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.
claims 1-7, 9-15 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 07/02/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Morita et al JP2025017107A.
But let address the new limitation in view of Morita.
Morita is directed to prioritizing the FOTA update or the charging of the electric vehicle. When the period overlaps, the user can set priority to either FOTA or charging. As a result, when the Charging is prioritized over FOTA, the FOTA is delayed until the charging is complete. Delaying means pushing the time of the update forward in time.
NB: Applicant’s representative is encouraged to contact the examiner for an examiner interview before response to 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
4
overcome
Propulsion supervisory controller
6
overcome
Propulsion supervisory controller
8, 16
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 non-statutory 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 are 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, but underlined limitations constitute the difference.
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 on-going function of propulsion system and the performing of the FOTA flash update.
wherein when the on-going function of the propulsion system is a high voltage battery system plug-in charging session or a vehicle refueling session, the propulsion supervisory controller is configured to overcome the conflict by prioritizing the on-going function and delaying its FOTA flash update until after the on-going function is complete.
Independent claim 9
Independent claim 10
The application does not explicitly disclose:
wherein when the on-going function of the propulsion system is a high voltage battery system plug-in charging session or a vehicle refueling session, the propulsion supervisory controller is configured to overcome the conflict by prioritizing the on-going function and delaying its FOTA flash update until after the on-going function is complete.
Morita discloses:
wherein when the on-going function of the propulsion system is a high voltage battery system plug-in charging session or a vehicle refueling session, the overcoming of the conflict is performed by prioritizing the on-going function and delaying its FOTA flash update until after the on-going function is complete:
Page 6 [p5] “In the charging priority process, when at least a part of the update period overlaps with the charging period, the battery 16 is charged in priority over the software update during the charging period. Charging the battery 16 in priority over the software update means that the charging of the battery 16 has a higher priority than the software update. For example, the charging of the battery 16 is performed before the software update, and the charging of the battery 16 continues during the charging period, except when a predetermined condition is satisfied.
It would have been 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 Morita into teachings of the application for increasing of the robustness of an over-the-air update of software (FW) and in particular firmware (FW), so that conflicts in update vs charging 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. [Morita page 6, [ P4 and P5]].
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, 7, 9-10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman et al US20140109075A1 in view of Morita et al JP2025017107A.
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 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”;
wherein when the on-going function of the propulsion system is a high voltage battery system plug-in charging session or a vehicle refueling session, the propulsion supervisory controller is configured to overcome the conflict by prioritizing the on-going function and delaying its FOTA flash update until after the on-going function is complete:
This element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as supervisor module of an electrified vehicle(gateway) [0011] executing steps of [0017] to resolve conflict [0016].
Hoffman discloses a controller in vehicle fig. 3 and connected to the can bus for determining module to be updated and when to be updated to resolve conflict using steps [0037].
Examiner interpretation:
[0037]“The session or update period may vary depending on the number of files being updated and the rights and/or capabilities of the controller to utilize in-vehicle network resources and/or to update certain modules given a current operational state of the vehicle (e.g., some modules may be not updatable for safety reasons while the vehicle is running or being charged (hybrid or electric vehicle) and/or some modules may not be updatable when in use, i.e., a download process may start when a certain module is idle or asleep and then terminate before commencing read/write actions if the module is subsequently awoken or otherwise engaged for its normal usage)”;
Examiner interpretation: allowing the vehicle to continue charging while pausing/halting the update means prioritizing the charging over update. While the level needed(vehicle state_ is achieved(complete), the update can start or resumes where left.
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 an ongoing function of the propulsion system and the performance of the FOTA flash update.
Morita 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 an ongoing function of 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].
Morita discloses a determination unit 102/controller 100 to proceed with charging and postpone the update for later using steps of Page 15 2nd paragraph
Examine interpretation:
Page 15 2nd paragraph: In step S21, the controller 100 sets the priority mode to the charge priority mode. In step
S22, the controller 100 starts charging the battery 16 at the start time of the charging period.
…
In step S24, the controller 100 determines whether the current time is the start time of the update period. If it is determined that the current time is the start time of the update period, the controller 100 proceeds to step S25. If it is determined that the current time is not the start time of the update period, the controller 100 returns to step S23 and repeats the following flow. In step S25, the controller 100 postpones the execution of the software update process from the start time of the update period. In step S26, the controller 100 continues charging the battery 16 until the end time of the charging period. In step S27, the controller 100 notifies the user of update non-execution information indicating that the software update was not executed.
In step S28, the controller 100 changes the start time of the update period to the time when the charge amount of the battery 16 meets the target charge amount, and moves the start time of the update period forward”;
Also, Morita discloses:
wherein when the on-going function of the propulsion system is a high voltage battery system plug-in charging session or a vehicle refueling session, the propulsion supervisory controller is configured to overcome the conflict by prioritizing the on-going function and delaying its FOTA flash update until after the on-going function is complete:
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].
Morita discloses a controller and a determination unit executed by the controller to overcome the conflict between charging and updating, by prioritizing charging over update using steps of [p5 page 6].
Examiner interpretation:
Page 6 p 5 “In the charging priority process, when at least a part of the update period overlaps with the charging period, the battery 16 is charged in priority over the software update during the charging period. Charging the battery 16 in priority over the software update means that the charging of the battery 16 has a higher priority than the software update. For example, the charging of the battery 16 is performed before the software update, and the charging of the battery 16 continues during the charging period, except when a predetermined condition is satisfied.
It would have been 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 Morita 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 conflicts in update vs charging 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. [Morita page 6, P4 and P5].
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and furthermore, Hoffman does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the FOTA supervisor module is further configured to receive a customer input requesting either (i) perform the FOTA flash update immediately or (ii) perform the FOTA flash update at a future scheduled time.
Morita discloses:
wherein the FOTA supervisor module is further configured to receive a customer input requesting 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].
Morita discloses a setting unit that delay the update until the level of charge of the battery/fuel is above the threshold ,after that the update can be executed using steps in page 8 [p2].
Examiner interpretation:
page 8 [p2] “In addition, in this embodiment, the setting unit 101 may delay the update period and execute the software update when other predetermined conditions are satisfied, not limited to when the first and second conditions are satisfied.
…
Specifically, when the determination unit 102 determines that the charge amount of the battery 16 can be charged up to the target charge amount by recharging, the setting unit 101 may change the start time of the update period to the time when the charge amount of the battery 16 satisfies the target charge amount.
It would have been 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 Morita 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 conflicts in update vs charging 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. [Morita page 6, P4 and P5].
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 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 a second or repeat customer input requesting to perform the FOTA flash update immediately:
Morita discloses:
wherein the FOTA flash update is performed in priority ahead of the conflict in response to a second or repeat customer input requesting to perform the FOTA flash update immediately:
Page 3 first paragraph : “Furthermore, when the user performs an input operation on the user terminal 3 to input information indicating the update period, i.e., the start time and end time of the update, the user terminal 3 transmits information indicating the update period to the server 2 and/or the vehicle 1.”;
Page 11 p5 “In this embodiment, when the priority mode is the update priority mode, the update control device 13 updates the software during the update period even if the update period overlaps with the charging period”.
It would have been 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 Morita 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 conflicts in update vs charging 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. [Morita page 4 and 5].
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”;
wherein when the on-going function of the propulsion system is a high voltage battery system plug-in charging session or a vehicle refueling session, the overcoming of the conflict is performed by prioritizing the on-going function and delaying its FOTA flash update until after the on-going function is complete:
[0037]“The session or update period may vary depending on the number of files being updated and the rights and/or capabilities of the controller to utilize in-vehicle network resources and/or to update certain modules given a current operational state of the vehicle (e.g., some modules may be not updatable for safety reasons while the vehicle is running or being charged (hybrid or electric vehicle) and/or some modules may not be updatable when in use, i.e., a download process may start when a certain module is idle or asleep and then terminate before commencing read/write actions if the module is subsequently awoken or otherwise engaged for its normal usage)”;
Examiner interpretation: allowing the vehicle to continue charging while pausing/halting the update means prioritizing the charging over update. While the level needed(vehicle state_ is achieved(complete), the update can start or resumes where left.
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 an on-going function of the propulsion system and the performing of the FOTA flash update.
Morita 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 an on-going function of the propulsion system and the performing of the FOTA flash update.
Page 15 2nd paragraph: In step S21, the controller 100 sets the priority mode to the charge priority mode. In step
S22, the controller 100 starts charging the battery 16 at the start time of the charging period.
…
In step S24, the controller 100 determines whether the current time is the start time of the update period. If it is determined that the current time is the start time of the update period, the controller 100 proceeds to step S25. If it is determined that the current time is not the start time of the update period, the controller 100 returns to step S23 and repeats the following flow. In step S25, the controller 100 postpones the execution of the software update process from the start time of the update period. In step S26, the controller 100 continues charging the battery 16 until the end time of the charging period. In step S27, the controller 100 notifies the user of update non-execution information indicating that the software update was not executed.
In step S28, the controller 100 changes the start time of the update period to the time when the charge amount of the battery 16 meets the target charge amount, and moves the start time of the update period forward”;
Also, Morita discloses:
wherein when the on-going function of the propulsion system is a high voltage battery system plug-in charging session or a vehicle refueling session, the overcoming of the conflict is performed by prioritizing the on-going function and delaying its FOTA flash update until after the on-going function is complete:
Page 6 p 5 “In the charging priority process, when at least a part of the update period overlaps with the charging period, the battery 16 is charged in priority over the software update during the charging period. Charging the battery 16 in priority over the software update means that the charging of the battery 16 has a higher priority than the software update. For example, the charging of the battery 16 is performed before the software update, and the charging of the battery 16 continues during the charging period, except when a predetermined condition is satisfied.
It would have been 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 Morita 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 conflicts in update vs charging 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. [Morita page 6, P4 and P5].
As per claim 10, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated and furthermore, Hoffman does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the FOTA supervisor module is further configured to receive a customer input requesting either (i) perform the FOTA flash update immediately or (ii) perform the FOTA flash update at a future scheduled time.
Morita discloses:
wherein the FOTA supervisor module is further configured to receive a customer input requesting to either (i) perform the FOTA flash update immediately or (ii) to perform the FOTA flash update at a future scheduled time.
page 8 [p2] “In addition, in this embodiment, the setting unit 101 may delay the update period and execute the software update when other predetermined conditions are satisfied, not limited to when the first and second conditions are satisfied.
…
Specifically, when the determination unit 102 determines that the charge amount of the battery 16 can be charged up to the target charge amount by recharging, the setting unit 101 may change the start time of the update period to the time when the charge amount of the battery 16 satisfies the target charge amount.
It would have been 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 Morita 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 conflicts in update vs charging 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. [Morita page 6, P4 and P5].
As per claim 15, the rejection of claim 10 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 a second or repeat customer input requesting to perform the FOTA flash update immediately:
Morita discloses:
wherein the FOTA flash update is performed in priority ahead of the conflict in response to a second or repeat customer input requesting to perform the FOTA flash update immediately:
Page 3 first paragraph : “Furthermore, when the user performs an input operation on the user terminal 3 to input information indicating the update period, i.e., the start time and end time of the update, the user terminal 3 transmits information indicating the update period to the server 2 and/or the vehicle 1.”;
Page 11 p5 “In this embodiment, when the priority mode is the update priority mode, the update control device 13 updates the software during the update period even if the update period overlaps with the charging period”.
It would have been 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 Morita 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 conflicts in update vs charging 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. [Morita page 4 and 5].
Claims 3-6, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman et al US20140109075A1 in view of Morita et al JP2025017107A and further in view of Kim et al US20200394031A1.
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated and furthermore, Hoffman discloses:
wherein the on-going function is an after-run procedure of turbo charge engine system of the electrified vehicle:
Kim discloses:
wherein the on-going function is an after-run procedure of turbo charge engine system of the electrified vehicle:
[0069] “On the contrary, as shown in the graph labeled ‘disclosure’ in FIG. 4, the controller 210 according to the embodiment of the present disclosure controls the battery 24 to be charged to the target current amount required for software update while the vehicle 100 is driving, and when the vehicle 100 finishes driving and the engine is turned off, performs the OTA type software update by using the power of the charged battery 24. As a result, a situation in which the software update fails due to the power shortage of the battery 24 does not occur”.
It would have been 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 Morita 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 4, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated and furthermore, Hoffman does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the propulsion supervisory controller is further configured to overcome the conflict by prioritizing the after-run procedure of the turbocharged engine when the customer input requests to perform the FOTA flash update at the future scheduled time and by prioritizing the FOTA flash update when the customer input requests to perform the FOTA flash update immediately.
Morita discloses:
wherein the propulsion supervisory controller is further configured to overcome the conflict by prioritizing the after-run procedure of the turbocharged engine when the customer input requests to perform the FOTA flash update at the 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 [0005] for conflict detection.
Morita discloses a setting unit controller 110 for detecting conditions where the conflict time in executing the update process overlaps with the charging process of the vehicle using steps of page 15 p4 and p5.
Examiner interpretation:
page 15 p4 and p5 “In step S25, the controller 100 postpones the execution of the software update process from the start time of the update period. Instep S26, the controller 100 continues charging the battery 16 until the end time of the charging period. In step S27, the controller 100 notifies the user of update non-execution information indicating that the software update was not executed. In step S28, the controller 100 changes the start time of the update period to the time when the charge amount of the battery 16 meets the target charge amount, and moves the start time of the update period forward”;
and by prioritizing the FOTA flash update when the customer input requests to perform the FOTA flash update immediately:
page 14 p2 “In step S5, the controller 100 performs update priority processing to prioritize software update over charging the battery 16. In the update priority processing, the controller 100 suspends charging of the battery 16 during the update period.”
It would have been 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 Morita into teachings of Hoffman and Kim for increasing of the robustness of an over-the-air update of software (FW) and in particular firmware (FW), so that conflicts in update vs charging 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. [Morita page 4 and 5].
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated and furthermore, Hoffman discloses:
wherein the on-going function is an after-run procedure of a fuel cell system of the electrified vehicle:
Kim discloses:
wherein the on-going function is an after-run procedure of a fuel cell system of the electrified vehicle:
[0069] “On the contrary, as shown in the graph labeled ‘disclosure’ in FIG. 4, the controller 210 according to the embodiment of the present disclosure controls the battery 24 to be charged to the target current amount required for software update while the vehicle 100 is driving, and when the vehicle 100 finishes driving and the engine is turned off, performs the OTA type software update by using the power of the charged battery 24. As a result, a situation in which the software update fails due to the power shortage of the battery 24 does not occur”.
It would have been 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 Morita 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 of claim 5 is incorporated and furthermore, Hoffman does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the propulsion supervisory controller is further configured to overcome the conflict by prioritizing the after-run procedure of the fuel cell system of the vehicle system when the customer input requests to perform the FOTA flash update at the future scheduled time and by prioritizing the FOTA flash update when the customer input requests to perform the FOTA flash update immediately.
Morita discloses:
wherein the propulsion supervisory controller is further configured to overcome the conflict by prioritizing the after-run procedure of the fuel cell system of the vehicle system when the customer input requests to perform the FOTA flash update at the 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 [0005] for conflict detection.
Morita discloses a setting unit controller 110 for detecting conditions where the conflict time in executing the update process overlaps with the charging process of the vehicle using steps of page 15 p4 and p5.
Examiner interpretation:
page 15 p4 and p5 “In step S25, the controller 100 postpones the execution of the software update process from the start time of the update period. Instep S26, the controller 100 continues charging the battery 16 until the end time of the charging period. In step S27, the controller 100 notifies the user of update non-execution information indicating that the software update was not executed. In step S28, the controller 100 changes the start time of the update period to the time when the charge amount of the battery 16 meets the target charge amount, and moves the start time of the update period forward”;
and by prioritizing the FOTA flash update when the customer input requests to perform the FOTA flash update immediately:
page 14 p2 “In step S5, the controller 100 performs update priority processing to prioritize software update over charging the battery 16. In the update priority processing, the controller 100 suspends charging of the battery 16 during the update period.”
It would have been 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 Morita into teachings of Hoffman and Kim for increasing of the robustness of an over-the-air update of software (FW) and in particular firmware (FW), so that conflicts in update vs charging 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. [Morita page 4 and 5].
As per claim 11, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated and furthermore, Hoffman discloses:
wherein the on-going function is an after-run procedure of turbo charge engine system of the electrified vehicle:
Kim discloses:
wherein the on-going function is an after-run procedure of turbo charge engine system of the electrified vehicle:
[0069] “On the contrary, as shown in the graph labeled ‘disclosure’ in FIG. 4, the controller 210 according to the embodiment of the present disclosure controls the battery 24 to be charged to the target current amount required for software update while the vehicle 100 is driving, and when the vehicle 100 finishes driving and the engine is turned off, performs the OTA type software update by using the power of the charged battery 24. As a result, a situation in which the software update fails due to the power shortage of the battery 24 does not occur”.
It would have been 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 Morita 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 12, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated and furthermore, Hoffman does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the overcoming of the conflict is performed by prioritizing the after-run procedure of the turbocharged engine when the customer input requests to perform the FOTA flash update at the future scheduled time and by prioritizing the FOTA flash update when the customer input requests to perform the FOTA flash update immediately.
Morita discloses:
wherein the overcoming of the conflict is performed by prioritizing the after-run procedure of the turbocharged engine when the customer input requests to perform the FOTA flash update at the future scheduled time.
page 15 p4 and p5 “In step S25, the controller 100 postpones the execution of the software update process from the start time of the update period. Instep S26, the controller 100 continues charging the battery 16 until the end time of the charging period. In step S27, the controller 100 notifies the user of update non-execution information indicating that the software update was not executed. In step S28, the controller 100 changes the start time of the update period to the time when the charge amount of the battery 16 meets the target charge amount, and moves the start time of the update period forward”;
and by prioritizing the FOTA flash update when the customer input requests to perform the FOTA flash update immediately.
page 14 p2 “In step S5, the controller 100 performs update priority processing to prioritize software update over charging the battery 16. In the update priority processing, the controller 100 suspends charging of the battery 16 during the update period.”
It would have been 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 Morita into teachings of Hoffman and Kim for increasing of the robustness of an over-the-air update of software (FW) and in particular firmware (FW), so that conflicts in update vs charging 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. [Morita page 4 and 5].
As per claim 13, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated and furthermore, Hoffman discloses:
wherein the on-going function is an after-run procedure of a fuel cell system of the electrified vehicle.
Kim discloses:
wherein the on-going function is an after-run procedure of a fuel cell system of the electrified vehicle.
[0069] “On the contrary, as shown in the graph labeled ‘disclosure’ in FIG. 4, the controller 210 according to the embodiment of the present disclosure controls the battery 24 to be charged to the target current amount required for software update while the vehicle 100 is driving, and when the vehicle 100 finishes driving and the engine is turned off, performs the OTA type software update by using the power of the charged battery 24. As a result, a situation in which the software update fails due to the power shortage of the battery 24 does not occur”.
It would have been 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 Morita 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 14, the rejection of claim 13 is incorporated and furthermore, Hoffman does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the overcoming of the conflict is performed by prioritizing the after-run procedure of the fuel cell system of the electrified vehicle when the customer input requests to perform the FOTA flash update at the future scheduled time and by prioritizing the FOTA flash update when the customer input requests to perform the FOTA flash update immediately.
Morita discloses:
wherein the overcoming of the conflict is performed by prioritizing the after-run procedure of the fuel cell system of the electrified vehicle when the customer input requests to perform the FOTA flash update at the future scheduled time.
page 15 p4 and p5 “In step S25, the controller 100 postpones the execution of the software update process from the start time of the update period. Instep S26, the controller 100 continues charging the battery 16 until the end time of the charging period. In step S27, the controller 100 notifies the user of update non-execution information indicating that the software update was not executed. In step S28, the controller 100 changes the start time of the update period to the time when the charge amount of the battery 16 meets the target charge amount, and moves the start time of the update period forward”;
and by prioritizing the FOTA flash update when the customer input requests to perform the FOTA flash update immediately.
page 14 p2 “In step S5, the controller 100 performs update priority processing to prioritize software update over charging the battery 16. In the update priority processing, the controller 100 suspends charging of the battery 16 during the update period.”
It would have been 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 Morita into teachings of Hoffman and Kim for increasing of the robustness of an over-the-air update of software (FW) and in particular firmware (FW), so that conflicts in update vs charging 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. [Morita page 4 and 5].
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman et al US20140109075A1 in view of Morita et al JP2025017107A and Masashi et al JP2022128263A.
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 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:
Masashi 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.
Masashi discloses an ECU of the electrified vehicle that does not update certain ECU while other ECUs are executed using steps of page 56 [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 been 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 Morita 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, to update software of an ECU even when the vehicle is traveling (in motion by controlling propulsion) [Masashi 0107].
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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
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
/Ted T. Vo/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191
Prosecution Insights