DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial Office action based on the application filed on February 21, 2024.
Claims 1-10 are pending.
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 .
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:
“a reception unit […]” recited in Claim 1.
“an update unit […]” recited in Claims 1-8.
“a periphery monitoring component […]” and “a hydraulic component […]” recited in Claim 2.
“a monitor component […]” recited in Claims 2 and 6.
“a detection unit […]” and “a determination unit […]” recited in Claim 7.
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 “a reception unit” is described in paragraph [0087] of the specification. The corresponding structure for “an update unit” is described in paragraph [0082] 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. The corresponding structure for “a detection unit” is described in paragraphs [0082 & 00157] of the specification. The corresponding structure for “a determination unit” is described in paragraphs [0087 & 00164] 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).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character not mentioned in the description: “10” in Figure 6. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [00165] is a blank paragraph.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 8 and Claim 10 lines 8-9 recite “store the received first software and second software.” It should read -- store the first software and the second software --.
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 4 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 lines 3-4 the limitation “a periphery monitoring component that monitors a periphery using an imaging device provided in the work machine.” The claims are rendered vague and indefinite because it is unclear to the Examiner whether the periphery monitoring component is using the imaging device or the periphery being monitored is using the imaging device. In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner subsequently interprets this limitation as the periphery monitoring component using the imaging device for the purpose of further examination.
Claim 6 depends on Claim 2. Therefore, Claim 6 suffers the same deficiency as Claim 2.
Claim 4 recites in lines 3-5 the limitation “when a component fails to update among the plurality of components, the update unit does not update a component indicated to be updated after the component in the update order information.” The claims are rendered vague and indefinite because it is unclear to the Examiner whether “the component” in line 5 is referring back to “a component fails to update” in line 3 or “a component indicated to be updated” in line 4. In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner subsequently interprets this limitation as “the component” in line 5 referring back to “a component fails to update” in line 3 for the purpose of further examination.
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, 5, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2006-011647 (IDS Provided by Applicant, hereinafter “Ishio”).
As per Claim 1, Ishio discloses:
A 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).”) for updating a plurality of components provided in a work machine, the software updating system comprising:
a reception unit configured to receive data including first software for updating a first component, which is one of the plurality of components, and second software that is software for updating a second component, which is another one of the plurality of components, and for realizing a function associated with the first software, from a server (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. Specifically, [the software management unit] 12 includes a version information management section 21, an update confirmation processing section 22, a dependency determination section 23, a vehicle state determination section 24, and an update processing section 25 (emphasis added).”; 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 [0094], “Here, the data used for updating may be obtained by downloading from an external server using the communication device 2, or reading from a predetermined recording medium such as a CD or DVD (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0018], “[…] the dependency relationship storage means is configured such that when the plurality of in-vehicle devices [components] cooperate to execute a predetermined operation, The dependency relationship is determined based on the presence or absence of a function on software that realizes the operation [for realizing a function associated with the first software] (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0081], “The dependency determining unit 23 determines the dependency of software of the in-vehicle device, and stores the determined dependency in the storage unit 13 as dependency data D2. When a plurality of devices [components] cooperate to execute a predetermined operation, the software of each in-vehicle device needs to have that function (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 [first 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).”) [Examiner’s Remarks: Note that Ishio discloses a software management unit (reception unit) that includes a dependency determination section that determines the dependency of software of an in-vehicle device and that dependency is determined based on whether software of an in-vehicle device has a function that realizes an operation that a plurality of in-vehicle devices cooperate to execute. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that if the software (second software) of an in-vehicle device (second component) has a function that realizes the operation that a plurality of in-vehicle devices cooperate to execute then it realizes a function associated with the software (first software) of another in-vehicle device (first component). Moreover, Ishio discloses that the software management unit (reception unit) includes an update processing unit that acquires data used for updating from an external server and that, when updating software, it’s determined whether other software that operates in cooperation with the software can be updated. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that updating software and determining whether other, dependent software of in-vehicle devices can also be updated requires the data received/acquired from an external server to include first software (the software being updated) for updating a first component, which is one of the plurality of components (in-vehicle devices), and second software (dependent software) that is software for updating a second component, which is another one of the plurality of components (in-vehicle devices), and for realizing a function associated with the first software.];
a storage unit configured to store the received first software and 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
an update unit configured to update the first component and the second component based on the first software and the second software after the first software and the second software are stored in the storage unit (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).”).
As per Claim 5, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Ishio further discloses:
the update unit updates 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 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 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishio 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 update unit enables 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 does not explicitly disclose:
the first component includes a periphery monitoring component that monitors a periphery using an imaging device provided in the work machine;
the second 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 for realizing the function of detecting an obstacle in a periphery of the work machine using the imaging device;
the second 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; and
the update unit enables 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 that includes a periphery monitoring component that monitors a periphery using an imaging device provided in the work machine (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 component that 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 that 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).”);
a software that 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).”); 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).”).
Ishio is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a software update system for updating a plurality of components. Sakamoto is also 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 teaching of Ishio to include “a component that includes a periphery monitoring component that monitors a periphery using an imaging device provided in the work machine; a component that includes a monitor component that performs a display control of a monitor provided in the work machine; a software that includes software for realizing the function of detecting an obstacle in a periphery of the work machine using the imaging device; a software that includes software of the monitor component for displaying a display related to detection of the obstacle by software on the monitor; and functions of the periphery monitoring component and the monitor 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 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 (Ishio, 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 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 JP 2004-194298 (IDS Provided by Applicant, hereinafter “Sugishita”).
As per Claim 3, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Ishio does not explicitly disclose:
the data includes update order information indicating an update order of the plurality of components; and
the update unit updates the plurality of components in an order indicated by the update order information.
However, Sugishita discloses:
the data includes 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
the update unit updates the plurality of components in an 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 teaching of Ishio to include “the data includes update order information indicating an update order of the plurality of components; and the update unit updates the plurality of components in an 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 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 and Sugishita does not explicitly disclose:
when a component fails to update among the plurality of components, the update unit does not update a component indicated to be updated after the component in the update order information.
However, Tanimoto discloses:
when a component fails to update among the plurality of components, the update unit does not update a component indicated to be updated after the 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 a 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 and Sugishita to include “when a component fails to update among the plurality of components, the update unit does not update a component indicated to be updated after the 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 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 the combination of Ishio, Sakamoto, and Alguera does not explicitly disclose:
the update unit updates the monitor component last among the plurality of components.
However, Sugishita discloses:
the update unit updates 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, Sakamoto, and Alguera to include “the update unit updates 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 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).”)” and “the first software or the second software stored in the storage unit (paragraph [0093], “The update processing unit 25 is a processing unit that executes update processing of various software (software A1 to A5) [first software 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).”),” but does not explicitly disclose:
a detection unit configured to detect an interruption of the update of the first component and the second component based on the first software and the second software; and
a determination unit that determines a component among the first component and the second component for which the update has been uncompleted upon detecting the interruption of the update;
when the update of the component for which the update is determined to be uncompleted by the determination unit becomes resumable, the update unit updates the component for which the update is determined to be uncompleted by the determination unit based on the first software or the second software stored in the storage unit.
However, Hirao discloses:
a detection unit configured to detect an interruption of the update of a component based on differences of software (paragraph [0038], “The controller 11 includes a central processing unit (CPU) […] (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0063], “The controller [detection unit] 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
a determination unit that determines a component among components for which the update has been uncompleted upon detecting the interruption of the update (paragraph [0063], “The controller [determination unit] 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 for which the update is determined to be uncompleted by the determination unit becomes resumable, the update unit updates the component for which the update is determined to be uncompleted by the determination unit based on 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 [detection, determination, and update unit] 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 teaching of Ishio to include “a detection unit configured to detect an interruption of the update of a component based on differences in software; and a determination unit that determines a component among components for which the update has been uncompleted upon detecting the interruption of the update; when the update of the component for which the update is determined to be uncompleted by the determination unit becomes resumable, the update unit updates the component for which the update is determined to be uncompleted by the determination unit based on differences in 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 Tanimoto.
As per Claim 8, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Ishio does not explicitly disclose:
the data includes 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
the update unit updates 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:
the data includes 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
the update unit updates 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 teaching of Ishio to include “the data includes 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 the update unit updates 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 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 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 teaching of Ishio 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]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
JP 2017-041114 (IDS Provided by Applicant, hereinafter “Mori”) discloses updating a plurality of programs, an update program that implements functions in cooperation with another program, and a storage unit for storing an update program transferred from a server.
US 2017/0305018 (hereinafter “Machida”) discloses a periphery monitoring component, a monitor component, and detecting an obstacle in a periphery of a work machine.
JP 2016-178499 (IDS Provided by Applicant, hereinafter “Kitayama”) discloses updating a second component after the update of the first component is completed and resuming an interrupted update.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Feven Huruy whose telephone number is 571-272-3826. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-3:45pm.
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