrypt the user data and either send the user data to the scanning service or enable the scanning service to retrieve the user data from a limited-access storage location”.). Nordbruch teaches that the software update is received rather than retrieved by the vehicle (Nordbruch, paragraph [0011], “transmitting … update data for updating the software … to the electric vehicle … so that the software may be updated based on the update data”). Although “retrieving” is not explicitly taught in Nordbruch, Veselov teaches that “retrieve” may be interchangeable with “send” (via transmission) because either method achieves the same outcome of obtaining data. The data, in the context of the examined claim, being the software update obtained by the vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try and incorporate the teaching of Veselov into the method disclosed by Nordbruch. The modification would be obvious to try because there is a finite number of predictable solutions. Assuming all other preconditions are working as expected, the update may only be obtained in two ways; if it is given (i.e., sent), or if taken (i.e., retrieved). It is merely a design choice that results in the same outcome of how the vehicle obtains the software update from the OEM system. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to try either method of obtaining data for an update, in order to process data according to the best available configurations.
Regarding Claim 7:
Nordbruch discloses, The method of claim 1, wherein establishing communication between the vehicle computing system and the computing system of the OTA integrated charging station comprises establishing an OTA connection therebetween. (Paragraph [0077] teaches that the OTA connection is established wirelessly told as, “a wireless communication link is thus enabled between the e-vehicle and the charging station”. A communication interface aids in establishing the wireless communication link involving the computing systems of the vehicle and OTA integrated charging station, as supported in paragraphs [0018], “a processing unit on which software is stored”; [0077], “a wireless communication link is thus enabled between the e-vehicle and the charging station.”: and [0079], “that the communication interface is designed for a wireless and/or wired communication link”.
As mentioned previously in claim 1, paragraph [0101] of the reference specifies a computing system of the electric vehicle as, “a processing unit of the electric vehicle”. In paragraph [0103], the computing system of the charging station is specified as a processor, “charging station 201 includes a processor”; where paragraph [0082] teaches the mapping of the charging station processor to a higher-level computing system of the communication interface, “a processor of the charging station is designed to carry out the technical method steps … in such a way that it appropriately controls the communication interface”, where the communication interface is designed for wireless communication, as stated above.)
Regarding Claim 8:
Nordbruch discloses, The method of claim 1, wherein establishing communication between the computing system of the OTA integrated charging station and the OEM system comprises establishing an OTA connection therebetween. (Paragraphs [0043] teaches that, “a further communication link is established between the charging station and a server via a communication network”, where paragraph [0070] specifies, “the communication link includes a wireless communication link”. Additionally, paragraph [0045] includes that, “the server is a server of an OEM … In particular, the server is a server of an OEM inspection provider”. Therefore, the reference teaches that a charging station may be connected over the air, via wirelessly, to communicate with the OEM.).
Regarding Claim 9:
Nordbruch discloses, A vehicle software update system, comprising: an electric vehicle comprising a vehicle computing system controlled by software; (Paragraph [0105]-[0109] describes a system where the electric vehicle updates software stored on the vehicle processing unit as follows, “Electric vehicle 301 includes: a processing unit 303 on which software 305 is stored; a communication interface 307 for establishing a communication link between the electric vehicle and a charging station, so that it is possible to check, via the communication link, whether the software 305 stored on the processing unit of the electric vehicle has to be updated, the communication interface 307 being designed to receive, as a function of the check, update data for updating the software 305 via the communication link from the charging station so that the software may be updated based on the update data”.); an over-the-air (OTA) integrated charging station configured to communicate with the vehicle computing system; (Paragraph [0107] teaches communication occurs between the charging station and electric vehicle, “a communication interface 307 for establishing a communication link between the electric vehicle and a charging station”. Paragraph [0070] further specifies that the communication may occur over-the-air via wirelessly, “… it is provided that the communication link includes a wireless communication link”.); and an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) system configured to communicate with the OTA integrated charging station, (Paragraph [0045] specifies that a server may be used by the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) to establish communication, “for example online, i.e., via the communication links”, where “the server is a server of an OEM”. Further, paragraph [0043] describes how communication is established with the charging station by, “a further communication link is established between the charging station and a server via a communication network”.); wherein the OTA integrated charging station is configured to [ (In paragraph [0045], “In particular, the server is a server of an OEM inspection provider. Such a provider carries out an inspection of the e-vehicle, i.e., in particular of vehicle systems of the e-vehicle”. Paragraph [0048] further specifies, “The server may thus access the e-vehicle remotely … via the communication link … for example, to install update data”. Moreover, paragraph [0117] recites how the installing of the software update is carried, “the installation of possibly necessary software updates are, in particular, provided via a WLAN communication link”.);
Nordbruch does not but Veselov explicitly discloses, retrieve [a software update for the vehicle from the OEM system]. (See Col. 6, lines 51-56, “A data preparation service or a software program within the computing resource service provider's systems may anonymize and/or encrypt the user data and either send the user data to the scanning service or enable the scanning service to retrieve the user data from a limited-access storage location”.). Nordbruch teaches that the software update is received rather than retrieved by the vehicle (Nordbruch, paragraph [0011], “transmitting … update data for updating the software … to the electric vehicle … so that the software may be updated based on the update data”). Although “retrieving” is not explicitly taught in Nordbruch, Veselov teaches that ‘retrieve’ may be interchangeable with ‘send’ (via transmission) because either action achieves the same outcome of obtaining data. The data, in the context of the examined claim, being the software update obtained by the vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try and incorporate the teaching of Veselov into the system disclosed by Nordbruch. The modification would be obvious to try because there is a finite number of predictable solutions. Assuming all other preconditions are working as expected, the update may only be obtained in two ways; if it is given (i.e., sent), or if taken (i.e., retrieved). It is merely a design choice that results in the same outcome of how the vehicle obtains the software update from the OEM system. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to try either system of obtaining data for an update, in order to process data according to the best available configurations.
Regarding Claim 10:
Nordbruch discloses, The vehicle software update system of claim 9, wherein the OTA integrated charging station is configured to [ (Paragraph [0117]-[0119] specifies that the charging station assumes functionality of the OEM to carry out the check and transmission of update data, if it is necessary, “the check and the transmission of the update data, if necessary, take place during charging … the charging station assumes the functionality of an OEM inspection provider … this OEM inspection provider carrying out the check and transmitting the update data to the charging station, so that it is then able to forward the received update data to the e-vehicle”, where the OTA programming to carry out a check on whether to update the software is from, “The analysis and the installation of possibly necessary software updates are, in particular, provided via a WLAN communication link”. Paragraph [0105]-[0109] teaches that the software update is able to be obtained through the communication interface linking the electric vehicle and the charging station, “a communication interface 307 for establishing a communication link between the electric vehicle and a charging station, so that it is possible to check, via the communication link, whether the software 305 stored on the processing unit of the electric vehicle has to be updated … so that the software may be updated based on the update data”. Functions of the charging station may be carried out with programming as stated in paragraph [0025], “a computer program is provided, which includes program code for carrying out the method for operating a charging station and/or the method for operating an electric vehicle if the computer program is executed on a computer”. In paragraph [0077]-[0078], the charging station may further be integrated to connect wirelessly through a server connected to a communication network to receive the update, “the charging station is able to receive the update data from the server via the further communication link … the communication interface is designed for a wireless and/or wired communication link”.);
Nordbruch does not but Veselov explicitly discloses, retrieve [the software update from the OEM system]. (See Col. 6, lines 51-56, “A data preparation service or a software program within the computing resource service provider's systems may anonymize and/or encrypt the user data and either send the user data to the scanning service or enable the scanning service to retrieve the user data from a limited-access storage location”.). Nordbruch teaches that the software update is received rather than retrieved by the vehicle (Nordbruch, paragraph [0011], “transmitting … update data for updating the software … to the electric vehicle … so that the software may be updated based on the update data”). Although “retrieving” is not explicitly taught in Nordbruch, Veselov teaches that ‘retrieve’ may be interchangeable with ‘send’ (via transmission) because either action achieves the same outcome of obtaining data. The data, in the context of the examined claim, being the software update obtained by the vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try and incorporate the teaching of Veselov into the system disclosed by Nordbruch. The modification would be obvious to try because there is a finite number of predictable solutions. Assuming all other preconditions are working as expected, the update may only be obtained in two ways; if it is given (i.e., sent), or if taken (i.e., retrieved). It is merely a design choice that results in the same outcome of how the vehicle obtains the software update from the OEM system. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to try either system of obtaining data for an update, in order to process data according to the best available configurations.
Regarding Claim 11:
Nordbruch discloses, The vehicle software update system of claim 9, wherein the OTA integrated charging station is configured to communicate with the vehicle computing system via one or more of OTA programming, a data channel embedded in a charging cable coupled to the vehicle, and a dedicated data cable coupled to the vehicle. (Paragraph [0079] specifies, “a wired communication link between the charging station and the electric vehicle”, with said wired communication link including a patch cable that integrates “a cable conduit including a charging cable”. The electric vehicle includes a communication interface, “designed for a wireless and/or wired communication link, for the wired communication link the communication interface including a patch cable for forming the wired communication link between the charging station and the electric vehicle”. Additionally, paragraph [0078] states, “… the communication interface is designed to establish a further communication link … the charging station is able to receive the update data from the server via the further communication link”; paragraph [0079] further specifies, “it is provided that the communication interface is designed for a wireless and/or wired communication link”. Thus, allowing data to be transmitted wirelessly from the communication link, or through the charging cable from the wired communication link to transmit data to the electric vehicle.)
Regarding Claim 12:
Nordbruch discloses, The vehicle software update system of claim 9, wherein the OTA integrated charging station comprises a computing system including a vehicle communication subsystem and an OEM communication subsystem. (Paragraphs [0082]; [0012]-[0013], teach how the charging station comprises a vehicle communication subsystem as a part of the charging station’s communication interface which may be processed with the charging station’s processor, “a processor of the charging station is designed to carry out the technical method steps according to the method in such a way that it appropriately controls the communication interface”; “the charging station furthermore including: a communication interface for establishing a communication link between the charging station and an electric vehicle”. In paragraph [0043]; [0045], the charging station comprises an OEM communication subsystem by establishing access to a server, “a further communication link is established between the charging station and a server via a communication network”, in which “the server is a server of an OEM”.).
Regarding Claim 15:
Nordbruch discloses, The vehicle software update system of claim 9, wherein the vehicle computing system comprises a software installer configured to receive the software update from the OTA integrated charging station. (Paragraph [0119] cites that the charging station connects to the OEM inspection provider to identify the particular software update needed to be transmitted via a check, “the charging station carries out both the check and the transmission of update data … so that it is then able to forward the received update data to the e-vehicle”. Paragraph [0010]-[0011] specifies that the check determines whether an electric vehicle needs to have a software update based on whether the current software stored on the vehicle processing unit should be updated, “checking … whether a software stored on a processing unit of the electric vehicle has to be updated; and transmitting … update data for updating the software via the communication link to the electric vehicle with the aid of the charging station so that the software may be updated based on the update data”. The check is then transmitted as update data to instruct the installation and updating of the software on the electric vehicle with the aid of the charging station. Installation of the software update to the vehicle is further supported in paragraph [0122], “it is preferably provided that the update data are transmitted to the e-vehicle. This means that the software updates are preferably installed”.).
Regarding Claim 19:
Nordbruch discloses, The method of claim 16, wherein establishing communication with the computing system of the OTA integrated charging station is performed in response to the vehicle being unable to [ (Paragraph [0130] teaches that a driver of the electric vehicle is informed of the software update, “If the software updates suffice … at least the keeper/driver is informed”, where permission is obtained in advance, “in particular prior to a transmission of the update data”. Therefore, if permission is denied, then transmission of the update is denied. The driver is informed of the software update through the communication interface linking the electric vehicle and the charging station, as outlined in paragraphs [0105]-[0109], “Electric vehicle 301 includes … a communication interface 307 for establishing a communication link between the electric vehicle and a charging station, so that it is possible to check, via the communication link, whether the software 305 stored on the processing unit of the electric vehicle has to be updated, the communication interface 307 being designed to receive, as a function of the check, update data for updating the software 305 via the communication link from the charging station so that the software may be updated based on the update data”. Paragraph [0117]-[0119] specifies that the charging station assumes functionality of the OEM to carry out the check and transmission of update data, if it is necessary, “the check and the transmission of the update data, if necessary, take place during charging … the charging station assumes the functionality of an OEM inspection provider … this OEM inspection provider carrying out the check and transmitting the update data to the charging station, so that it is then able to forward the received update data to the e-vehicle”. A request from the vehicle where the denial of transmission is communicated back to the OEM so the software update will not continue as a response of the request answer.).
Nordbruch does not but Veselov explicitly discloses, retrieve [an OTA software update from an OEM system]. (See Col. 6, lines 51-56, “A data preparation service or a software program within the computing resource service provider's systems may anonymize and/or encrypt the user data and either send the user data to the scanning service or enable the scanning service to retrieve the user data from a limited-access storage location”.). Nordbruch teaches that the software update is received rather than retrieved by the vehicle (Nordbruch, paragraph [0011], “transmitting … update data for updating the software … to the electric vehicle … so that the software may be updated based on the update data”). Although “retrieving” is not explicitly taught in Nordbruch, Veselov teaches that ‘retrieve’ may be interchangeable with ‘send’ (via transmission) because either action achieves the same outcome of obtaining data. The data, in the context of the examined claim, being the software update obtained by the vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try and incorporate the teaching of Veselov into the method disclosed by Nordbruch. The modification would be obvious to try because there is a finite number of predictable solutions. Assuming all other preconditions are working as expected, the update may only be obtained in two ways; if it is given (i.e., sent), or if taken (i.e., retrieved). It is merely a design choice that results in the same outcome of how the vehicle obtains the software update from the OEM system. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to try either method of obtaining data for an update, in order to process data according to the best available configurations.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordbruch (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0029489 A1) in view of Veselov as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Babayan et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0394036 A1), hereinafter referred to as Babayan.
Regarding Claim 13:
Nordbruch discloses, The vehicle software update system of claim 12, wherein the vehicle communication subsystem [(Paragraphs [0099]-[0103] specifies that once the charging station establishes communication with the vehicle communication subsystem through the communication interface, “Charging station 201 furthermore includes: a communication interface 203 for establishing a communication link between the charging station and an electric vehicle”; the computing system of the charging station (being a processor), may carry out a check on the vehicle specifics, “it is possible to check, via the communication link, whether a software stored on a processing unit of the electric vehicle has to be updated … the communication interface being designed to transmit, as a function of the check, update data for updating the software”. One of the vehicle specifics determined when carrying out the check is the current operating software, “whether a software stored on a processing unit of the electric vehicle has to be updated”, as stated in paragraph [0101]. The software update specific to the vehicle may be installed from data transmitted by the communication interface, once permission is given by the driver to install the software update, “when the update of the software suffices, a message is transmitted to a keeper and/or to a driver of the e-vehicle with the aid of the charging station to inform them/him … and/or to request … a confirmation for carrying out the update … it is then provided that the software is updated … only in response to a confirmation on the part of the keeper and/or on the part of the driver” (paragraph [0064]).).
Nordbruch as modified does not but Babayan explicitly discloses, comprises instructions stored in memory that, when executed by a processor of the computing system (Babayan specifies hardware components of the claim that Nordbruch does not explicitly state. In paragraph [0171], “The non-transitory computer-readable medium 6020 may also store computer-readable instructions 6030 that may be executed by the control circuit 6015”. Paragraph [0168] specifies the mapping of elements, “the control circuit 6015 may include one or more processors”, and, “a non-transitory computer-readable medium 6020, also referred to herein as memory”. Thus, Babayan discloses instructions stored on memory that may be executed by the processor. Further, the invention disclosed by Babayan is aimed to solve a similar goal as stated in the Abstract, “The computing system generates a task package including the OTA software update and indicating the action to be taken for implementing the OTA software update”.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Nordbruch by adapting the teaching in Babayan, to obtain an easier delivery of software updates for vehicles from manufactures with the use of over-the-air (OTA) updates.
Claim 13 inherits the dependency from Claim 9 on an element, “retrieve,” disclosed by Veselov. Note that Nordbruch in view of Babayan does not explicitly disclose the element either. However, it would continue to be obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Veselov into the system disclosed by Nordbruch in view of Babayan to try either method (retrieving or sending) of obtaining data for an update, in order to process data according to the best available configurations. Please refer to claim 9 for further explanation.
Regarding Claim 14:
Nordbruch discloses, The vehicle software update system of claim 13, wherein the OEM communication subsystem [. (In paragraph [0043]; [0045], the charging station comprises an OEM communication subsystem by establishing access to a server, “a further communication link is established between the charging station and a server via a communication network”, in which “the server is a server of an OEM”. Paragraph [0043] additionally specifies that the OEM subsystem obtains the software update for the vehicle via update data, “… the charging station receiving the update data from the server via the further communication link in order to transmit the update data via the communication link to the e-vehicle”. One of the vehicle specifics determined when carrying out the check is checking the current operating software on the vehicle, as stated in paragraph, “whether a software stored on a processing unit of the electric vehicle has to be updated”, where paragraph [0085] further specifies, “the software is updated based on the update data”, and in paragraph [0114], “receiving 405 with the aid of the electric vehicle, as a function of the check 403, update data for updating the software”.).
Nordbruch does not but Veselov explicitly discloses the element, retrieve [the software update for the electric vehicle from the OEM system]. (See Col. 6, lines 51-56,, “A data preparation service or a software program within the computing resource service provider's systems may anonymize and/or encrypt the user data and either send the user data to the scanning service or enable the scanning service to retrieve the user data from a limited-access storage location”.). Nordbruch teaches that the software update is received rather than retrieved by the vehicle (Nordbruch, paragraph [0011], “transmitting … update data for updating the software … to the electric vehicle … so that the software may be updated based on the update data”). Although “retrieving” is not explicitly taught in Nordbruch, Veselov teaches that ‘retrieve’ may be interchangeable with ‘send’ (via transmission) because either action achieves the same outcome of obtaining data. The data, in the context of the examined claim, being the software update obtained by the vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try and incorporate the teaching of Veselov into the system disclosed by Nordbruch in view of Babayan. The modification would be obvious to try because there is a finite number of predictable solutions. Assuming all other preconditions are working as expected, the update may only be obtained in two ways; if it is given (i.e., sent), or if taken (i.e., retrieved). It is merely a design choice that results in the same outcome of how the vehicle obtains the software update from the OEM system. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to try either system of obtaining data for an update, in order to process data according to the best available configurations.
Nordbruch as modified does not but Babayan explicitly discloses, comprises instructions stored in memory that, when executed by the processor (Babayan specifies hardware components of the claim that Nordbruch does not explicitly state. In paragraph [0171], “The non-transitory computer-readable medium 6020 may also store computer-readable instructions 6030 that may be executed by the control circuit 6015”. Paragraph [0168] specifies the mapping of elements, “the control circuit 6015 may include one or more processors”, and, “a non-transitory computer-readable medium 6020, also referred to herein as memory”. Thus, Babayan discloses instructions stored on memory that may be executed by the processor. Further, the invention disclosed by Babayan is aimed to solve a similar goal as stated in the Abstract, “The computing system generates a task package including the OTA software update and indicating the action to be taken for implementing the OTA software update”.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Nordbruch by adapting the teaching in Babayan, to obtain an easier delivery of software updates for vehicles from manufactures with the use of over-the-air (OTA) updates.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Beza D Nigatu whose telephone number is (571) 272-9643. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 3:30pm.
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, Hyung Sough can be reached at (571) 272-6799. 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.
/B.D.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2192
/S. Sough/SPE, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights