DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed on April 27, 2026.
Claims 1-12 are pending.
Claims 1-8 and 10 have been amended.
Claims 11-12 have been added.
The objections to the drawings are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the drawings.
The objections to the specification are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the specification.
The objections to Claims 1 and 10 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections to Claims 2, 4, and 6 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
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 .
Response to Amendment
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.
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). The
presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim
limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) 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) because the claim limitations use 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
limitations are:
“the controller […]” recited in Claims 1-8 and 10-11.
“a periphery monitoring component […]” and “a hydraulic component […]” recited in Claim 2.
“a monitor component […]” recited in Claims 2 and 6.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are being
interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the
claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The corresponding structure for “the controller” is shown in Figure 6 and described in paragraphs [0075 & 0076] of the specification. The corresponding structure for “a periphery monitoring component” and “a monitor component” is described in paragraphs [0004 & 0067] of the specification. The corresponding structure for “a hydraulic component” is described in paragraphs [0067 & 0070] of the specification.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
(e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing
that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them
being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, in line 12, recites “a second component.” It should read – the second component --.
Claim 2, in lines 16-17, recites “an obstacle.” It should read – the obstacle --.
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 2, 6, and 12 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 2 recites, in line 11, the limitation “the obstacle.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner subsequently interprets the limitation as – an obstacle – in Claim 2.
Claim 6 depends on Claim 2. Therefore, Claim 6 suffers the same deficiency as Claim 2.
Claim 12 recites, in line 3, the limitation “the operations of the work machine.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner subsequently interprets the limitation as -- operations of the work machine – in Claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2006-011647 (IDS Provided by Applicant, hereinafter “Ishio”) in view of US 10,732,958 (hereinafter “Kojima”).
As per Claim 1, Ishio discloses:
A software updating system for updating a plurality of components (paragraph [0076], “The software management unit 12 is a processing unit that integrally manages updates of various software (software A1 to A5) in the in-vehicle system (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0113], “[…] when updating software, it is also determined whether or not other software that operates in cooperation with the software can be updated. Therefore, the software of multiple in-vehicle devices can be managed in an integrated manner and updates can be executed appropriately (emphasis added).”) provided in a work machine, the software updating system comprising:
store the first software and the second software (paragraph [0093], “The update processing unit 25 is a processing unit that executes update processing of various software (software A1 to A5) in the in-vehicle system. Specifically, the update processing unit 25 acquires data used for updating, and stores it in the storage unit 13 as update data D3. Thereafter, the update data D3 is read from the storage unit 13 and installed in the target device, completing the update (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0113], “[…] when updating software [first software], it is also determined whether or not other software [second software] that operates in cooperation with the software can be updated. Therefore, the software [first and second software] of multiple in-vehicle devices [first and second components] can be managed in an integrated manner and updates can be executed appropriately (emphasis added).”); and
update the first component and the second component based on the first software and the second software, respectively, after the first software and the second software are stored (paragraph [0093], “The update processing unit 25 is a processing unit that executes update processing of various software [first and second software] (software A1 to A5) in the in-vehicle system. Specifically, the update processing unit 25 acquires data used for updating, and stores it in the storage unit 13 as update data D3. Thereafter, the update data D3 is read from the storage unit 13 and installed in the target device, completing the update (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0113], “[…] when updating software [first software], it is also determined whether or not other software [second software] that operates in cooperation with the software can be updated. Therefore, the software [first and second software] of multiple in-vehicle devices [first and second components] can be managed in an integrated manner and updates can be executed appropriately (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0123], “As described above, the software management device according to the present invention is useful for managing software of in-vehicle devices, and is particularly suitable for managing and updating a plurality of mutually related software (emphasis added).”).
Ishio discloses “plurality of components,” “first component,” and “second component,” but does not explicitly disclose:
a controller included among the plurality of components, the controller being configured to communicate with a server, a first component, and a second component, the controller being configured to
acquire a first current software from the first component,
acquire a second current software from a second component,
receive, from the server, first difference data with respect to the first current software and second difference data with respect to the second current software,
generate first software by applying the first difference data to the first current software,
generate second software by applying the second difference data to the second current software.
However, Kojima discloses:
a controller included among the plurality of components, the controller being configured to communicate with a server, a first component, and a second component (Figures 1 and 9; col. 6 lines 6-11, “FIG. 1 is a schematic view showing a state where a dedicated terminal device 200(1) provided to a movable object 110(1) that could serve as a distribution source, out of a plurality of movable objects 110(1) to 110(n) (where n is an integer of 2 or more), is communicating with a server 130 via a wide area network WN.”; abstract, “The terminal device [controller] […] transmits the latest piece of object code obtained from the conversion to the control device (emphasis added).”), the controller being configured to
acquire a first current software from the first component (Figure 7; col. 6 lines 35-40, “FIG. 7 is a schematic view showing an exemplary data structure of a state in which the current version VR of a software package FW (FW1 to FWm) for a control device [113(1) to 113(m)] [first and second components] (where m is an integer of 1 or 2 or more) is registered in the storage unit 230 of the terminal device 200(i) (emphasis added).”),
acquire a second current software from a second component (Figure 7; col. 6 lines 35-40, “FIG. 7 is a schematic view showing an exemplary data structure of a state in which the current version VR of a software package FW (FW1 to FWm) for a control device [113(1) to 113(m)] [first and second components] (where m is an integer of 1 or 2 or more) is registered in the storage unit 230 of the terminal device 200(i) (emphasis added).”),
receive, from the server, first difference data with respect to the first current software and second difference data with respect to the second current software (Figures 5 and 6; abstract, “The terminal device retrieves a piece of difference source code which is a difference in a piece of source code corresponding to a current piece of object code stored in the storage unit, generates a latest piece of source code based on the piece of difference source code retrieved and the one or more pieces of source code stored in the storage unit, converts the latest piece of source code into a latest piece of object code, and transmits the latest piece of object code obtained from the conversion to the control device (emphasis added).”; col. 6 lines 46-50, “The software rewriting system 100 shown in FIG. 1 to FIG. 3 is a system for rewriting software packages FW of control devices 113(1) to 113(m) mounted in a plurality of movable objects 110(1) to 110(n) (e.g., movable work machines, ships) (see FIG. 1 to FIG. 3).”; col. 29 lines 5-8, “Next, in the step S2.4, the server 130 transmits the piece of difference source code DSC to the terminal device 200(1) which is associated with the control device 113 to be subjected to rewriting (emphasis added).”; col. 11 lines 56-60, “As shown in FIG. 6, the updating software storing database DB3 stores pieces of difference source code DSC each of which piece is a difference in a piece of source code between the latest version and an old version of the updating software package WFW (emphasis added).”; col. 31 lines 10-13, “The process of rewriting the software package FW can be done to a plurality of control devices 113(1) to 113(m) in the similar manner (emphasis added).”) [Examiner’s Remarks: Note that Kojima discloses, in Figure 6, difference source code (data) corresponding to the software of each control device (components) and a server transmitting a piece of difference source code to the terminal device in order to generate/transmit the latest piece of object code to a control device so the software of the control device can be rewritten. Kojima also discloses that the process of rewriting the software package can be done to a plurality of control devices. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that the process can be repeated for the plurality of control devices meaning second difference data (as seen in Figure 6) may be received in order to rewrite the software of a second control device (second component).],
generate first software by applying the first difference data to the first current software (abstract, “The terminal device retrieves a piece of difference source code which is a difference in a piece of source code corresponding to a current piece of object code stored in the storage unit, generates a latest piece of source code based on the piece of difference source code retrieved and the one or more pieces of source code stored in the storage unit, converts the latest piece of source code into a latest piece of object code, and transmits the latest piece of object code obtained from the conversion to the control device (emphasis added).”; col. 11 lines 56-60, “As shown in FIG. 6, the updating software storing database DB3 stores pieces of difference source code DSC each of which piece is a difference in a piece of source code between the latest version and an old version of the updating software package WFW (emphasis added).”),
generate second software by applying the second difference data to the second current software (abstract, “The terminal device retrieves a piece of difference source code which is a difference in a piece of source code corresponding to a current piece of object code stored in the storage unit, generates a latest piece of source code based on the piece of difference source code retrieved and the one or more pieces of source code stored in the storage unit, converts the latest piece of source code into a latest piece of object code, and transmits the latest piece of object code obtained from the conversion to the control device (emphasis added).”; col. 11 lines 56-60, “As shown in FIG. 6, the updating software storing database DB3 stores pieces of difference source code DSC each of which piece is a difference in a piece of source code between the latest version and an old version of the updating software package WFW (emphasis added).”; col. 31 lines 10-13, “The process of rewriting the software package FW can be done to a plurality of control devices 113(1) to 113(m) in the similar manner (emphasis added).”) [Examiner’s Remarks: Note that Kojima discloses that the process of rewriting the software package can be done to a plurality of control devices. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that the process can be repeated for the plurality of control devices meaning second software may be generated in order to rewrite the software of a second control device (second component).].
Ishio and Kojima are within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding updating a plurality of components.
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 Kojima into the teaching of Ishio to include “a controller included among the plurality of components, the controller being configured to communicate with a server, a first component, and a second component, the controller being configured to acquire a first current software from the first component, acquire a second current software from a second component, receive, from the server, first difference data with respect to the first current software and second difference data with respect to the second current software, generate first software by applying the first difference data to the first current software, generate second software by applying the second difference data to the second current software.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize a terminal device and a software rewriting program for use in a software rewriting system in order to enable shortening of a transmission time by utilizing information of a difference in the software package, and even allows easier generation of the latest version of the software package based on the difference in the software packages (Kojima, col. 2 lines 9-17).
As per Claim 5, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Ishio further discloses:
the controller is configured to update the second component using the second software after the update of the first component by the first software is completed (paragraph [0088], “A specific example of this dependency relationship data D2 is shown in FIG. In the figure, regarding the version "2.1" of the software A2 of the engine control device 4, in order to execute engine control using map information, the software A1 of the navigation processing unit 11 must be version "5.0" or higher (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0098], “For example, when installing software A1 of the navigation processing unit 11 [first component] and software A2 of the engine control device 4 [second component], installing the software A2 that directly affects the running of the vehicle is more dangerous than installing the software A1 (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0099], “Therefore, the update processing unit 25 first updates the software A1, and when the update is successfully completed, installs the software A2 (emphasis added).”) [Examiner’s Remarks: Note that Ishio discloses an example of a dependency relationship between the software A2 of the engine control device and the software A1 of the navigation processing unit where the navigation processing unit must first be updated to a certain version in order for a particular version of the engine control device software to execute engine control using map information (realizing a function associated with the navigation processing unit). Ishio also discloses the update processing unit first updating the software of the navigation processing unit and then updating the software of the engine control device. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that the software A1 of the navigation processing unit is the first software of the first component and the software A2 of the engine control device is the second software of the second component, so the updating processing unit (controller) updates the second component after the first component].
Claim 10 is a method claim corresponding to system Claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as given in the rejection of that claim.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishio in view of Kojima as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2019/0211532 (hereinafter “Sakamoto”) and US 2010/0262341 (hereinafter “Alguera”).
As per Claim 2, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Ishio discloses “the first component (paragraph [0113], “[…] when updating software [first software], it is also determined whether or not other software [second software] that operates in cooperation with the software can be updated. Therefore, the software of multiple in-vehicle devices [first and second components] can be managed in an integrated manner and updates can be executed appropriately (emphasis added).”),” “the second component (see previous citation),” “the first software (see previous citation),” “the second software (see previous citation),” and “the controller is configured to enable functions of [components] based on the first software and the second software (paragraph [0093], “The update processing unit 25 is a processing unit that executes update processing of various software (software A1 to A5) [first and second software] in the in-vehicle system. Specifically, the update processing unit 25 acquires data used for updating, and stores it in the storage unit 13 as update data D3. Thereafter, the update data D3 is read from the storage unit 13 and installed in the target device, completing the update (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0113], “[…] when updating software [first software], it is also determined whether or not other software [second software] that operates in cooperation with the software can be updated. Therefore, the software of multiple in-vehicle devices [first and second components] can be managed in an integrated manner and updates can be executed appropriately (emphasis added).”) [Examiner’s Remarks: Note that Ishio discloses updating and installing components based on first and second software on target devices. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that updating the components (first and second components) includes enabling functions of the updated components based on the first and second software],” but the combination of Ishio and Kojima does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first component includes a monitor component that performs a display control of a monitor provided in the work machine and a hydraulic component that performs a hydraulic control of a hydraulic device provided in the work machine,
the first software includes software of the monitor component for displaying a display related to detection of the obstacle by the first software on the monitor, and software of the hydraulic component for controlling an output of the hydraulic device when the obstacle is detected by the first software,
the second component includes a periphery monitoring component that uses an imaging device provided in the work machine to monitor a periphery,
the second software includes software for realizing the function of detecting an obstacle in a periphery of the work machine using the imaging device, and
the controller is configured to enable functions of the periphery monitoring component, the monitor component, and the hydraulic component associated with the function of detecting the obstacle, based on the first software and the second software.
However, Sakamoto discloses:
[a component] includes a monitor component that performs a display control of a monitor provided in the work machine (paragraph [0037], “As illustrated in FIG. 3, the hydraulic excavator according to the present embodiment includes […] a control unit 310 [monitor component], such as a microcomputer, for example, for performing a display process on a guidance monitor 415 installed in the cabin of the hydraulic excavator in response to input signals from the setting section 7, the posture sensors 8, and the satellite positioning system 301 (emphasis added).”);
[a software] includes software of the monitor component for displaying a display related to detection of the obstacle by [software] on the monitor (paragraph [0064], “The control unit 320 [periphery monitoring component] outputs the calculated positional information of the obstacle to the control unit 310 [monitor component]. The control unit 310 displays the detected position of the worker, i.e., the positional information of the obstacle, on the guidance monitor 415 based on the positional information of the detected obstacle, according to the function of the guidance display section 414 of the guidance apparatus 410 (emphasis added).”);
[a component] includes a periphery monitoring component that uses an imaging device provided in the work machine to monitor a periphery (paragraph [0039], “The hydraulic excavator according to the present embodiment also includes a camera 302 for capturing an image of the periphery of the machine body to detect obstacles […] and a control unit 320 [periphery monitoring component], such as a microcomputer, for example, for performing a display process on an obstacle detection monitor 424 installed in the cabin of the hydraulic excavator in response to input signals from the camera 302 and the IC tag receiver 303 (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0048], “The obstacle detecting apparatus 420 has an obstacle sensor 421, an obstacle position acquisition section 422, and an obstacle display section 423, and an obstacle detection monitor 424. Except the obstacle detection monitor 424, these functional sections of the obstacle detecting apparatus 420 are implemented by control programs executed by the control unit 320 (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0051], “The obstacle detecting apparatus 420 that includes the obstacle sensor 421 which uses information from the camera and the IC tag and the obstacle position acquisition section 422 which acquires the positions of detected obstacles is thus able to detect in real time obstacles and intrusive objects in the periphery of the construction machine (emphasis added).”);
[a software] includes software for realizing the function of detecting an obstacle in a periphery of the work machine using the imaging device (paragraph [0051], “The obstacle detecting apparatus 420 that includes the obstacle sensor 421 which uses information from the camera and the IC tag and the obstacle position acquisition section 422 which acquires the positions of detected obstacles is thus able to detect in real time obstacles and intrusive objects in the periphery of the construction machine (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0048], “The obstacle detecting apparatus 420 has an obstacle sensor 421, an obstacle position acquisition section 422, and an obstacle display section 423, and an obstacle detection monitor 424. Except the obstacle detection monitor 424, these functional sections of the obstacle detecting apparatus 420 are implemented by control programs executed by the control unit 320 (emphasis added).”); and
functions of the periphery monitoring component and the monitor component associated with the function of detecting the obstacle (paragraph [0048], “The obstacle detecting apparatus 420 has an obstacle sensor 421, an obstacle position acquisition section 422, and an obstacle display section 423, and an obstacle detection monitor 424. Except the obstacle detection monitor 424, these functional sections of the obstacle detecting apparatus 420 are implemented by control programs executed by the control unit 320 [periphery monitoring component] (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0051], “The obstacle detecting apparatus 420 that includes the obstacle sensor 421 which uses information from the camera and the IC tag and the obstacle position acquisition section 422 which acquires the positions of detected obstacles is thus able to detect in real time obstacles and intrusive objects in the periphery of the construction machine (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0064], “The control unit 320 outputs the calculated positional information of the obstacle to the control unit 310. The control unit 310 [monitor component] displays the detected position of the worker, i.e., the positional information of the obstacle, on the guidance monitor 415 based on the positional information of the detected obstacle, according to the function of the guidance display section 414 of the guidance apparatus 410 (emphasis added).”).
Sakamoto is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding the detection of an obstacle in a periphery of a work machine.
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 Sakamoto into the combined teachings of Ishio and Kojima to include “wherein the first component includes a monitor component that performs a display control of a monitor provided in the work machine, the first software includes software of the monitor component for displaying a display related to detection of the obstacle by the first software on the monitor, the second component includes a periphery monitoring component that uses an imaging device provided in the work machine to monitor a periphery, the second software includes software for realizing the function of detecting an obstacle in a periphery of the work machine using the imaging device, and the controller is configured to enable functions of the periphery monitoring component, the monitor component, […] associated with the function of detecting the obstacle, based on the first software and the second software.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to allow an operator to detect obstacles around a work machine using a periphery monitoring component and monitor component to reliably present “highly real-time information about obstacles […] even when the operator is keeping an eye on the screen of a guidance apparatus” to make work more efficient and convenient (Sakamoto, paragraph [0012]).
However, Alguera discloses:
a hydraulic component that performs a hydraulic control of a hydraulic device provided in the work machine (Figure 3: 6, 10; paragraph [0025], “The inventive control system illustrated in FIG. 3 is comprised of a distance sensor 12 disposed on the front side of the tractor 2, which sensor monitors the road ahead of the tractor 2 for possible obstacles 9. For this purpose, the distance sensor 12 sends out a measuring lobe signal 17 forwardwise in the direction of travel of the tractor 2. As soon as the distance sensor 12 detects an obstacle located within the reaction distance X.sub.1, a corresponding signal is sent to an electronic control device 6 [hydraulic component] which promptly actuates a hydraulic pump 10 or a comparable motor (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0021], “FIG. 3 is a schematic lateral view of a tractor and semi-trailer combination [work machine] provided with the inventive control system (emphasis added).”);
software of the hydraulic component for controlling an output of the hydraulic device when the obstacle is detected by the first software (paragraph [0025], “As soon as the distance sensor 12 detects an obstacle located within the reaction distance X.sub.1, a corresponding signal is sent to an electronic control device 6 which promptly actuates a hydraulic pump 10 or a comparable motor (emphasis added).”);
functions of the hydraulic component associated with the function of detecting the obstacle (paragraph [0025], “As soon as the distance sensor 12 detects an obstacle located within the reaction distance X.sub.1, a corresponding signal is sent to an electronic control device 6 which promptly actuates a hydraulic pump 10 or a comparable motor (emphasis added).”).
Alguera is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding the detection of obstacles around a work machine.
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 Alguera into the combined teachings of Ishio, Kojima, and Sakamoto to include “a hydraulic component that performs a hydraulic control of a hydraulic device provided in the work machine; software of the hydraulic component for controlling an output of the hydraulic device when the obstacle is detected by the first software; functions of the hydraulic component associated with the function of detecting the obstacle. ” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize a second component and second software that includes a hydraulic component that actuates a hydraulic pump when an obstacle is detected to “increase the length of the gap between the cab and the front of the semi-trailer even before the driver reacts” for timely rearward displacement of the carriage (Alguera, paragraphs [0009, 0010, & 0025]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishio in view of Kojima as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of JP 2004-194298 (IDS Provided by Applicant, hereinafter “Sugishita”).
As per Claim 3, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Ishio discloses “the controller is configured to receive [information] (paragraph [0093], “Specifically, the update processing unit 25 acquires data used for updating, and stores it in the storage unit 13 as update data D3. Thereafter, the update data D3 is read from the storage unit 13 and installed in the target device, completing the update.”),” but the combination of Ishio and Kojima does not explicitly disclose:
receive update order information indicating an update order of the plurality of components; and
update the plurality of components in the update order indicated by the update order information.
However, Sugishita discloses:
update order information indicating an update order of the plurality of components (Figure 13: S102, S103; paragraph [0109], “The controller 6 refers to the priorities of the update programs obtained from the priority information, and generates a priority table 70 that includes a set of the obtained update programs and their priorities. This priority table 70 is then sorted in ascending order of priority to generate update order information 71 (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0093], “The program of the processing section [component] is updated according to instructions from the SCS 20 of the controller board 50 (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0079], “FIG. 3 is a diagram showing the positioning of each processing unit and firmware, which is a program. FIG. 3 shows a controller board 50, which is a control section, and an operation panel board 55, an FCU board 51, an engine board 52, a finisher 53, and an ADF 54, which are processing sections [plurality of components] (emphasis added).”); and
update the plurality of components in the update order indicated by the update order information (paragraph [0109], “The controller 6 refers to the priorities of the update programs obtained from the priority information, and generates a priority table 70 that includes a set of the obtained update programs and their priorities. This priority table 70 is then sorted in ascending order of priority to generate update order information 71 (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0116], “[…] the controller 6 updates the program with the highest priority among the programs in the update-unexecuted state indicated by the update order information (emphasis added)”; paragraph [0093], “The program of the processing section [component] is updated according to instructions from the SCS 20 of the controller board 50 (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0079], “FIG. 3 is a diagram showing the positioning of each processing unit and firmware, which is a program. FIG. 3 shows a controller board 50, which is a control section, and an operation panel board 55, an FCU board 51, an engine board 52, a finisher 53, and an ADF 54, which are processing sections [plurality of components] (emphasis added).”).
Sugishita is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding updating a plurality of components using update order information.
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 Sugishita into the combined teachings of Ishio and Kojima to include “receive update order information indicating an update order of the plurality of components; and update the plurality of components in the update order indicated by the update order information.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to update related components using update order information to solve the issue of a program not being able to update due to programs being updated in an arbitrary order instead of by priority (higher priority programs update first) (Sugishita, paragraphs [0008, 0109, & 0116]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishio in view of Kojima and Sugishita as applied to Claim 3 above, and further in view of JP 2004-118586 (IDS Provided by Applicant, hereinafter “Tanimoto”).
As per Claim 4, the rejection of Claim 3 is incorporated; and the combination of Ishio, Kojima, and Sugishita does not explicitly disclose:
when one component fails to update among the plurality of components, the controller does not update another component indicated to be updated after the one component in the update order information.
However, Tanimoto discloses:
when one component fails to update among the plurality of components, the controller does not update another component indicated to be updated after the one component in the update order information (page 2 lines 53-55 & lines 59-61, “The "program" may be any form of program such as firmware or application program. Thereby, it is possible to appropriately update the programs held by the devices having a correlation […] This device includes a storage unit that stores a procedure file for updating firmware of the main device and the accessory device in association with a combination of the main device and the accessory device that can be attached to the main device […] (emphasis added).”; page 5 lines 168-171 “The update procedure column 194 holds firmware update procedures. In this figure, if the main device 20 with the model model "MFP002" is equipped with the accessory devices 22 with the model models "OP02" and "OP03", the firmware of "OP03" is first updated, and then the "OP02" firmware is updated and finally "MFP002" [update order of components] (emphasis added).”; page 5 lines 180-184, “The update processing section 116 performs a firmware update process on the first main device 20a or the second main device 20b based on the data held in the procedure database 122. Then, the update processing unit 116 writes information related to the update process, such as whether the update process was successful or not, to the work history storage unit 110. (emphasis added).”; page 5 lines 201-205 to page 6 line 206 & lines 209-217, “If there is a device to be updated (Y in S18), the determination unit 106 reads the device configuration information for each main device (S20), and determines whether the update work can be performed with the firmware already held in the firmware storage unit 124. (S22). For this determination, update order information in the procedure database 122, consistency information in the attached device firmware database 120, etc. are used […] Furthermore, if the update work cannot be performed [fails] in S22 (N in S22), the determination unit 106 determines whether or not the necessary firmware can be automatically downloaded (S28). For example, it is determined whether connection to the network is possible. If the download is possible (Y in S28), the determination unit 106 instructs the firmware acquisition unit 112 to acquire the firmware and the accompanying procedure file (S30). Then, the process returns to S22 and this operation is repeated until the necessary firmware is obtained. If the download is not possible in S28 (N in S28), the determination unit 106 records in the work history storage unit 110 that the update work cannot be completed [fails] (S32). Then, the process returns to S18 (emphasis added).”) [Examiner’s Remarks: Note that Tanimoto discloses an update order for software of devices (components) to be updated by and that when an update can’t be performed (fails), the process of acquiring the firmware (software) and accompanying procedure file and checking if an update is possible is repeated until the necessary firmware is obtained. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that repeating the process of acquiring the firmware and checking if an update is possible, in the event the update can’t be performed and an automatic download is possible, means another component (indicated to be updated next according to the update order) will not be updated until the component of the failed update is completed due to the repetitive process described above. Furthermore, Tanimoto also discloses that if an automatic download isn’t possible then the update fails and the entire process from S18 starts over again. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that starting the entire process from S18 over again would mean the component of the failed update would attempt to be updated again due to the preserved update order ultimately preventing the update of another component indicated to be updated next based on the update order until the failed update is successfully completed.].
Tanimoto is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding updating related components using update order information.
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 Tanimoto into the combined teachings of Ishio, Kojima, and Sugishita to include “when one component fails to update among the plurality of components, the controller does not update another component indicated to be updated after the one component in the update order information.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to ensure the update of a component that’s indicated, from update order information, to be updated after a component of a failed update doesn’t happen because updating in the wrong order may lead to not achieving intended functionality, the update process being incomplete midway through, or not being able to restart the device (Tanimoto, page 1 lines 32-35).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishio in view of Kojima, Sakamoto, and Alguera as applied to Claim 2 above, and further in view of Sugishita.
As per Claim 6, the rejection of Claim 2 is incorporated; and Ishio discloses “the controller is configured to update […] (paragraph [0093], “The update processing unit 25 is a processing unit that executes update processing of various software (software A1 to A5) in the in-vehicle system. Specifically, the update processing unit 25 acquires data used for updating, and stores it in the storage unit 13 as update data D3. Thereafter, the update data D3 is read from the storage unit 13 and installed in the target device, completing the update.”),” but the combination of Ishio, Kojima, Sakamoto, and Alguera does not explicitly disclose:
the controller is configured to update the monitor component last among the plurality of components.
However, Sugishita discloses:
update the monitor component last among the plurality of components (paragraph [0111], “Note that in FIG. 10, the operation panel firmware is updated later than the program of the controller 6 is updated. The reason is that the operation panel farm draws the progress status to the operator. Therefore, the operation panel [monitor component] firmware will be updated last (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0018], “[…] the present invention provides that the program update section updates the program of a processing section that performs a process of displaying information [monitor component] regarding the image forming apparatus to an operator operating the image forming apparatus. It is characterized in that the order in which it is done is the last order (emphasis added).”).
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 Sugishita into the combined teachings of Ishio, Kojima, Sakamoto, and Alguera to include “the controller is configured to update the monitor component last among the plurality of components.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to update a monitor component, that displays information to an operator, last to ensure accurate information about the progress status is displayed which may not happen if the update occurs out of order (Sugishita, paragraphs [0008, 0009, 0010, & 0111]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishio in view of Kojima as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2009/0007090 (hereinafter “Hirao”).
As per Claim 7, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Ishio discloses “the first component and the second component based on the first software and the second software (paragraph [0113], “[…] when updating software [first software], it is also determined whether or not other software [second software] that operates in cooperation with the software can be updated. Therefore, the software of multiple in-vehicle devices [first and second components] can be managed in an integrated manner and updates can be executed appropriately (emphasis added).”),” but the combination of Ishio and Kojima does not explicitly disclose:
the controller is configured to detect whether an interruption of the update of the first component and the second component based on the first software and the second software has occurred; and
upon detecting the interruption of the update, determine which component among the first component and the second component has not completed the update;
when the update of the component that was determined not to have completed the update becomes resumable, update the component that was determined not to have completed the update based on the first software or the second software.
However, Hirao discloses:
the controller is configured to detect whether an interruption of the update of the first component and the second component based on the [differences of software] (paragraph [0038], “The controller 11 includes a central processing unit (CPU) […] (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0063], “The controller 11 determines whether updating processing is being interrupted due to a power-off or the like (step S21) (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0064], “If it is determined in step S21 that the updating processing is being interrupted, a component that was being subjected to writing processing is written from the file system area 203 to a corresponding area of the flash memory 20 (step S22). A block of the nonvolatile memory where the component to be updated is stored can be identified by referring to the data table 40 (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0065], “Then, all the components of software to be updated are decompressed, and the decompressed components are loaded into the RAM 24 (step S23). Then, differential data of the software to be updated is loaded into the RAM 24 (step S24) (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0066], “Then, the loaded software to be updated is updated in the RAM 24 on the basis of the differential data (step S25) (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0048], “Such differential data is generated by comparing uncompressed original code of the old software and uncompressed original code of the new software.”); and
upon detecting the interruption of the update, determine which component among the first component and the second component has not completed the update (paragraph [0063], “The controller 11 determines whether updating processing is being interrupted due to a power-off or the like (step S21) (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0064], “If it is determined in step S21 that the updating processing is being interrupted, a component that was being subjected to writing processing is written from the file system area 203 to a corresponding area of the flash memory 20 (step S22). A block of the nonvolatile memory where the component to be updated is stored can be identified by referring to the data table 40 (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0065], “Then, all the components of software to be updated are decompressed, and the decompressed components are loaded into the RAM 24 (step S23). Then, differential data of the software to be updated is loaded into the RAM 24 (step S24) (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0066], “Then, the loaded software to be updated is updated in the RAM 24 on the basis of the differential data (step S25) (emphasis added).”);
when the update of the component that was determined not to have completed the update becomes resumable, update the component that was determined not to have completed the update based on the [differences in software] (paragraph [0020], “Thus, even in the case that a failure in the writing back to the nonvolatile memory occurs due to a power-off at the execution of the software updating, after a power is recovered, the compressed updated code sequence corresponding to the compressed updated portion of the compressed updated software stored in the file system area is written back to a corresponding area of the nonvolatile memory and then the software updating can be resumed (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0062], “FIG. 10 is a flowchart schematically showing a software updating process. The software updating process is also performed by the controller 11 (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0064], “If it is determined in step S21 that the updating processing is being interrupted, a component that was being subjected to writing processing is written from the file system area 203 to a corresponding area of the flash memory 20 (step S22). A block of the nonvolatile memory where the component to be updated is stored can be identified by referring to the data table 40 (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0065], “Then, all the components of software to be updated are decompressed, and the decompressed components are loaded into the RAM 24 (step S23). Then, differential data of the software to be updated is loaded into the RAM 24 (step S24) (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0066], “Then, the loaded software to be updated is updated in the RAM 24 on the basis of the differential data (step S25). In this case, a component that has been updated is excluded from targets to be processed. After updating of all the components to be updated is completed, the updated software components in the RAM 24 are compressed […] (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0048], “Such differential data is generated by comparing uncompressed original code of the old software and uncompressed original code of the new software.”).
Hirao is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding the detection of interrupted updates.
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 Hirao into the combined teachings of Ishio and Kojima to include “the controller is configured to detect whether an interruption of the update of the first component and the second component based on the first software and the second software has occurred; and upon detecting the interruption of the update, determine which component among the first component and the second component has not completed the update; when the update of the component that was determined not to have completed the update becomes resumable, update the component that was determined not to have completed the update based on the first software or the second software.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to update components based on differences in old and new software (differential data) to save bandwidth and time by storing/using only the changed parts of the software (Hirao, paragraph [0048]). Moreover, the modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would also be motivated to have a backup of compressed updated code sequences stored in a file system with a fault-tolerant property to maintain the validity of software in nonvolatile memory and reduce software updating, even after a power-off occurs during the writing of updated data to nonvolatile memory (Hirao, paragraph [0024]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishio in view of Kojima as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Tanimoto.
As per Claim 8, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Ishio discloses “the controller is configured to receive [information] (paragraph [0093], “Specifically, the update processing unit 25 acquires data used for updating, and stores it in the storage unit 13 as update data D3. Thereafter, the update data D3 is read from the storage unit 13 and installed in the target device, completing the update.”),” but the combination of Ishio and Kojima does not explicitly disclose:
receive item number information indicating a condition of item numbers of the first component and the second component that are updatable by the first software and the second software; and
update the first component and the second component when the item numbers of the first component and the second component satisfy the condition indicated by the item number information.
However, Tanimoto discloses:
item number information indicating a condition of item numbers of the first component and the second component that are updatable by the first software and the second software (page 2 lines 53-55 & lines 59-61, “The "program" may be any form of program such as firmware or application program. Thereby, it is possible to appropriately update the programs held by the devices having a correlation […] This device includes a storage unit that stores a procedure file for updating firmware of the main device and the accessory device in association with a combination of the main device and the accessory device [first and second components] that can be attached to the main device […] (emphasis added).”; page 5 lines 180-182, “The update processing section 116 performs a firmware update process on the first main device 20a or the second main device 20b based on the data held in the procedure database 122 (emphasis added).”; page 5 line 165 & lines 168-171, “FIG. 6 is a diagram showing an example of the data structure of the procedure database 122 […] The update procedure column 194 holds firmware update procedures. In this figure, if the main device 20 with the model model [item number] "MFP002" is equipped with the accessory devices 22 with the model models [item numbers] "OP02" and "OP03", the firmware of "OP03" [second software of second component] is first updated, and then the "OP02" firmware [second software of the second component] is updated and finally “MFP002” [first software of the first component] (emphasis added).”); and
update the first component and the second component when the item numbers of the first component and the second component satisfy the condition indicated by the item number information (page 2 lines 53-55 & lines 59-61, “The "program" may be any form of program such as firmware or application program. Thereby, it is possible to appropriately update the programs held by the devices having a correlation […] This device includes a storage unit that stores a procedure file for updating firmware of the main device and the accessory device in association with a combination of the main device and the accessory device [first and second components] that can be attached to the main device […] (emphasis added).”; page 5 lines 180-182, “The update processing section 116 performs a firmware update process on the first main device 20a or the second main device 20b based on the data held in the procedure database 122 (emphasis added).”; page 5 line 165 & lines 168-171, “FIG. 6 is a diagram showing an example of the data structure of the procedure database 122 […] The update procedure column 194 holds firmware update procedures. In this figure, if the main device 20 with the model model [item number] "MFP002" is equipped with the accessory devices 22 with the model models [item numbers] "OP02" and "OP03", the firmware of "OP03" [second software of second component] is first updated, and then the "OP02" firmware [second software of the second component] is updated and finally “MFP002” [first software of the first component] (emphasis added).”) [Examiner’s Remarks: Note that Tanimoto discloses a procedure database including update procedures (conditions) and models (item numbers) of devices. Tanimoto also discloses updating the devices in a specified order using an example of updating firmware of a device with model "OP02" (second software of second component) first, updating firmware of a device with the model "OP03" second, and updating firmware of a device with the model "MFP002" (first software of first component) last. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that the model names are the item numbers of the components and the update procedures are the conditions to update the firmware (software) of the components in a particular order, in other words, the component matching the model name listed in the update procedure to be updated next satisfies the condition to be updated. In the provided example, the update procedure in the database in Figure 6 specifies that the components with those model names (item numbers) be updated in that order (condition).].
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 Tanimoto into the combined teachings of Ishio and Kojima to include “receive item number information indicating a condition of item numbers of the first component and the second component that are updatable by the first software and the second software; and update the first component and the second component when the item numbers of the first component and the second component satisfy the condition indicated by the item number information.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to update components using item numbers and update order conditions because using the wrong versions or updating in the wrong order may lead to not achieving intended functionality, the update process being incomplete midway through, or not being able to restart the device (Tanimoto, page 1 lines 32-35).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishio in view of Kojima as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Sakamoto.
As per Claim 9, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Ishio discloses “the plurality of components including the first component and the second component (paragraph [0113], “[…] when updating software [first software], it is also determined whether or not other software [second software] that operates in cooperation with the software can be updated. Therefore, the software of multiple in-vehicle devices [first and second components] can be managed in an integrated manner and updates can be executed appropriately (emphasis added).”); and the software updating system (paragraph [0076], “The software management unit 12 is a processing unit that integrally manages updates of various software (software A1 to A5) in the in-vehicle system (emphasis added).”),” but the combination of Ishio and Kojima does not explicitly disclose:
A work machine comprising:
a vehicle body;
work equipment attached to the vehicle body.
However, Sakamoto discloses:
A work machine (Figure 2) comprising:
a vehicle body (Figure 2; paragraph [0032], “As illustrated in FIG. 2, the hydraulic excavator includes a machine body or construction machine main body 1B having an upper swing structure 1d and a lower track structure 1e, and an articulated work implement 1A having a boom 1a, an arm 1b, and a bucket 1c each angularly movable in vertical directions and mounted on a front portion of the upper swing structure 1d (emphasis added).”);
work equipment attached to the vehicle body (Figure 2; paragraph [0032], “As illustrated in FIG. 2, the hydraulic excavator includes a machine body or construction machine main body 1B having an upper swing structure 1d and a lower track structure 1e, and an articulated work implement 1A having a boom 1a, an arm 1b, and a bucket 1c each angularly movable in vertical directions and mounted on a front portion of the upper swing structure 1d (emphasis added).”).
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 Sakamoto into the combined teachings of Ishio and Kojima to include “A work machine comprising: a vehicle body; work equipment attached to the vehicle body.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include a work machine with a vehicle body, work equipment, and components such as an obstacle detecting apparatus to present an operator of a work machine with “highly real-time information about the obstacle, such as an intrusive object around the machine body, making work efficiency and convenience compatible with each other” (Sakamoto, paragraph [0014]).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishio in view of Kojima as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2022/0147337 (hereinafter “Michelsohn”).
As per Claim 11, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Ishio discloses “in a case where the first component is updated, a processor on the [unit] being configured to acquire [software] […] (paragraph [0093], “The update processing unit 25 is a processing unit that executes update processing of various software [first and second software] (software A1 to A5) in the in-vehicle system. Specifically, the update processing unit 25 acquires data used for updating, and stores it in the storage unit 13 as update data D3. Thereafter, the update data D3 is read from the storage unit 13 and installed in the target device, completing the update (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0113], “[…] when updating software [first software], it is also determined whether or not other software [second software] that operates in cooperation with the software can be updated. Therefore, the software [first and second software] of multiple in-vehicle devices [first and second components] can be managed in an integrated manner and updates can be executed appropriately (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0088], “A specific example of this dependency relationship data D2 is shown in FIG. In the figure, regarding the version "2.1" of the software A2 of the engine control device 4, in order to execute engine control using map information, the software A1 of the navigation processing unit 11 must be version "5.0" or higher.”; paragraph [0098], “For example, when installing software A1 of the navigation processing unit 11 [first component] and software A2 of the engine control device 4, installing the software A2 that directly affects the running of the vehicle is more dangerous than installing the software A1 (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0099], “Therefore, the update processing unit 25 first updates the software A1, and when the update is successfully completed, installs the software A2 (emphasis added).”),” but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the controller further includes a first substrate connected to the first component and a second substrate connected to the second component, in a case where the first component is updated, a processor on the second substrate being configured to
acquire the first current software from the first component via the first substrate, and
generate the first software by applying the first difference data to the first current software,
outputs the first software to the first component via the first substrate.
However, Kojima discloses:
wherein the controller further includes […] (Claim 1, “A terminal device comprising: a processor; and a memory […].”).
acquire the first current software from the first component via the [terminal device] (Figure 7; col. 6 lines 35-40, “FIG. 7 is a schematic view showing an exemplary data structure of a state in which the current version VR of a software package FW (FW1 to FWm) for a control device [113(1) to 113(m)] [first and second components] (where m is an integer of 1 or 2 or more) is registered in the storage unit 230 of the terminal device 200(i) (emphasis added).”), and
generate the first software by applying the first difference data to the first current software (abstract, “The terminal device retrieves a piece of difference source code which is a difference in a piece of source code corresponding to a current piece of object code stored in the storage unit, generates a latest piece of source code based on the piece of difference source code retrieved and the one or more pieces of source code stored in the storage unit, converts the latest piece of source code into a latest piece of object code, and transmits the latest piece of object code obtained from the conversion to the control device (emphasis added).”; col. 11 lines 56-60, “As shown in FIG. 6, the updating software storing database DB3 stores pieces of difference source code DSC each of which piece is a difference in a piece of source code between the latest version and an old version of the updating software package WFW (emphasis added).”),
outputs the first software to the first component via the [terminal device] (abstract, “The terminal device retrieves a piece of difference source code which is a difference in a piece of source code corresponding to a current piece of object code stored in the storage unit, generates a latest piece of source code based on the piece of difference source code retrieved and the one or more pieces of source code stored in the storage unit, converts the latest piece of source code into a latest piece of object code, and transmits the latest piece of object code obtained from the conversion to the control device (emphasis added).”).
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 Kojima into the teaching of Ishio to include “wherein the controller further includes […]; in a case where the first component is updated, a processor on the [unit] being configured to acquire the first current software from the first component via the [terminal device]; generate the first software by applying the first difference data to the first current software; outputs the first software to the first component via the [terminal device].” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize a terminal device and a software rewriting program for use in a software rewriting system in order to enable shortening of a transmission time by utilizing information of a difference in the software package, and even allows easier generation of the latest version of the software package based on the difference in the software packages (Kojima, col. 2 lines 9-17).
The combination of Ishio and Kojima does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the controller further includes a first substrate connected to the first component and a second substrate connected to the second component, in a case where the first component is updated, a processor on the second substrate being configured to
acquire the first current software from the first component via the first substrate, and
generate the first software by applying the first difference data to the first current software,
outputs the first software to the first component via the first substrate.
However, Michelsohn discloses:
a first substrate connected to the first component and a second substrate connected to the second component (paragraph [0094], “The update system 200 may comprise a network interface 210, a processor(s) 212, storage 214 and an Input/Output (I/O) interface 216.”; paragraph [0101], “Optionally, the update system 200 may be integrated in one or more of the ECUs [first and second components] 230 such that the integrated ECU(s) 230 executes the update agent 220 to execute the process 100 (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0052], “After receiving an update package the vehicle, specifically an update agent executed by one or more update systems [first and second substrates] of the vehicle may check whether the received update package is applicable for the vehicle (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0004], “The ECUs may be processing devices comprising one or more processors executing software, firmware and/or middleware module(s) to provide the required functionality and features. The ECUs may also include one or more programmable logic devices, for example, a Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) and/or the like which may be loaded with firmware to map the logic gates of the FPGA to provide the required functionality and features.”).
Michelsohn is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding the updating of multiple components.
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 Michelsohn into the combined teachings of Ishio and Kojima to include “wherein the controller further includes a first substrate connected to the first component and a second substrate connected to the second component, in a case where the first component is updated, a processor on the second substrate being configured to acquire the first current software from the first component via the first substrate, and generate the first software by applying the first difference data to the first current software, outputs the first software to the first component via the first substrate.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize update systems that update components using vehicle to vehicle communication in order to rapidly and efficiently spread/distribute updates to various vehicles/machines and prevent network overload associated with utilizing centralized distribution systems (Michelsohn, paragraphs [0074 & 0075]).
As per Claim 12, the rejection of Claim 11 is incorporated; and the combination of Ishio and Kojima does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first substrate is connected to the first component for operation control related to the operations of the work machine, and the second substrate is connected to the second component for extending functions of the work machine.
However, Michelsohn discloses:
wherein the first substrate is connected to the first component for operation control related to the operations of the work machine, and the second substrate is connected to the second component for extending functions of the work machine (paragraph [0003], “These ECUs may control various systems of the vehicle ranging from critical systems to user experience systems, for example, an engine control system [operation control related to the operations of the vehicle], a transmission control system, a breaking system, a lighting system, an infotainment system, a navigation system [extending function of the vehicle], a communication system, a door lock system, a window lift system and/or the like (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0094], “The update system 200 may comprise a network interface 210, a processor(s) 212, storage 214 and an Input/Output (I/O) interface 216.”; paragraph [0101], “Optionally, the update system 200 may be integrated in one or more of the ECUs [first and second components] 230 such that the integrated ECU(s) 230 executes the update agent 220 to execute the process 100 (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0052], “After receiving an update package the vehicle, specifically an update agent executed by one or more update systems [first and second substrates] of the vehicle may check whether the received update package is applicable for the vehicle (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0004], “The ECUs may be processing devices comprising one or more processors executing software, firmware and/or middleware module(s) to provide the required functionality and features. The ECUs may also include one or more programmable logic devices, for example, a Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) and/or the like which may be loaded with firmware to map the logic gates of the FPGA to provide the required functionality and features.”).
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 Michelsohn into the combined teachings of Ishio and Kojima to include “wherein the first substrate is connected to the first component for operation control related to the operations of the work machine, and the second substrate is connected to the second component for extending functions of the work machine.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize update systems that update components using vehicle to vehicle communication in order to rapidly and efficiently spread/distribute updates to various vehicles/machines and their functions/operations of the vehicles can be up to date while also avoiding network overload associated with utilizing centralized distribution systems (Michelsohn, paragraphs [0074 & 0075]).
Response to Arguments
In the Remarks, Applicant’s arguments under Rejections – 35 U.S.C § 102, Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1, 5, and 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In the Remarks, Applicant’s arguments under Rejections – 35 U.S.C § 103, Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1 and 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Feven H Huruy whose telephone number is (571) 272-3826. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-3:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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 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.
/F.H.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2191 /WEI Y MUI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2191
Prosecution Insights