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 .
Claims 1-19 are pending and examined in this office action.
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.
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: a priority reader; a receiver; an updating-feasibility determinator, a software updater in claim 1. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, mathematical relationship or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Statutory Category: Claim 1 recites a vehicle control apparatus comprising: a computing processor; a memory in which software items to be executed by the computing processor are written;
a priority reader that reads a priority of software to be executed by the computing processor; a receiver that receives updating software that updates software to be executed by the computing processor; an updating-feasibility determinator that reads, from the priority reader, a priority for software to be updated by the updating software received by the receiver and that determines that updating is feasible, in the case where the priority is larger than a predetermined priority threshold value; and a software updater that transfers the updating software to the memory, in the case where the updating-feasibility determinator determines that updating is feasible.
Step 2A – Prong 1: Claim 1 recites: a priority reader that reads a priority of software to be executed by the computing processor (a user can manually read a priority value); an updating-feasibility determinator that reads, from the priority reader, a priority for software to be updated by the updating software received by the receiver and that determines that updating is feasible, in the case where the priority is larger than a predetermined priority threshold value (a user can mentally determine if updating is feasible after reading). That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed mentally or using pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under step 2A prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 1 recites additional elements such as “a receiver that receives updating software that updates software to be executed by the computing processor”. Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, these elements amount to mere data gathering for a mental process, which do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element and an extra-solution activity). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2B prong 2.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 1 recites additional elements such as “a software updater that transfers the updating software to the memory, in the case where the updating-feasibility determinator determines that updating is feasible”. Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, these elements amount to mere executing a program in memory, which do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element and an extra-solution activity, as evidenced in Smith (paragraph [0015]; executing a program update in memory)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2B prong 2.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 1 recites additional elements such a computing processor, a memory, a priority reader, a receiver, an updating-feasibility determinator, a software updater. These additional elements in the claim amounts to no more than generic software/hardware component with instructions to apply the exception, which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under step 2A prong 2.
Dependent claims 2-19 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the dependent claims 2-19 recite more steps of a mental process (such as reading, determining, changing a value) which can be performed mentally or using pen and paper. The additional element of dependent claims 2-19 recite more extra-solution activities (executing program in memory, storing), which do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
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 1-19 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;
a memory in which software items to be executed by the computing processor are written (paragraphs [0029][0014]; a processor and memory to store applications); a priority reader that reads a priority of software to be executed by the computing processor; a receiver that receives updating software that updates software to be executed by the computing processor (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); an updating-feasibility determinator that reads, from the priority reader, a priority for software to be updated by the updating software received by the receiver and that determines that updating is feasible, in the case where the priority is larger than a predetermined priority threshold value; and
a software updater that transfers the updating software to the memory, in the case where the updating-feasibility determinator determines that updating is 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).
Smith does not explicitly the described computing apparatus is a vehicle control apparatus. 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]). 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 2, Smith further suggests wherein two or more software items are stored in the memory (paragraphs [0029][0014]; a processor and memory to store multiple applications); wherein the priority reader reads respective priorities determined for software items, wherein the receiver receives a first updating software that updates a first software to be executed by the computing processor (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); wherein in the case where a priority of the first software, read from the priority reader, is larger than the priority threshold value and a priority, read from the priority reader, of a second software is the same as or smaller than the priority threshold value, the updating-feasibility determinator determines that updating is feasible, and wherein the software updater transfers the first updating software to the memory, in the case where the updating-feasibility determinator determines that updating is feasible (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).
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).
Per claim 3, Smith further discloses wherein the updating-feasibility determinator stores the priority threshold value received by the receiver (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 priority reader stores a priority of the software received by the receiver (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 priority reader 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 priority reader 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 processors and respective memories that are provided with the computing processors and in which respective software items to be executed by the computing processors 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 updating-feasibility determinator stores the priority threshold value received by the receiver (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 priority reader stores a priority of the software received by the receiver (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 priority reader 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 priority reader 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 processors and respective memories that are provided with the computing processors and in which respective software items to be executed by the computing processors 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 priority reader stores a priority of the software received by the receiver (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 priority reader 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 priority reader 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 processors and respective memories that are provided with the computing processors and in which respective software items to be executed by the computing processors 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 priority reader 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 priority reader 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 processors and respective memories that are provided with the computing processors and in which respective software items to be executed by the computing processors 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).
Conclusion
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