Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This is the initial office action based on the application filed on April 11, 2024, which claims 1-5 are presented for examination.
Status of Claims
3. Claims 1-5 are pending, of which claims, of which claim 1, 4 and 5 are in independent form.
Priority
4. This application has a priority JAPAN 2023-096038 06/12/2023.
The Office's Note:
5. The Office has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers in the reference(s) applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim(s), other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the cited passages as taught by the prior art or relied upon by the Examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
6. Information disclosure statement filed on 04/11/2024 has been reviewed and considered by Examiner.
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.
7. Claims 1-3 invoked 112(f). The claims 1-3 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
8. Claims 1-5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1, claim 4 and claim 5 recite “ the storage device stores campaign information including information specifying a target vehicle for a software update process, and information specifying update software to be applied to a control device mounted on the target vehicle, and accompanying information indicating whether there is a defect in the update software itself for each piece of the update software; and the execution device is configured to store the accompanying information in the storage device based on an input from outside, and when the accompanying information indicates that there is a defect in the update software itself, prohibit the update process according to the campaign information for the campaign information specifying the update software having a defect.” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements ““server”, and “devices” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, and “the storage device stores“ and “store the accompanying information in the storage device based on an input from outside” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data/information. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of ““server,” and “devices” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, and “the storage device stores“ and “store the accompanying information in the storage device based on an input from outside”, the courts have identified merely gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data/information on a display is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and merely displaying data do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
In conclusion, claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
9. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mine (US 20180095745) and further in view of Harata (US 20210157570, herein after Harata).
Claim 1 is rejected, Mine teaches a software update server comprising an execution device and a storage device, wherein (Mine, abstract and summary):
the storage device stores (Mine, US 20180095745, fig. 1, component 16 – Storage Apparatus and para [0037], The computer system 10 may also be configured as a server system, and comprises a processor, or a CPU 12 as a controller, a terminal; that is, a memory 14 (non-temporary recording medium) for storing control programs and control data to be used for executing the update processing of software of ECUs as the update-target, and a storage apparatus 16 for storing various data and databases. )
campaign information including information specifying a target vehicle for a software update process, and information specifying update software to be applied to a control device mounted on the target vehicle (Mine, fig. 2, component 100 – Update Information, component 102 – Updating software. Para [0038], FIG. 2 is a block diagram of a plurality of modules configuring the computer system 10. An interface 104 imports update information 100 and updating software (ECU software) 102 from a computer outside the computer system 10. The update information is provided to the computer system 10, for instance, by an OEM manufacturer. The updating software is provided to the computer system 10, for instance, from a supplier. Para [0039-0041], The update information 100 is management information for managing the update of software. An example of the update information is depicted in FIG. 3A. The update information 100 includes an update ID (100A), a target vehicle model (100B), an update file ID (100C), pre-update version information (100D), post-update version information (100E), and a content of the updating software: text sentence (100F). The update file is a file of the updating software.), and
accompanying information indicating whether there is a defect in the update software itself for each piece of the update software (Mine, fig. 7 and para [0046], FIG. 7 shows an example of the meta information of the software package (package storage DB 114). The software package includes a package ID for uniquely identifying the package (112A), an ID of the ECU (target ECU) to which the package is to be distributed (112B), link information of the difference file (112C), link information of the difference script (112D), and attribute information 112E. The attribute information is information for managing the update file through the advance verification or distribution of the software package, and is managed based on a flag. The flag will be described in detail later. Para [0057-0058].); and
the execution device is configured to ((Mine, fig. 1, computer system 10 and para [0037], FIG. 1 shows a hardware block diagram of a computer system 10. The computer system 10 may also be configured as a server system, and comprises a processor, or a CPU 12 as a controller, a terminal; that is, a memory 14 (non-temporary recording medium) for storing control programs and control data to be used for executing the update processing of software of ECUs as the update-target, and a storage apparatus 16 for storing various data and databases. )
store the accompanying information in the storage device based on an input from outside (Mine, fig. 7 and para [0046-0047], FIG. 7 shows an example of the meta information of the software package (package storage DB 114). The software package includes a package ID for uniquely identifying the package (112A), an ID of the ECU (target ECU) to which the package is to be distributed (112B), link information of the difference file (112C), link information of the difference script (112D), and attribute information 112E. The attribute information is information for managing the update file through the advance verification or distribution of the software package, and is managed based on a flag. The flag will be described in detail later. Para [0057-0058].), and
when the accompanying information indicates that there is a defect in the update software itself, prohibit the update process according to the campaign information for the campaign information specifying the update software having a defect (Mine, para [0046-0047], The package DB 114 (FIG. 2) associates the software package and the result (verification information) of the advance verification of the update file, and records the association. The term “advance verification” refers to the process of transmitting the updating software to an ECU (specific terminal) of a test vehicle prior to transmitting such updating software to the ECUs (terminals other than the specific terminal; that is, general terminals) of general vehicles, and actually operating the update file in the test vehicle to test whether the updating software will operate normally in the test vehicle, The test vehicle transmits operational information of the update file; that is, verification information as the result of the operation test, and the computer system 10 receives the foregoing information and determines whether the update file passed the operation test Whether the operation test was successful may be determined by the computer system 10, or may be determined by the control system of the test vehicle. The verification information includes a test log (date/time that the test was performed, test result). The test may also be performed regarding a plurality of items. As a result of the test being performed for a plurality of items, the quality of the updating software can be more properly evaluated.).
The Office would like to use prior art Harata to back up Mine to further teach limitation
campaign information (Harata, US 20210157570, fig. 53, and para [0471], The campaign information transmission unit 52d transmits campaign information to the master device 11 when the update propriety determination unit 52c determines that the vehicle condition is a condition suitable for updating a program or the like using a distribution package. The campaign information transmission unit 52d does not transmit the campaign information to the master device 11 when it is determined by the update propriety determination unit 52c that the vehicle condition is not a condition suitable for updating a program or the like using a distribution package. The campaign information transmission unit 52d performs the determination described above, and thus stores information regarding a vehicle in which the campaign information is not transmitted to the master device 11. The center device 3 may display the information regarding a vehicle in which the campaign information is not transmitted to the master device 11. Para [0475-0476], campaign information.)
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Harata into Mine to rewrite the update data extracted from the downloaded delivery package, and delivers to object electronic control unit, When the download of the delivery package from a center apparatus is completed, on the condition that a vehicle position is in the predetermined range registered previously as suggested by Harata(See abstract and summary).
Claim 2 is rejected for the reasons set forth hereinabove for claim 1, Mine and Harata teach the software update server according to claim 1, wherein:
the accompanying information includes information specifying a non-update vehicle not to be updated to the update software for each piece of the update software (Mine, para [0050-0051], ] The computer system 10 additionally comprises a vehicle DB 116 (FIG. 2) which records information regarding the update-target (vehicle). Next, the vehicle DB 116 is an information table of vehicles, and FIG. 10A shows a first table as an example thereof. This table includes, for each vehicle ID, a vehicle model, an ECU ID, version of software for operating the ECU, a test vehicle flag (1: test vehicle, 0: general vehicle), vehicle location information, a vehicle status flag (1: undergoing maintenance, 2: testable, 3: currently being tested), and drive data. Para [0057-0058].); and
the execution device is configured to, even when the accompanying information indicates that there is no defect in the update software itself, prohibit the update process according to the campaign information for the campaign information specifying the update software and specifying the non-update vehicle as the target vehicle(Mine, para [0039-0040], The update ID is identification information for uniquely identifying the task for updating the software. The target vehicle model is information regarding the vehicle model to which the updating software should be applied. The update file ID is information for uniquely identifying the updating software (update file). The pre-update version information is identification information regarding the previous version of the updating software, and the post-update version is identification information regarding the current version of the updating software. Para [0061], FIG. 13 is a flowchart showing the operation of the vehicle selection module 118. The vehicle selection module 118 checks the flag Fr3 (S1300), and then checks the flag Fr4 (S1304), and, upon determining that Fr3=“1”, Fr4=“0”, refers to the software package DB based on the ECU ID of the processing target package ID and identifies the corresponding vehicle model, and selects the general vehicles that are registered as the same vehicle model (S1306). Para [0057-0058].).
Claim 3 is rejected for the reasons set forth hereinabove for claim 1, Mine and Harata teach the software update server according to claim 1, wherein the execution device is configured to:
transmit a campaign notification indicating that the update software is applicable to the target vehicle in the campaign information (Mine, para [0053], The computer system 10 selects the vehicle to which the software package should be applied based on the vehicle selection module 118 (FIG. 2). FIG. 11 is a detailed diagram of this module. A package selection module 500 selects the software package based on the package DB 114. The package DB search module 502 determines whether it is necessary to transmit the software package based on the ID of the selected software package, and the vehicle DB search module 504 searches the vehicle DB 166 based on the determination result to the effect that the transmission of the software package is required, selects the vehicle to which the software package should be transmitted, and transmits the result to the transmission module 120. The transmission module 120 transmits the software package to the selected vehicle. As the vehicles, there are general vehicles 130A, 130B and a test vehicle 124 as described above. The test vehicle may also be a simulation test device 122 which enables the operation test of software without having to actual be driven on the road; for instance, a device in the form of a driving simulator. Para [0057-0058].);
after transmitting the campaign notification, transmit the update software to the target vehicle to which the campaign notification has been transmitted (Mine, para [0046], FIG. 14 is a flowchart showing the operation of the transmission module 120. The transmission module 120 checks the flag Fr3 of the processing target package ID (S1400), and then checks the flag Fr4 (S1402). When the transmission module 120 determines that Fr3=“0”, and Fr4=“0”, the transmission module 120 determines whether general vehicles have been selected (S1404), and, upon obtaining a positive result, sets the flag Fr4 to “1” (S1406), distributes the software package to the general vehicles (S1408), and then returns. When the transmission module 120 determines that Fr4=1 in S1404 and obtains a negative result in S1404, the transmission module 120 returns without distributing the software package to the general vehicles. Para [0057-0058].); and
prohibit the update process by prohibiting transmission of the campaign notification according to the campaign information (Mine, para [0060], When the package generation module 110 obtains a negative result in step 1202, the package generation module 110 checks the flag Fr2 (S1204), and, upon determining Fr2=“1”, sets the flag Fr3 to “1” in order to permit the distribution of the software package to the general vehicles on grounds that the updating software operated normally in the ECU of the vehicle as a result of the advance verification of the updating software (S1208), and then returns. In S1204, when the package generation module 110 determines that the flag Fr2=“0”, the package generation module 110 returns without performing this step. Para [0057-0058].).
As per claim 4, this is the medium claim to system claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons as above.
As per claim 5, this is the method claim to system claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons as above
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY KHUONG THANH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0800-1630.
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, Lewis Bullock can be reached on 5712723759. 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.
/DUY KHUONG T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199