DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on 04/14/2026.
Claims 1, 3-20 are pending and examined.
Claim 2 has been cancelled.
Claim 20 is newly added.
Since claim 2 has been cancelled, applicant is requested to change the claim dependency for claims 8-12. For the purpose of examination, claims 8-12 are interpreted as to depend on claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 04/14/2026 have been fully considered.
Per 101 abstract idea rejection, applicant’s arguments are persuasive. The previously issued 101 rejection is withdrawn.
Per 103 rejection, applicant argued: For example, the Office Action asserts that Frantz describes the features of Claim 2 in at least paragraphs [0015]-[0018] (Office Action, p. 7). However, Frantz describes a priority order for updating multiple software programs (Frantz, [0043]). This is not the same as updating software programs whose priority level is above a threshold because in Frantz all software programs are ultimately updated, only the order changes. However, by comparing software program priorities to a threshold only those software programs whose priority surpass the threshold are updated; the other software programs are not updated. As such, Frantz does not disclose or suggest the amended features of Claim 1. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended claim 1 recites that after comparing update priorities to a threshold value, the update of the first software is performed. Claim 1 does not explicitly state that only performing the update of the first software, or the update of the second software is prevented. Smith (paragraphs [0015][0018][0039]) discloses updating of multiple software after comparing their priority values to a threshold, and determining an update schedule. Therefore, the examiner believes the cited prior art disclose the limitations of claim 1 (see the updated 103 rejection below).
Claim 20 is rejected under a new ground of rejection.
The previously issued Claim Interpretation under USC 112(f) is withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment.
The examiner is available for a phone interview with applicant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US PGPUB 2007/0150815) hereinafter Smith, in view of Frantz et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0258467) hereinafter Frantz.
Per claim 1, Smith discloses an apparatus comprising: a computing processor circuit;
a memory that stores software items executed by the computing processor circuit, the computing processor circuit being configured to: (paragraphs [0029][0014]; a processor and memory to store applications); read a priority of software to be executed by the computing processor circuit; receive updating software that updates software to be executed by the computing processor circuit (paragraphs [0015][0039][0035][0015]; an update client determines the priority assigned to a program to be executed; the update client also downloads program updates for updating programs on a user device); read a priority for software to be updated by the updating software received and determine that updating is feasible based on the priority ; and transfer the updating software to the memory, in the case where updating is determined to be feasible (paragraphs [0015][0018][0039]; after determine a priority level of a program, the update client determines if the priority level of the program is above a priority level of the service window (a predetermined priority threshold value), also determines whether there is sufficient time for a program to execute (feasible or not); if both conditions are met, the program update is allowed to execute (i.e. the program update is transferred to memory for execution) during the service window; it would have been obvious that a program and its update (which is a newer version of the program) have the same priority level); wherein two or more software items are stored in the memory (paragraphs [0029][0014]; a processor and memory to store multiple applications); the computing processor circuit reads respective priorities determined for software items, the computing processor circuit receives a first updating software that updates a first software to be executed by the computing processor circuit (paragraphs [0015][0039][0035][0015]; an update client determines the priority assigned to multiple program to be executed; the update client also downloads program updates for updating programs on a user device); in the case where a priority of the first software is larger than a predetermined priority threshold value and a priority of a second software is the same or smaller than the priority threshold value, the computing processor circuit determines that updating is feasible, the computing processor circuit transfers the first updating software to the memory, in the case where updating is determined to be feasible, and the updating software is executed by the computing processor circuit to update the software to be updated when the updating software is transferred to the memory (paragraphs [0015][0018][0039]; after determining priority levels of two programs, the update client determines if the priority level of the program A is above a priority level of the service window (a predetermined priority threshold value), and if the priority level of the program B is below a priority level of the service window, also determine whether there is sufficient time for a program to execute (feasible or not); if both conditions are met for program A, the program update for program A is allowed to execute (i.e. the program update is transferred to memory for execution) during the service window, the program update executes to update program A to a newer version).
Smith does not explicitly the described computing apparatus is a vehicle control apparatus and a second software that refers to data to be operated by the first software. However, updating software applications used in a vehicle control apparatus is a well-known practice in the field of the art, as evidenced in Frantz (paragraphs [0003]-[0005]); Frantz further suggests a second software that refers to data to be operated by the first software (paragraphs [0015][0018]; providing software updates to multiple programs operating in a vehicle; for example, a GPS program (first program) determines a location data, which is used and referred by a map program (second program) for navigation). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Smith and Frantz to apply Smith’s method of updating software to update software in a vehicle control apparatus, this would increase versatility and usability of Smith’s invention.
Per claim 3, Smith further discloses wherein the computing processor circuit stores the priority threshold value received (paragraphs [0015][0018][0039]; an update client determines the priority level assigned to a program to be executed, and compares it to the priority level (priority threshold value) of the service window; the priority level of the service window is stored in memory).
Per claim 4, Smith further discloses wherein the computing processor circuit stores a priority of the software received (paragraphs [0015][0018][0039]; an update client determines the priority level assigned to a program to be executed, and compares it to the priority level of the service window; the priority level of the program is stored in memory).
Per claim 5, Smith in view of Frantz further discloses wherein the computing processor circuit changes a priority of the software in accordance with a driving situation of a vehicle (Smith, paragraphs [0015][0018][0039]; an update client determines the priority level assigned to a program to be executed, a user can assign a priority to a software program; Frantz paragraph [0016]; discloses a user can interact with the computing device of a vehicle; thus, it would have been obvious to allow a user of a vehicle to assign a priority level to a program depending on his driving situation, this would give the user more flexibility to control the software update process).
Per claim 6, Smith in view of Frantz further discloses wherein the computing processor circuit changes a priority of the software in accordance with a driver's instruction (Smith, paragraphs [0015][0018][0039]; an update client determines the priority level assigned to a program to be executed, a user can assign a priority to a software program; Frantz paragraph [0016]; discloses a user can interact with the computing device of a vehicle; thus, it would have been obvious to allow a user of a vehicle to assign a priority level to a program depending on his driving situation, this would give the user more flexibility to control the software update process).
Per claim 7, Smith further suggests two or more computing processor circuits and respective memories that are provided with the computing processor circuits and in which respective software items to be executed by the computing processor circuits are stored (paragraph [0030]; the computing apparatus can be implemented as multiprocessor systems or distributed computing environments, which will have multiple processors and respective memories to store respective programs).
Per claim 8, Smith in view of Frantz further discloses wherein the computing processor circuit stores the priority threshold value received (paragraphs [0015][0018][0039]; an update client determines the priority level assigned to a program to be executed, and compares it to the priority level (priority threshold value) of the service window; the priority level of the service window is stored in memory).
Per claim 9, Smith further discloses wherein the computing processor circuit stores a priority of the software received (paragraphs [0015][0018][0039]; an update client determines the priority level assigned to a program to be executed, and compares it to the priority level of the service window; the priority level of the program is stored in memory).
Per claim 10, Smith in view of Frantz further discloses wherein the computing processor circuit changes a priority of the software in accordance with a driving situation of a vehicle (Smith, paragraphs [0015][0018][0039]; an update client determines the priority level assigned to a program to be executed, a user can assign a priority to a software program; Frantz paragraph [0016]; discloses a user can interact with the computing device of a vehicle; thus, it would have been obvious to allow a user of a vehicle to assign a priority level to a program depending on his situation, this would give the user more flexibility to control the software update process).
Per claim 11, Smith in view of Frantz further discloses wherein the computing processor circuit changes a priority of the software in accordance with a driver's instruction (Smith, paragraphs [0015][0018][0039]; an update client determines the priority level assigned to a program to be executed, a user can assign a priority to a software program; Frantz paragraph [0016]; discloses a user can interact with the computing device of a vehicle; thus, it would have been obvious to allow a user of a vehicle to assign a priority level to a program depending on his situation, this would give the user more flexibility to control the software update process).
Per claim 12, Smith further suggests two or more computing processor circuits and respective memories that are provided with the computing processor circuits and in which respective software items to be executed by the computing processor circuits are stored (paragraph [0030]; the computing apparatus can be implemented as multiprocessor systems or distributed computing environments, which will have multiple processors and respective memories to store respective programs).
Per claim 13, Smith further discloses wherein the computing processor circuit stores a priority of the software received (paragraphs [0015][0018][0039]; an update client determines the priority level assigned to a program to be executed, and compares it to the priority level of the service window; the priority level of the program is stored in memory).
Per claim 14, Smith in view of Frantz further discloses wherein the computing processor circuit changes a priority of the software in accordance with a driving situation of a vehicle (Smith, paragraphs [0015][0018][0039]; an update client determines the priority level assigned to a program to be executed, a user can assign a priority to a software program; Frantz paragraph [0016]; discloses a user can interact with the computing device of a vehicle; thus, it would have been obvious to allow a user of a vehicle to assign a priority level to a program depending on his situation, this would give the user more flexibility to control the software update process).
Per claim 15, Smith in view of Frantz further discloses wherein the computing processor circuit changes a priority of the software in accordance with a driver's instruction (Smith, paragraphs [0015][0018][0039]; an update client determines the priority level assigned to a program to be executed, a user can assign a priority to a software program; Frantz paragraph [0016]; discloses a user can interact with the computing device of a vehicle; thus, it would have been obvious to allow a user of a vehicle to assign a priority level to a program depending on his situation, this would give the user more flexibility to control the software update process).
Per claim 16, Smith further suggests two or more computing processor circuits and respective memories that are provided with the computing processor circuits and in which respective software items to be executed by the computing processor circuits are stored (paragraph [0030]; the computing apparatus can be implemented as multiprocessor systems or distributed computing environments, which will have multiple processors and respective memories to store respective programs).
Per claim 17, Smith in view of Frantz further discloses wherein the computing processor circuit changes a priority of the software in accordance with a driving situation of a vehicle (Smith, paragraphs [0015][0018][0039]; an update client determines the priority level assigned to a program to be executed, a user can assign a priority to a software program; Frantz paragraph [0016]; discloses a user can interact with the computing device of a vehicle; thus, it would have been obvious to allow a user of a vehicle to assign a priority level to a program depending on his situation, this would give the user more flexibility to control the software update process).
Per claim 18, Smith in view of Frantz further discloses wherein the computing processor circuit changes a priority of the software in accordance with a driver's instruction (Smith, paragraphs [0015][0018][0039]; an update client determines the priority level assigned to a program to be executed, a user can assign a priority to a software program; Frantz paragraph [0016]; discloses a user can interact with the computing device of a vehicle; thus, it would have been obvious to allow a user of a vehicle to assign a priority level to a program depending on his situation, this would give the user more flexibility to control the software update process).
Per claim 19, Smith further suggests two or more computing processor circuits and respective memories that are provided with the computing processor circuits and in which respective software items to be executed by the computing processor circuits are stored (paragraph [0030]; the computing apparatus can be implemented as multiprocessor systems or distributed computing environments, which will have multiple processors and respective memories to store respective programs).
Per claim 20, Smith further suggests wherein in the case where the priority of the second software is higher than the threshold value, the computing processor circuit determines that the first software is withheld from being updated (paragraphs [0015][0018][0039]; after determining priority levels of two programs, the update client determines if the priority level of the program A is above a priority level of the service window (a predetermined priority threshold value), and if the priority level of the program B is above a priority level of the service window; if program A is below the threshold and the program B is above the threshold, the program update for program B is allowed to execute during the service window, the program update for program A is not allowed (withheld) to execute during the service window).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANG PAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7667. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM to 5 PM.
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, Chat Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. 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.
/HANG PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights