DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This final office action is in response to the amendments filled on 10/17/2025. Claims 1, 13 and 14 are amended. Claims 1-14 are pending and examined below.
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
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses 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 limitation(s) is/are:
“Determination unit”, “request unit” and “switching unit” in claim 1 and 13
“Uninstallation unit” in claim 13
“Determination unit”, “request unit” and “switching unit” are included into ECU, 200. Fig 3 of PGPub of submitted specification shows ECU. Fig 5 of PGPub of submitted specification shows uninstallation unit.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, which recites “detects a state of hardware” line 4 and “switch software…based on a status of the hardware” line 12 is not clear. It is not clear whether state and status is referring same thing or different thing.
Dependent claim(s) 2-12 is/are also rejected because they do not resolve their parent (claim 1’s) deficiencies.
Regarding claim 2, which recites “a sensor detect status” is not clear since claim 1 also recites a sensor. It is not clear whether both sensor and status of claim 1 and 2 is same or different.
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly claim 13 and 14), which recites “capable” is not clear since the language “capable does not recite claim positively. The vehicle device may or may not communicate.
Regarding claim 13, which recites “based on status of the status information” line 11 is not clear. It is not clear what is referred by status of the status information.
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(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0201976 (“Maeda”), and further in view of US 2022/0113957 (“Han”).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood in view of indefiniteness rejection explained above, Maeda discloses an in-vehicle system comprising (see at least fig 1):
a first in-vehicle device (see at least fig 1, where 104 is outside communication unit. See also [0032-33]);
a second in-vehicle device capable of communicating with the first in-vehicle device (see at least fig 1, where 109 is communicating with 106); and
an external communication device capable of communicating with an external device disposed outside a vehicle (see at least fig 1, where server is external device),
the first in-vehicle device including:
a memory for storing first software for providing a user with a first information (see at least fig 3, program storing unit, 201);
a determination unit configured to determine whether or not to switch software to be executed from the first software to a second software for providing the user with a second information that includes the first information and is more detailed than the first information, based on a status information regarding a status (see at least fig 4, where software is upgraded based on vehicle status. Software that is upgraded is interpreted as second software. Original/existing software is interpreted as first software. See also [0046], where “ In the step S301, it is determined whether or not updating of a program, required by the server 103, is possible. For example, it is determined that the updating is possible, when the program rewriting causes no problem in the vehicle operation, for example, when the vehicle is in a parking state.”; see also [0052], where “the case where a program is updated includes the case where a program is changed and the version thereof is upgraded and the case where a function is added to a program so that a new program is set. With regard to the case where a function is added”; function is added which is interpreted as more detailed software and includes the first information);
a request unit configured to make a request for a download of the second software to the external device via the external communication device when the determination unit determines that the software to be executed is to be switched from the first software to the second software based on the status (see at least fig 7, where new program is transmitted. See also fig 9, where server is external device);
a switching unit configured to install, in the memory, the second software downloaded from the external device, and switch the software to be executed from the first software to the second software (see at least fig 9, where completion notice is interpreted as download is complete).
Maeda does not disclose the following limitations:
vehicle device including a sensor that detects a state of hardware mounted in the vehicle; and
switch software…based on a status information regarding a status of the hardware detected by the sensor.
However, Han discloses a system wherein vehicle device including a sensor that detects state of hardware installed in the vehicle (see at least [0085], where “the vehicle-mounted terminal device may obtain the vehicle status by using a sensor that is controlled by the vehicle-mounted terminal device”; see also [0087], where parking status is determined. So, hardware status e.g., engine is running or not is determined); and
switch software…based on a status information regarding a status of the hardware detected by the sensor (see at least fig 5, fig 6A).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Maeda to incorporate the teachings of Han by including the above feature for maintaining safety during software upgrade.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood in view of indefiniteness rejection explained above, Han further discloses a system wherein the second in-vehicle device includes a sensor configured to detect status of hardware installed in the vehicle (see at least [0085], where “the vehicle-mounted terminal device may obtain the vehicle status by using a sensor that is controlled by the vehicle-mounted terminal device”), and
the status information includes information regarding the status of the hardware detected by the sensor (see at least [0087], where parking status is determined. So, hardware status e.g., engine is running or not is determined).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0201976 (“Maeda”), and in view of US 2022/0113957 (“Han”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2024/0347032 (“Ochi”).
Regarding claim 3, Maeda in view of Han does not disclose claim 3. However, Ochi discloses a system wherein the status information includes information regarding predicted future usage status of hardware installed in the vehicle (see at least [0026], where “The state of the engine 11 includes, for example, a rotational speed of the engine 11, a state in which the engine 11 will start in the near future, and a state in which the engine 11 will stop in the near future.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Maeda in view of Han to incorporate the teachings of Ochi by including the above feature for updating software without any error by determining status of hardware in future.
Claim(s) 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0201976 (“Maeda”), and in view of US 2022/0113957 (“Han”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2024/0007539 (“Ma”).
Regarding claim 4, Maeda in view of Han does not disclose claim 4. However, Ma discloses a system wherein the status information includes information regarding environmental status around the vehicle (see at least [0064], where “An environment in which a to-be-upgraded vehicle is located is fully considered, so that the vehicle is upgraded in a suitable environment, thereby minimizing a safety risk brought by the upgrade.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Maeda in view of Han to incorporate the teachings of Ma by including the above feature for updating software without any error by determining status of surrounding environment.
Regarding claim 6, Maeda in view of Han does not disclose claim 6. However, Ma further discloses a system wherein the determination unit determines that the software to be executed is switched from the first software to the second software if the user gives the determination unit an instruction to switch the software to be executed from the first software to the second software (see at least fig 10 and [0015]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Maeda in view of Han to incorporate the teachings of Ma by including the above feature for increasing applicability and improve user experience.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0201976 (“Maeda”), and in view of US 2022/0113957 (“Han”), as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of US 2024/0007539 (“Ma”), as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of US 2019/0319820 (“Ogawa”).
Regarding claim 5, Maeda in view of Han and Ma does not disclose claim 5. However, Ogawa discloses a system wherein the determination unit determines whether or not to switch the software to be executed from the first software to the second software, based on a priority assigned to the environmental status around the vehicle (see at least [0040], [0172], fig 9 and fig 10, where based on surrounding state of the vehicle (e.g., stopped or travelling or parking lot or ordinary road) priority of getting functionalities are determined. For example, when vehicle is at parking lot the priority of theft prevention information is high. So th software switches to get this functionality.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Maeda in view of Han and Ma to incorporate the teachings of Ogawa by including the above feature for reducing processing power by switching the software execution based on surrounding state.
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0201976 (“Maeda”), and in view of US 2022/0113957 (“Han”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2019/0319820 (“Ogawa”).
Regarding claim 7, Maeda in view of Han does not disclose claim 7. However, Ogawa further discloses a system wherein the determination unit determines whether or not to switch the software to be executed from the first software to the second software, based on a priority assigned to the second software (see at least [0040], [0172], fig 9 and fig 10, where priority is assigned to data type. Data type is collected by executing various software/code). Same motivation of claim 5 applies.
Regarding claim 8, Ogawa further discloses a system wherein a plurality of the priorities are each associated with a type of the second software and a type of environmental status around the vehicle (see at least [0040], [0172], fig 9 and fig 10, where various types of data is collected by executing various software/code.). Same motivation of claim 5 applies.
Regarding claim 9, Ogawa further discloses a system wherein the status information includes information regarding communication status of the external communication device (see at least fig 9, where out of vehicle communication device). Same motivation of claim 5 applies.
Regarding claim 10, Ogawa further discloses a system wherein the first information is text information (see at least fig 9, sensor information), and
the second information includes image information (see at least fig 9, map information. See also [0075]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0201976 (“Maeda”), and in view of US 2022/0113957 (“Han”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2018/0281816 (“Otsuka”).
Regarding claim 11, Maeda in view of Han does not disclose claim 11. However, Otsuka discloses a system wherein the first information is text information (see at least[0030], where “The recognition device 6 also includes a recognition device formed of a dynamic system sensor that recognizes a state of the vehicle system 1 (e.g., a motion state, positional information, an acceleration rate, or a wheel speed). An output device 7 is an output device, such as a liquid crystal display”; see also [0064]), and
the second information includes sound information (see at least [0030], where “An output device 7 is an output device, such as a liquid crystal display, an alert lamp, or a speaker, that is connected to the network system in a wired or wireless manner to receive data sent from the network and display or output necessary information such as message information (e.g., video or sound).”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Maeda in view of Han to incorporate the teachings of Otsuka by including the above feature for increasing safety by generating status information via alternative communication system.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0201976 (“Maeda”), and in view of US 2022/0113957 (“Han”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2014/0032151 (“Araki”).
Regarding claim 12, Maeda in view of Han does not disclose claim 12. However, Araki discloses a system wherein the first information is information indicating an abnormality of hardware installed in the vehicle (see at least fig 4), and
the second information includes the information indicating the abnormality of the hardware installed in the vehicle and information indicating a countermeasure against the abnormality (see at least fig 4 and fig 12).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Maeda in view of Han to incorporate the teachings of Araki by including the above feature for increasing passenger safety and providing possible remedy for fault detection.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0201976 (“Maeda”), and further in view of US 2022/0011769 (“Watanabe”).
Regarding claim 13 (and similarly claim 1 and 14), as best understood in view of indefiniteness rejection explained above, Maeda further discloses an in-vehicle device to be installed in a vehicle, the vehicle including an external communication device capable of communicating with an external device disposed outside the vehicle (see citation on claim 1), the device comprising:
a memory for storing first software for providing a user with a first information (see citation on claim 1);
a determination unit configured to determine whether or not to switch software to be executed from the first software to second software for providing the user with a second information that includes the first information and is more detailed than the first information, based on status information regarding status of the vehicle (see citation on claim 1);
a request unit configured to make a request for download of the second software to the external device disposed outside the vehicle when the determination unit determines that the software to be executed is switched from the first software to the second software based on the status of the status information (see citation on claim 1); and
a switching unit configured to install, in the memory, the second software downloaded from the external device, and switch the software to be executed from the first software to the second software (see citation on claim 1).
Maeda does not disclose the following limitation:
an uninstallation unit configured to uninstall unnecessary portions of the second software when a remaining capacity of the memory is less than a reference value.
However, Watanabe discloses a system wherein an uninstallation unit configured to uninstall unnecessary portions of the second software when a remaining capacity of the memory is less than a reference value (see at least [0069], where “The deletion processing section 30D accesses the corresponding in-vehicle unit 16 over the communication network 18 in response to a request from the in-vehicle unit 16, and performs processing to delete software, for example an application or driver, by wireless remote operation.”; see also [0100], where “At step 402, either the control section 20 or the central processing section 30 determines whether or not the remaining storage capacity is a predetermined threshold value or greater.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Maeda to incorporate the teachings of Watanabe by including the above feature for increasing the speed of switching by removing the unnecessary programs.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1-14 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination used in the current rejection that is due to the newly added claim amendments.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOHANA TANJU KHAYER whose telephone number is (408)918-7597. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7 am-5.30 pm, PT.
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, Abby Lin can be reached on 5712703976. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/SOHANA TANJU KHAYER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657