DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to a preliminary amendment to application 18/686964, filed on 2/27/2024. Claims 1-7, 9-10, and 13-23 are pending; claims 8 and 11-12 are canceled. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB 2021/0058471, hereinafter “Acharya” and USPGPUB 2011/0194458, hereinafter “Nieuwland.”
Regarding claim 1, Acharya discloses “A method for flashing an electronic control unit (ECU), (see, e.g., fig. 1 & associated text) comprising:
obtaining a request message to be processed, wherein the request message comprises an identification (ID) of a target domain and an ID of an ECU to be flashed; (see, e.g., para. 27-28, 38, 142, 151)
sending the request message to the target domain based on the ID of the target domain, wherein the target domain sends the request message to the ECU based on the ID of the ECU; (see, e.g., para. 28-29, 142, 154-155) and
receiving a response message from the target domain, wherein the response message is generated by the ECU based on the request message and sent to the target domain.” (see, e.g., para. 29, 36, 142, 154-155).
Acharya does not appear to disclose the underlined portions of the following limitations:
at a starting moment of a reception time slot corresponding to the ECU, sending the request message to the target domain based on the ID of the target domain, wherein the target domain sends the request message to the ECU based on the ID of the ECU; and
at a starting moment of a transmission time slot corresponding to the ECU, receiving a response message from the target domain, wherein the response message is generated by the ECU based on the request message and sent to the target domain.
However, Nieuwland discloses (at para. 31) making a TDMA schedule which allocates time slots on a CAN (controller area network) sufficient to flash program an ECU. Acharya and Nieuwland are directed toward programming ECUs and therefore are analogous art. On or before the effective filing date of the instant application, one of ordinary skill in the art would have deemed it obvious to try to combine the ECU flashing method of Acharya with the time slot scheduling of Nieuwland, thereby obtaining the invention of the instant claim. A clear and predictable benefit of so combining would have appeared as the ability to complete ECU flashing “without undue latency caused by limited bandwidth having been assigned.” (Nieuwland, para. 31). Accordingly, the instant claim is unpatentable over the combination of Acharya and Nieuwland.
Regarding claim 9, Acharya discloses “A system for flashing an electronic control unit (ECU), comprising an upgrade management module, one or more target domains and one or more ECUs, wherein the upgrade management module is connected to the one or more target domains via a network, and the one or more target domains are connected to the one or more ECUs via a bus; (see, e.g., fig. 1 & associated text) and
the upgrade management module is configured to: obtain a request message to be processed, wherein the request message comprises an identification (ID) of a target domain and an ID of an ECU to be flashed; (see, e.g., para. 27-28, 38, 142, 151)
send the request message to the target domain based on the ID of the target domain, wherein the target domain sends the request message to the ECU based on the ID of the ECU; (see, e.g., para. 28-29, 142, 154-155) and
at a starting moment of a transmission time slot corresponding to the ECU, receive a response message from the target domain, wherein the response message is generated by the ECU based on the request message and sent to the target domain.” (see, e.g., para. 29, 36, 142, 154-155).
Acharya does not appear to disclose the underlined portions of the following limitations:
at a starting moment of a reception time slot corresponding to the ECU, send the request message to the target domain based on the ID of the target domain, wherein the target domain sends the request message to the ECU based on the ID of the ECU; and
at a starting moment of a transmission time slot corresponding to the ECU, receive a response message from the target domain, wherein the response message is generated by the ECU based on the request message and sent to the target domain.
However, Nieuwland discloses (at para. 31) making a TDMA schedule which allocates time slots on a CAN (controller area network) sufficient to flash program an ECU. Acharya and Nieuwland are directed toward programming ECUs and therefore are analogous art. On or before the effective filing date of the instant application, one of ordinary skill in the art would have deemed it obvious to try to combine the ECU flashing method of Acharya with the time slot scheduling of Nieuwland, thereby obtaining the invention of the instant claim. A clear and predictable benefit of so combining would have appeared as the ability to complete ECU flashing “without undue latency caused by limited bandwidth having been assigned.” (Nieuwland, para. 31). Accordingly, the instant claim is unpatentable over the combination of Acharya and Nieuwland.
Regarding claim 10, Acharya discloses “An electronic device, comprising: a processor; and a memory storing computer programs executable by the processor; (see, e.g., fig. 1 & associated text) wherein, the processor is configured to:
obtain a request message to be processed, wherein the request message comprises an identification (ID) of a target domain and an ID of an ECU to be flashed; (see, e.g., para. 27-28, 38, 142, 151)
send the request message to the target domain based on the ID of the target domain, wherein the target domain sends the request message to the ECU based on the ID of the ECU; (see, e.g., para. 28-29, 142, 154-155) and
receive a response message from the target domain, wherein the response message is generated by the ECU based on the request message and sent to the target domain.” (see, e.g., para. 29, 36, 142, 154-155).
Acharya does not appear to disclose the underlined portions of the following limitations:
at a starting moment of a reception time slot corresponding to the ECU, send the request message to the target domain based on the ID of the target domain, wherein the target domain sends the request message to the ECU based on the ID of the ECU; and
at a starting moment of a transmission time slot corresponding to the ECU, receive a response message from the target domain, wherein the response message is generated by the ECU based on the request message and sent to the target domain.
However, Nieuwland discloses (at para. 31) making a TDMA schedule which allocates time slots on a CAN (controller area network) sufficient to flash program an ECU. Acharya and Nieuwland are directed toward programming ECUs and therefore are analogous art. On or before the effective filing date of the instant application, one of ordinary skill in the art would have deemed it obvious to try to combine the ECU flashing method of Acharya with the time slot scheduling of Nieuwland, thereby obtaining the invention of the instant claim. A clear and predictable benefit of so combining would have appeared as the ability to complete ECU flashing “without undue latency caused by limited bandwidth having been assigned.” (Nieuwland, para. 31). Accordingly, the instant claim is unpatentable over the combination of Acharya and Nieuwland.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7 and 13-23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D. COYER whose telephone number is (571) 270-5306 and whose fax number is (571) 270-6306. The examiner normally can be reached via phone on Monday-Friday 12pm-10pm Eastern Time. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Wei Mui, can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Ryan D. Coyer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191
Prosecution Insights