DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial Office action based on the application submitted on May 2, 2024.
Claims 1-10 are pending.
In the interest of facilitating compact prosecution, the Examiner kindly asks the Applicant’s representative to authorize Internet communications with the Examiner by submitting Form PTO/SB/439 using Patent Center.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation Under 35 USC § 112(f)
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 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) 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):
(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.
The limitations “an update processing unit configured to […],” “a software acquisition processing unit configured to […],” “a substitution processing unit that […],” and “an update data acquisition processing unit configured to […]” in Claims 1-8 appear to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitations are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitations recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited functions. In the claims, these limitations are recited as being included in “a control unit.” Applicant’s specification expressly states that “[t]he control unit 110 is an information processing device constituted by a computer” (page 7, paragraph [0023]). Thus, the Applicant appears to present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed functions so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Therefore, Claims 1-8 fail the third prong of the three-prong analysis and 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is not invoked.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: UPDATING SOFTWARE OF A CONTROL DEVICE IN A SINGLE BANK CONFIGURATION.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-5, and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 9 recite “the acquired software.” It should read -- the acquired software of the first control device --.
Claim 4 recites “the software stored in the storage unit.” It should read -- the acquired software stored in the storage unit --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the storage unit of the second control device” at line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner subsequently interprets this limitation as reading “a storage unit of the second control device” for the purpose of further examination.
Claim 10 depends on Claim 9. Therefore, Claim 10 suffers the same deficiency as Claim 9.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 10 is directed to a control program. However, the control program does not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the control program and any hardware elements of a computer, which permit the control program’s functionality to be realized. Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as “data per se”) or a computer program per se (often referred to as “software per se”) when claimed as a product without any structural recitations. While on the contrary, a man-made tangible embodiment storing the control program would permit the control program’s functionality to be realized. Therefore, the claimed control program is ineligible subject matter under § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2020/0174779 (hereinafter “David”).
As per Claim 1, David discloses:
A second control device (Figure 1: 108, paragraph [0025], “The OTA updater device 108 performs actions for updating software within the vehicle 106.”) comprising a storage unit (Figure 2: 224) and a control unit (Figure 2: 222), and connected to a first control device (Figure 1: 110; paragraph [0031], “As an example, the updatable electronic component 110 may be an ECU.”) via a first communication network (Figure 1: 114),
the control unit (Figure 2: 222) includes:
an update processing unit configured to update software of the first control device (paragraph [0045], “At block 306, the OTA updater device 108 initiates installation of the software update in the updatable electronic component. This step may involve, for example, determining whether the updatable electronic component is ready to be updated, transmitting the software update from the OTA updater device 108 to the updatable electronic component (e.g., via a communication bus, such as a CAN bus), and executing the installation process on the updatable electronic component (emphasis added).”); and
a software acquisition processing unit configured to acquire the software of the first control device from the first control device before the update of the software of the first control device starts, and store the acquired software to the storage unit (paragraph [0043], “Referring again to FIG. 3, at block 304, the OTA updater device 108 checks for a valid backup software version for the updatable electronic component in a storage medium in the on-board vehicle computer system, and updates the backup software version if necessary. An update of the backup software version at this stage may be necessary or desirable in several situations. For example, if the OTA updater device detects that there is no backup software version present, or if the backup software version is not compatible with a current vehicle configuration, the OTA updater device 108 may obtain and store an updated backup software version in the storage medium before initiating installation of the software update to facilitate reversion to a prior software version in the event of an error during installation of the new software update (emphasis added).”).
As per Claim 3, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and David further discloses:
wherein the control unit further includes an update data acquisition processing unit configured to, when another device has update data for the software of the first control device, acquire the update data and stores the acquired update data to the storage unit (paragraph [0029], “In some embodiments, the OTA updater device 108 also includes […] storage media 224 on which backup software 226 for the updatable electronic component(s) 110 may be stored. In some embodiments, the backup software 226 is a copy of software currently installed on the updatable electronic component(s) 110.”; paragraph [0040], “At block 302, the OTA updater device 108 of a vehicle 106 receives a software update package from a remote computer system (e.g., server computing system 104) via a wireless communication network according to a particular wireless communication protocol. The software update package includes a software update for an updatable electronic component (e.g., an ECU) of the vehicle.”),
when the update data acquisition processing unit acquires the update data, the software acquisition processing unit acquires the software of the first control device from the first control device, and stores the acquired software to the storage unit (paragraph [0026], “[…] the OTA updater device 108 stores backup software versions for the updatable electronic component(s) 110.”; paragraph [0029], “In some embodiments, the OTA updater device 108 also includes […] storage media 224 on which backup software 226 for the updatable electronic component(s) 110 may be stored. In some embodiments, the backup software 226 is a copy of software currently installed on the updatable electronic component(s) 110.”),
when the software of the first control device is stored to the storage unit, the update processing unit uses the update data acquired by the update data acquisition processing unit to start updating the software of the first control device (paragraph [0045], “At block 306, the OTA updater device 108 initiates installation of the software update in the updatable electronic component. This step may involve, for example, determining whether the updatable electronic component is ready to be updated, transmitting the software update from the OTA updater device 108 to the updatable electronic component (e.g., via a communication bus, such as a CAN bus), and executing the installation process on the updatable electronic component.”).
As per Claim 4, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and David further discloses:
wherein when the software of the first control device has not been successfully updated, the update processing unit installs the software stored in the storage unit to the first control device (paragraph [0058], “At block 406, the OTA updater device 108 determines whether any errors or interruptions have occurred during the installation process. For example, the OTA updater device 108 may determine that a vehicle state condition has changed such that the installation must be interrupted (e.g., the key has been turned off or the battery level has dropped below a threshold voltage), or that a user has interrupted the update manually.”; paragraph [0059], “At block 410, the OTA updater device 108 retrieves a backup software version from a storage medium in the on-board computer system. At block 412, the OTA updater device 108 installs the backup software version on the updatable electronic component.”).
As per Claim 6, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and David further discloses:
wherein the first control device and the second control device are provided in a vehicle (Figure 1: 106, 108, and 110), and
an external device is provided outside the vehicle (Figure 1: 104 and 106).
As per Claim 7, David discloses:
A control system (Figure 1) comprising:
a plurality of first control devices (paragraph [0002], “Electronic control units (ECUs) and other devices associated with the vehicles may store or access updatable software, which may include computer-executable instructions, settings data, torque maps, or other software. ECUs are embedded devices that control electronic systems or subsystems in vehicles. ECUs provide many types of functionality for vehicle operation, including but not limited to engine control, auxiliary equipment control, presentation of information via an instrument panel, and infotainment services. ECUs can be implemented in a variety of hardware configurations.”); and
a second control device according to claim 1 connected to the plurality of first control devices via the first communication network (see 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) rejection of Claim 1 hereinabove).
Claim 9 is a control method claim corresponding to the second control device claim hereinabove (Claim 1). Therefore, Claim 9 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
As per Claim 10, the rejection of Claim 9 is incorporated; and David further discloses:
[a] control program (paragraph [0073], “In general, the word ‘module,’ as used herein, refers to logic embodied in hardware or software instructions, which can be written in a programming language, such as C, C++, COBOL, JAVA™, PHP, Perl, HTML, CSS, JavaScript, VBScript, ASPX, Microsoft .NET™, Swift, Go, and/or the like. A module may be compiled into executable programs or written in interpreted programming languages.”) for causing a computer to execute the control method of claim 9 (see 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) rejection of Claim 9 hereinabove).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David in view of US 6,154,878 (hereinafter “Saboff”).
[Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to updating software of a control device at a low cost (specification, paragraph [0005]). As for the “same field of endeavor” test, David is generally directed to employing a local backup approach in which a backup software version, which has been previously stored on the vehicle and checked for validity, is automatically reinstalled in the event that errors or interruptions occur during over-the-air software updates (David, paragraph [0018]). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Saboff is generally directed to automatic dynamic updating of software (Saboff, col. 1 lines 9-11). Thus, David and Saboff are both analogous art to the claimed invention (even if they address different problems or are not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).]
As per Claim 2, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and David does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the control unit includes a substitution processing unit that uses the software of the first control device stored in the storage unit to substitute for a function of the first control device while the software of the first control device is updated.
However, Saboff discloses:
wherein the control unit includes a substitution processing unit that uses the software of the first control device stored in the storage unit to substitute for a function of the first control device while the software of the first control device is updated (col. 1 lines 31-34, “Several systems have been developed to update software while the system is running. This ability is known by several names such as ‘on-line replacement’ of software, updating software ‘on the fly’, or ‘hot patching’ software.” and lines 42-46, “Current methods for on-the-fly replacement of software replace the software component at various levels of granularity. Some require the entire software program be replaced while others allow for much smaller units such a procedure or a module.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, David and Saboff are both analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Saboff into the teaching of David to include “wherein the control unit includes a substitution processing unit that uses the software of the first control device stored in the storage unit to substitute for a function of the first control device while the software of the first control device is updated.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to update software while a system is running (Saboff, col. 1 lines 31-34).
As per Claim 5, the rejection of Claim 2 is incorporated; and David further discloses:
wherein the control unit further includes an update data acquisition processing unit configured to, when another device has update data for the software of the first control device, acquire the update data (paragraph [0029], “In some embodiments, the OTA updater device 108 also includes […] storage media 224 on which backup software 226 for the updatable electronic component(s) 110 may be stored. In some embodiments, the backup software 226 is a copy of software currently installed on the updatable electronic component(s) 110.”; paragraph [0040], “At block 302, the OTA updater device 108 of a vehicle 106 receives a software update package from a remote computer system (e.g., server computing system 104) via a wireless communication network according to a particular wireless communication protocol. The software update package includes a software update for an updatable electronic component (e.g., an ECU) of the vehicle.”),
when the update data acquisition processing unit acquires the update data, the software acquisition processing unit acquires the software of the first control device from the first control device, and stores the acquired software to the storage unit (paragraph [0026], “[…] the OTA updater device 108 stores backup software versions for the updatable electronic component(s) 110.”; paragraph [0029], “In some embodiments, the OTA updater device 108 also includes […] storage media 224 on which backup software 226 for the updatable electronic component(s) 110 may be stored. In some embodiments, the backup software 226 is a copy of software currently installed on the updatable electronic component(s) 110.”),
when the software of the first control device is stored to the storage unit […] (paragraph [0029], “In some embodiments, the OTA updater device 108 also includes […] storage media 224 on which backup software 226 for the updatable electronic component(s) 110 may be stored. In some embodiments, the backup software 226 is a copy of software currently installed on the updatable electronic component(s) 110.”), and
[…] the update processing unit uses the update data acquired by the update data acquisition processing unit to start updating the software of the first control device (paragraph [0045], “At block 306, the OTA updater device 108 initiates installation of the software update in the updatable electronic component. This step may involve, for example, determining whether the updatable electronic component is ready to be updated, transmitting the software update from the OTA updater device 108 to the updatable electronic component (e.g., via a communication bus, such as a CAN bus), and executing the installation process on the updatable electronic component.”).
David does not explicitly disclose:
[…] the substitution processing unit uses the software of the first control device stored in the storage unit to substitute for the function of the first control device, and
when the substitution processing unit starts substitution for the function of the first control device […].
However, Saboff discloses:
[…] the substitution processing unit uses the software of the first control device stored in the storage unit to substitute for the function of the first control device (col. 1 lines 31-34, “Several systems have been developed to update software while the system is running. This ability is known by several names such as ‘on-line replacement’ of software, updating software ‘on the fly’, or ‘hot patching’ software.” and lines 42-46, “Current methods for on-the-fly replacement of software replace the software component at various levels of granularity. Some require the entire software program be replaced while others allow for much smaller units such a procedure or a module.”); and
when the substitution processing unit starts substitution for the function of the first control device […] (col. 1 lines 31-34, “Several systems have been developed to update software while the system is running. This ability is known by several names such as ‘on-line replacement’ of software, updating software ‘on the fly’, or ‘hot patching’ software.” and lines 42-46, “Current methods for on-the-fly replacement of software replace the software component at various levels of granularity. Some require the entire software program be replaced while others allow for much smaller units such a procedure or a module.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, David and Saboff are both analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Saboff into the teaching of David to include “[…] the substitution processing unit uses the software of the first control device stored in the storage unit to substitute for the function of the first control device, and when the substitution processing unit starts substitution for the function of the first control device […].” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to update software while a system is running (Saboff, col. 1 lines 31-34).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David in view of US 2021/0258186 (hereinafter “Tokunaga”).
[Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to updating software of a control device at a low cost (specification, paragraph [0005]). As for the “same field of endeavor” test, David is generally directed to employing a local backup approach in which a backup software version, which has been previously stored on the vehicle and checked for validity, is automatically reinstalled in the event that errors or interruptions occur during over-the-air software updates (David, paragraph [0018]). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Tokunaga is generally directed to providing a communication system in which start condition(s) can be easily changed (Tokunaga, paragraph [0004]). Thus, David and Tokunaga are both analogous art to the claimed invention (even if they address different problems or are not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).]
As per Claim 8, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and David further discloses:
A control system (Figure 1) comprising:
a […] second control device[] according to claim 1 (see 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) rejection of Claim 1 hereinabove).
David does not explicitly disclose:
a plurality of second control devices; and
a third control device connected to the plurality of second control devices via a second communication network.
However, Tokunaga discloses:
a plurality of second control devices (paragraph [0017], “A communication system 10 shown in FIG. 1 includes a plurality of electronic control devices (hereinafter referred to as “ECUs”) 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d (hereinafter, also referred to collectively as ECU 1 when individual ECUs are not distinguished) mounted on a vehicle. The plurality of ECUs 1 are connected to a communication bus 9 to constitute an in-vehicle network, and perform mutual communication according to a CAN protocol via the communication bus 9.”; paragraph [0025], “Of the ECUs 1, a configuration of the ECU 1a, which is a master ECU, is described with reference to FIG. 1.”; paragraph [0114], “[…] the communication system 10 may be configured to include a plurality of master ECUs or may be configured to include one slave ECU.”); and
a third control device connected to the plurality of second control devices via a second communication network (Figure 9: 1, 1z, and 9).
As pointed out hereinabove, David and Tokunaga are both analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Tokunaga into the teaching of David to include “a plurality of second control devices; and a third control device connected to the plurality of second control devices via a second communication network.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize a master ECU to control the operations of a plurality of slave ECUs.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure. They are as follows:
US 2015/0113521 (hereinafter “Suzuki”) discloses a control program for controlling devices mounted on the automobile.
US 2017/0242678 (hereinafter “Sangameswaran”) discloses vehicle software update installation.
US 2020/0183674 (hereinafter “Tateishi”) discloses updating programs or data in communication devices installed in a vehicle.
US 2022/0012048 (hereinafter “Fukuyo”) discloses updating a program of an in-vehicle device mounted on a vehicle.
US 2022/0035620 (hereinafter “Hamasaki”) discloses controlling software update of an electronic control unit mounted on a vehicle.
US 2023/0004381 (hereinafter “Ma”) discloses a software version rollback.
US 2023/0145100 (hereinafter “Nagata”) discloses controlling a vehicle including a plurality of control devices.
US 2024/0126528 (hereinafter “Mizuhashi”) discloses controlling driving of a load by a control circuit having a redundant configuration.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Qing Chen whose telephone number is 571-270-1071. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/ interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Wei Mui, can be reached at 571-272-3708. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for more information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO customer service representative, call 800-786-9199 (in USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/Qing Chen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191