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 .
Claims 1-16 are pending in this office action.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Place holders
Claims
Functions
FOTA supervisor module
1
Receive, transmit
Propulsion supervisory controller
1
Control to overcome
FOTA supervisor module
2
receive
Propulsion supervisory controller
5
perform
Propulsion supervisory controller
8
continue
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based e-Terminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An e-Terminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about e-Terminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-16 provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-18 of co-pending Application No. 18/619,257. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other: mapping of independent claims 1 is as follow where identical limitations have same cue.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Application:18/619,257
Application:18/619,264
A high voltage management system for an electrified vehicle having firmware over-the-air (FOTA) capability, the high voltage management system comprising:
a FOTA supervisor module configured to: receive, via a wireless communication medium, a FOTA flash update for a set of components of the electrified vehicle,
receive, from a customer, a customer input indicating a desired time to perform the FOTA flash update, and coordinate the FOTA flash update of a set of components based on the customer input;
and a supervisory controller configured to: control an electrified powertrain, including a high voltage system, of the electrified vehicle, and ignore or reject a plurality of valid high voltage wakeup requests for the high voltage system to prevent interruption of the FOTA flash update of the set of components.
1. A firmware over-the-air (FOTA) flash update control system for an electrified vehicle, the FOTA flash update control system comprising:
a FOTA supervisor module connected to a controller area network (CAN) of the electrified vehicle, the FOTA supervisor module configured to: receive a FOTA flash update via a wireless communication medium
and determine a set of controllers on the CAN that are intended to be flashed by the FOTA flash update, and transmit, via the CAN, a FOTA applicability signal indicative of the set of controllers on the CAN that will be flashed by the FOTA flash update and a maximum FOTA time for performing the FOTA flash update;
and a propulsion supervisory controller connected to the CAN and configured to control a propulsion system of the electrified vehicle, based on the FOTA applicability signal, to overcome a conflict between the propulsion system and the performing of the FOTA flash update.
Independent claim 9
Independent claim 10
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 4, 9-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman et al US20140109075A1 in view of Zymeri et al US20170123784A1.
As per claim 1, Hoffman discloses a firmware over-the-air (FOTA) flash update control system for an electrified vehicle:
[0011] “In this manner, the present invention contemplates facilitating automatic updates of the vehicle modules 22 without requiring the vehicle owner to take the vehicle 12 to dealership or to possess any specialized expertise, at least with respect to performing software updates or otherwise having capabilities generally associated with a mechanic or other individual license to repair vehicles.
the FOTA flash update control system comprising: a FOTA supervisor module connected to a controller area network (CAN) of the electrified vehicle, the FOTA supervisor module :
This element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as supervisor module of an electrified vehicle(gateway) [0011] executing steps of [0003].
Hoffman discloses a controller in vehicle of fig. 3 and connected to the can bus for downloading updates.
Examiner interpretation:
[0027] “Block 92 relates to awakening the controller from a sleep mode, low power mode or other operational state where the controller would otherwise be inoperable to facilitate updating the module. The controller may be awoken by various means, such as but not necessarily limited to: engagement of a ignition key, a wake-up signal/message received of the CAN, a real-time communication (RTC) message, short message service (SMS) message, connection of Ethernet cable (e.g., Ethernet connection of controller to the vehicle) and/or as a function of other signals or messaging that may be communicated through the antenna and/or through a local network interface of the controller”;
configured to: receive a FOTA flash update via a wireless communication medium and
This element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as supervisor module of an electrified vehicle(gateway) [0011] executing steps of [0003] to obtain the update.
Hoffman discloses a controller in vehicle of fig. 3 and connected to the can bus for downloading updates executing steps of fig. 14.
Examiner interpretation:
[0014]”The processes performed by the controller 20 may rely upon wireless signaling with the server 14 to facilitate transmitting the files associated with updating those already resident on the modules 22 and/or providing new files for later added modules or modules not already having an initial file set. [0011] “The system 10 is shown for exemplary non-limiting purposes with respect to facilitating over the air (OTA) updates for a vehicle 12 using one or more files provided from a server 14. A manager or other individual 16 associated with the server 14 may input the files needed for updating and the server 14 may communicate an appropriate one or more of files to the vehicle 12 by way of a network, cloud or other communication medium 18”;
determine a set of controllers on the CAN that are intended to be flashed by the FOTA flash update,
This element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as supervisor module of an electrified vehicle(gateway) [0011] executing steps of [0003] o identify module that need to obtain the update.
Hoffman discloses a controller in vehicle of fig. 3 and connected to the can bus for determining module to be updated [0018].
Examiner interpretation:
[0018] “The antenna 44 may be used to facilitate wirelessly downloading the difference file 48 to the controller memory 40. The controller 20 may be configured to facilitate updating or otherwise tracking various versions of the files included within any number of modules 22 of the vehicle 12”.
and transmit, via the CAN, a FOTA applicability signal indicative of the set of controllers on the CAN that will be flashed by the FOTA flash update and a maximum FOTA time for performing the FOTA flash update:
This element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as supervisor module of an electrified vehicle(gateway) [0011] executing steps of [0003]to obtain and transmit the update.
Hoffman discloses a controller in vehicle of fig. 3 and connected to the can bus for downloading and updating the identified module using steps0f [0024].
Examiner interpretation:
[0024]“The update process illustrated within FIG. 3 requires the controller 20 provide update instructions or other information to the module 22 in order to inform the module 22 of the new file 50 and/or to undertake other operations necessary to replace an old file 34 with the new file 50 provided from the controller 20.”;
[0028]” Various conditions may be analyzed to determine whether the vehicle is in first or second state, including a capacity of a vehicle battery to provide the power or energy needed to operate the controller, module and/or other vehicle components for a period of time sufficient to start and finish the update without a loss of power”;
But not explicitly:
a propulsion supervisory controller connected to the CAN and configured to control a propulsion system of the electrified vehicle, based on the FOTA applicability signal, to overcome a conflict between the propulsion system and the performing of the FOTA flash update;
Zymeri discloses:
a propulsion supervisory controller connected to the CAN and configured to control a propulsion system of the electrified vehicle, based on the FOTA applicability signal, to overcome a conflict between the propulsion system and the performing of the FOTA flash update;
This element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as ECU module of an electrified vehicle(gateway) [0011] executing steps of [0014]controlling the powertrain and determining when the updates should be rewritten into the ECUs executing steps [0004].
Zymeri discloses a controller in vehicle coordinating the update and controlling the vehicle [0055] to determine when the update should be applied [0083].
Examine interpretation:
[0055]”The robust coordination layer 33, using vehicle update client 14, handles problems at the ECU level up to the vehicle level, and, as a further option, the disaster level (to be resolved in backend 20).
[0083] “Coordination level 33 checks the target values contained in the update flow logic and compares these with actual values of vehicle 10 by using the necessary vehicle interfaces, and thus for example obtains the battery state of vehicle 10 and, if warranted, the momentary degree of battery discharging, and, in the target-actual value comparison, decides whether an installation 36 can be started at all.
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Zymeri into teachings of Hoffman for increasing of the robustness of an over-the-air update of software (FW) and in particular firmware (FW), so that problems are avoided in practical use for the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) and end customers. the robustness of the system is increased in that the robustness of the overall behavior of the system during the OTA SW and in particular FW update is not influenced by stressful and, possibly, abnormal system environmental conditions. [Zymeri 0047].
As per claim 2, the rejection 2 is incorporated and furthermore, Hoffman does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the FOTA supervisor module is further configured to receive a customer input to either (i) perform the FOTA flash update immediately or (ii) to perform the FOTA flash update at a future scheduled time.
Zymeri discloses:
wherein the FOTA supervisor module is further configured to receive a customer input to either (i) perform the FOTA flash update immediately or (ii) to perform the FOTA flash update at a future scheduled time.
This element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as ECU module of an electrified vehicle(gateway) [0011] executing steps of [0014]controlling the powertrain and determining when the updates should be rewritten into the ECUs executing steps [0004].
Zymeri discloses a an ECU to determine through user interaction whether to install the update or postpone to next time, executing steps [0082 and 0084]];
Examiner interpretation:
[0082] “Coordination layer 33 interprets data parts—the so-called update flow logic and associated conditions for the concrete update installations—from the downloaded vehicle 10 update packet, which indicate to what extent a user interaction 34 must further take place, and whether an agreement has to be obtained, for example to execute the update at a time proposed by coordination layer 33, as well as, in addition, based on the subsequent FOTA flow logic data, if for example previously a further license confirmation from the end user (driver) also has to take place before the actual update installation can even begin, or because vehicle 10 for example has to be brought into a particular state 51 and it is necessary to obtain confirmation from the user”;
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Zymeri into teachings of Hoffman for increasing of the robustness of an over-the-air update of software (FW) and in particular firmware (FW), so that problems are avoided in practical use for the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) and end customers. the robustness of the system is increased in that the robustness of the overall behavior of the system during the OTA SW and in particular FW update is not influenced by stressful and, possibly, abnormal system environmental conditions. [Zymeri 0047].
As per claim 4, the rejection 2 is incorporated and furthermore, Hoffman discloses:
wherein the conflict includes an after-run procedure of an engine or a fuel cell system of the electrified vehicle:
[0029]”The capacity, state of charge (SOC), voltage and/or other parameters of the assessed battery may be monitored with a battery monitoring system (BMS) or other device. The controller may include an algorithm for calculating whether the assessed battery can supply the power needed to perform the update based on the capacity of the battery, amount of time needed to perform the update, the amount of power needed for the components involved in performing the update and/or the power consumption of other vehicle components and system that may need to be operational during the update period.\
See also Zymeri [0083] for checking again if the battery level charge is within an acceptable level( after charging).
As per claim 9, Hoffman discloses a firmware over-the-air (FOTA) flash update control method for an electrified vehicle:
[0011] “In this manner, the present invention contemplates facilitating automatic updates of the vehicle modules 22 without requiring the vehicle owner to take the vehicle 12 to dealership or to possess any specialized expertise, at least with respect to performing software updates or otherwise having capabilities generally associated with a mechanic or other individual license to repair vehicles.
the FOTA flash update control method comprising: receiving, by a FOTA supervisor module connected to a controller area network (CAN) of the electrified vehicle, a FOTA flash update via a wireless communication medium
[0014]”The processes performed by the controller 20 may rely upon wireless signaling with the server 14 to facilitate transmitting the files associated with updating those already resident on the modules 22 and/or providing new files for later added modules or modules not already having an initial file set. [0011] “The system 10 is shown for exemplary non-limiting purposes with respect to facilitating over the air (OTA) updates for a vehicle 12 using one or more files provided from a server 14. A manager or other individual 16 associated with the server 14 may input the files needed for updating and the server 14 may communicate an appropriate one or more of files to the vehicle 12 by way of a network, cloud or other communication medium 18”;
and determine a set of controllers on the CAN that are intended to be flashed by the FO TA flash update:
[0018] “The antenna 44 may be used to facilitate wirelessly downloading the difference file 48 to the controller memory 40. The controller 20 may be configured to facilitate updating or otherwise tracking various versions of the files included within any number of modules 22 of the vehicle 12”.
transmitting, by the FOTA supervisor module via the CAN, a FOTA applicability signal indicative of the set of controllers on the CAN that will be flashed by the FOTA flash update and a maximum FOTA time for performing the FOTA flash update:
[0024]“The update process illustrated within FIG. 3 requires the controller 20 provide update instructions or other information to the module 22 in order to inform the module 22 of the new file 50 and/or to undertake other operations necessary to replace an old file 34 with the new file 50 provided from the controller 20.”;
[0028]” Various conditions may be analyzed to determine whether the vehicle is in first or second state, including a capacity of a vehicle battery to provide the power or energy needed to operate the controller, module and/or other vehicle components for a period of time sufficient to start and finish the update without a loss of power”;
But not explicitly:
and controlling, by a propulsion supervisory controller connected to the CAN, a propulsion system of the electrified vehicle, based on the FOTA applicability signal, to overcome a conflict between the propulsion system and the performing of the FOTA flash update.
Zymeri discloses:
and controlling, by a propulsion supervisory controller connected to the CAN, a propulsion system of the electrified vehicle, based on the FOTA applicability signal, to overcome a conflict between the propulsion system and the performing of the FOTA flash update.
[0055]”The robust coordination layer 33, using vehicle update client 14, handles problems at the ECU level up to the vehicle level, and, as a further option, the disaster level (to be resolved in backend 20).
[0083] “Coordination level 33 checks the target values contained in the update flow logic and compares these with actual values of vehicle 10 by using the necessary vehicle interfaces, and thus for example obtains the battery state of vehicle 10 and, if warranted, the momentary degree of battery discharging, and, in the target-actual value comparison, decides whether an installation 36 can be started at all.
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Zymeri into teachings of Hoffman for increasing of the robustness of an over-the-air update of software (FW) and in particular firmware (FW), so that problems are avoided in practical use for the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) and end customers. the robustness of the system is increased in that the robustness of the overall behavior of the system during the OTA SW and in particular FW update is not influenced by stressful and, possibly, abnormal system environmental conditions. [Zymeri 0047].
As per claim 10, the rejection 9 is incorporated and furthermore, Hoffman does not explicitly disclose:
receiving, by the FOTA supervisor module, a customer input to either (i) perform the FOTA flash update immediately or (ii) to perform the FOTA flash update at a future scheduled time.
Zymeri discloses:
receiving, by the FOTA supervisor module, a customer input to either (i) perform the FOTA flash update immediately or (ii) to perform the FOTA flash update at a future scheduled time.
[0082] “Coordination layer 33 interprets data parts—the so-called update flow logic and associated conditions for the concrete update installations—from the downloaded vehicle 10 update packet, which indicate to what extent a user interaction 34 must further take place, and whether an agreement has to be obtained, for example to execute the update at a time proposed by coordination layer 33, as well as, in addition, based on the subsequent FOTA flow logic data, if for example previously a further license confirmation from the end user (driver) also has to take place before the actual update installation can even begin, or because vehicle 10 for example has to be brought into a particular state 51 and it is necessary to obtain confirmation from the user”;
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Zymeri into teachings of Hoffman for increasing of the robustness of an over-the-air update of software (FW) and in particular firmware (FW), so that problems are avoided in practical use for the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) and end customers. the robustness of the system is increased in that the robustness of the overall behavior of the system during the OTA SW and in particular FW update is not influenced by stressful and, possibly, abnormal system environmental conditions. [Zymeri 0047].
Claim 12 is the method claim corresponding to system claim 4 and rejected under the same rational set forth in connection with the rejection of claim 4 above.
Claims 3, 5-6 , 11, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman et al US20140109075A1 in view of Zymeri et al US20170123784A1 and Kim et al US20200394031A1.
As per claim 3, the rejection 2 is incorporated and furthermore, Hoffman does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the conflict includes an on-going or future scheduled charging session for a high voltage battery system of the electrified vehicle.
Kim discloses:
wherein the conflict includes an on-going or future scheduled charging session for a high voltage battery system of the electrified vehicle.
[0060] When the target current is set by estimating the current amount required for OTA type software update, the controller 210 starts to charge the battery 24 through the battery remaining capacity monitor 220, the battery sensor 280, and the ECU 290 (306). At this time, the controller 210 controls the charging of the battery 24 such that the charge amount of the battery 24 exceeds the target current amount set in step 304. In other words, the controller 210 controls the charging of the battery 24 so that the battery 24 is charged more than the current amount required for OTA type software update.[0061] The controller 210 identifies whether the charging of the battery 24 is completed so that the charge amount of the battery 24 exceeds the target current amount set in step 304 (308).
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Kim into teachings of Hoffman and Zymeri to estimate (calculates) the current amount required for the OTA type software update, and sets the estimated current amount as the target current amount . If it is assumed that the target of the software update is three electronic control units (ECUs), the current amount required to perform the software update of each of these three ECUs may be sufficiently secured through experiments in advance. Therefore, when the targets for the software update are determined, the total current amount required for the software update may be estimated.[Kim 0058].
As per claim 5, the rejection 2 is incorporated and furthermore, Hoffman does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the propulsion supervisory controller is configured to not perform the FOTA flash update in response to determining that the electrified vehicle is experiencing a refueling operation.
Kim discloses:
wherein the propulsion supervisory controller is configured to not perform the FOTA flash update in response to determining that the electrified vehicle is experiencing a refueling operation.
This element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as ECU module of an electrified vehicle(gateway) [0011] executing steps of [0014]controlling the powertrain and determining when the updates should be rewritten into the ECUs executing steps [0004].
Kim discloses an ECU of the electrified vehicle tat calculate the amount of charge in the battery. And while that amount of charge is less than expected. The ECU will not perform the update[0060]
Examiner interpretation.
[0060] “At this time, the controller 210 controls the charging of the battery 24 such that the charge amount of the battery 24 exceeds the target current amount set in step 304. In other words, the controller 210 controls the charging of the battery 24 so that the battery 24 is charged more than the current amount required for OTA type software update.
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Kim into teachings of Hoffman and Zymeri to estimate (calculates) the current amount required for the OTA type software update, and sets the estimated current amount as the target current amount . If it is assumed that the target of the software update is three electronic control units (ECUs), the current amount required to perform the software update of each of these three ECUs may be sufficiently secured through experiments in advance. Therefore, when the targets for the software update are determined, the total current amount required for the software update may be estimated.[Kim 0058].
As per claim 6, the rejection 2 is incorporated and furthermore, Hoffman does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the FOTA flash update is performed after a completion of the conflict.
Kim discloses:
wherein the FOTA flash update is performed after a completion of the conflict.
[0062] When the charge of the battery 24 is completed so that the charge amount of the battery 24 exceeds the target current amount set in step 304 (‘YES’ in 308), the controller 210 activates and transmits the OTA enable signal to the communication module 260 and controls the communication module 260 and the server 240 to communicate with each other to receive data necessary for OTA type software update (310).
[0063] In addition, the controller 210 continuously manages the charging of the battery 24 so that the charge amount of the battery 24 is maintained above the target current amount while the vehicle 100 is driving (312). Since the OTA enable signal is activated and the data necessary for the software update is received, the OTA type software update is performed immediately when the vehicle 100 finishes driving and the engine is turned off. Therefore, it is necessary to continuously manage the charging of the battery 24 so that the charge amount of the battery 24 is maintained above the target current amount before the vehicle 100 finishes driving.
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Kim into teachings of Hoffman and Zymeri to estimate (calculates) the current amount required for the OTA type software update, and sets the estimated current amount as the target current amount . If it is assumed that the target of the software update is three electronic control units (ECUs), the current amount required to perform the software update of each of these three ECUs may be sufficiently secured through experiments in advance. Therefore, when the targets for the software update are determined, the total current amount required for the software update may be estimated.[Kim 0058].
As per claim 13, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated and furthermore, Hoffman does not explicitly disclose:
not performing, by the propulsion supervisory controller, the FOTA flash update in response to determining that the electrified vehicle is experiencing a refueling operation.
Kim discloses:
not performing, by the propulsion supervisory controller, the FOTA flash update in response to determining that the electrified vehicle is experiencing a refueling operation.
[0060] “At this time, the controller 210 controls the charging of the battery 24 such that the charge amount of the battery 24 exceeds the target current amount set in step 304. In other words, the controller 210 controls the charging of the battery 24 so that the battery 24 is charged more than the current amount required for OTA type software update.
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Kim into teachings of Hoffman and Zymeri to estimate (calculates) the current amount required for the OTA type software update, and sets the estimated current amount as the target current amount . If it is assumed that the target of the software update is three electronic control units (ECUs), the current amount required to perform the software update of each of these three ECUs may be sufficiently secured through experiments in advance. Therefore, when the targets for the software update are determined, the total current amount required for the software update may be estimated.[Kim 0058].
Claims 11, 14 are the method claim corresponding to system claims 3, 6 and rejected under the same rational set forth in connection with the rejection of claims 3, 6 above.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman et al US20140109075A1 in view of Zymeri et al US20170123784A1 and Kiyama et al US20180074811A1.
As per claim 7, the rejection 2 is incorporated and furthermore, Hoffman does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the FOTA flash update is performed in priority ahead of the conflict in response to another customer input.
Kiyama discloses:
wherein the FOTA flash update is performed in priority ahead of the conflict in response to another customer input.
[[0121] Subsequently, the update case management unit 112 calculates a total proportion (A %) of the counted numbers for a function category having the degree of priority which is equal to or higher than that of the function category Cx to which the ECU to be updated extracted in step S1303 belongs, on the basis of the proportions of the counted numbers for the respective function categories which are calculated in step S1306 (step S1307). Here, for example, in a case where the proportions of the counted numbers which are calculated in step S1306 are 24%, 12%, 28%, 20%, and 16% in order of C1 to C5 and the function category of the ECU to be updated is C3, the proportions of the counted numbers for C1, C2, and C3 are added up, and thus a calculation result of A=24+12+28=64% is obtained.
[0122] When the above-described total proportion A % is calculated in step S1307, the update case management unit 112 confirms whether or not the current remaining power of the telematics center 100 is equal to or greater than the calculated A % (step S1308). As a result, when the remaining power is equal to or greater than A % (S1308: Yes), the processing proceeds to step S1309. When the remaining power is less than A % (S1308: No), the processing proceeds to step S1310:
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Kiyama into teachings of Hoffman and Zymeri to update software of an ECU in a state where the engine of the vehicle is stopped, that is, a state where the vehicle is not used. On the other hand, or update software of an ECU even when the vehicle is traveling (in motion by controlling propulsion ) [Kimaya0107].
Claim 15 is the method claim corresponding to system claim 7and rejected under the same rational set forth in connection with the rejection of claim 7 above.
Claims 8 and 16 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman et al US20140109075A1 in view of Zymeri et al US20170123784A1 and Masashi et al JP2022128263A.
As per claim 8, the rejection 1 is incorporated and furthermore, Hoffman does not explicitly disclose:
wherein when the set of controllers identified by the FOTA applicability signal do not include any controllers of the propulsion system, the propulsion supervisory controller is configured to continue operating the propulsion system of the electrified vehicle while the FOTA flash update is performed:
Massashi discloses:
wherein when the set of controllers identified by the FOTA applicability signal do not include any controllers of the propulsion system:
paragraph 5 page 8 “As described above, according to this embodiment, before the control software 92 is updated to the acquired new software 202, it is determined whether or not the new software 202 is used for the current control of the vehicle 10, and the new software 202 is determined. When it is determined that the software 202 is not used for the current control, the update of the control software 92 is executed can be prevented”;
the propulsion supervisory controller is configured to continue operating the propulsion system of the electrified vehicle while the FOTA flash update is performed:
This element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as ECU module of an electrified vehicle(gateway) [0011] executing steps of [0004] for not performing update.
Massashi discloses an ECU of the electrified vehicle that not update certain ECU while other ECUs are executed using steps of page 5 p8.
Examiner interpretation:
paragraph 56 page 8 “.. Further, when it is determined that the new software 202 is used for the current control, the control software 92 is updated after the current control is switched to another control in which the new software 202 is not used. Even if it is determined that the new software 202 is used for the current control, the control software 92 can be updated while preventing the control operation of the vehicle 10 from being hindered. Therefore, the opportunities for updating the control software 92 can be increased”;
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Masashi into teachings of Hoffman and Zymeri to update software of an ECU in a state where the engine of the vehicle is stopped, that is, a state where the vehicle is not used. On the other hand, or update software of an ECU even when the vehicle is traveling (in motion by controlling propulsion ) [Kimaya0107].
Claim 16 is the method claim corresponding to system claim 8 and rejected under the same rational set forth in connection with the rejection of claim 8 above.
Pertinent arts:
US 20190258466 A1:
a timer module is configured to: set a timer period to the predetermined period in response to the downloading of the OTA update package; and decrement the timer period as time passes after the downloading of the OTA update package; and an installation module is configured to selectively install the OTA update package and update the code of the module with the replacement code in response to a determination that the timer period is less than or equal to zero.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAHIM BOURZIK whose telephone number is (571)270-7155. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8-4:30).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Wei Y Mui can be reached at 571-270-2738. 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.
/BRAHIM BOURZIK/ Examiner, Art Unit 2191
/WEI Y MUI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2191