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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the preliminary amendment filed on 04/06/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Examiner’s Note
Please note that Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirely as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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:
an assignment and monitoring unit configured to determine the vehicle computing unit from the multiplicity of computing units of the vehicle… in claim 13,
wherein the assignment and monitoring unit is further configured to at least one of monitoring the vehicle computing units… in claim 14 and
wherein the assignment and monitoring unit is further configured to at least one of monitoring the vehicle computing units, or implementing a fail-operational concept by transferring sub-functions in claim 19.
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.
Claims 6, 10, 13-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the provision of the validated program package" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the testing of the program package," "the provision of the validated program package" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the validated program package" in line 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 14-20 are directly or indirectly depends from claim 13 and thus suffers the similar deficiency as claim 13.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 1, this claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directing to a method claim under Step 1.
1. (Currently amended) A method for starting up a new program package on at least one vehicle computing unit of a vehicle, the method comprising:
loading the program package from a central archive;
storing the program package in a vehicle-specific archive;
validating the program package in the vehicle-specific archive;
determining a vehicle computing unit from a multiplicity of computing units of the vehicle;
providing the validated program package on the vehicle computing unit; and
starting the validated program package on the vehicle computing unit, wherein the program package performs a vehicle function.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “validating the program package in the vehicle-specific archive; determining a vehicle computing unit from a multiplicity of computing units of the vehicle” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. For example, a person is capable of validating the program package with some input/output with the aid of pen and paper to see if the program is valid for the entered input. In the same manner, a person is capable of determining/choose a vehicle computing unit based on output of validation program package with the aid of pen and paper to pick the vehicle computing unit from multiple computing units. Therefore, these limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, the additional elements “loading the program package from a central archive; storing the program package in a vehicle-specific archive;” and “providing the validated program package on the vehicle computing unit” is recited recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). For the additional elements “starting the validated program package on the vehicle computing unit, wherein the program package performs a vehicle function” merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea. Therefore, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Under Step 2B, the claims 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 additional elements of “loading the program package from a central archive; storing the program package in a vehicle-specific archive;” and “providing the validated program package on the vehicle computing unit” the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018)), thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d). For the additional elements “starting the validated program package on the vehicle computing unit, wherein the program package performs a vehicle function” amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or abstract idea. Therefore, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Lastly, for the additional elements, “method for starting up a new program package on at least one vehicle computing unit of a vehicle” merely link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, thus does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
2. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the validation of the program package comprises a simulation and/or emulation of functions that are not executable on an archive processor of the vehicle-specific archive.
The limitations for this claim further recite an additional mental process under prong 1.
3. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the loading of the program package is triggered by at least one of a request from a user, a request from an assignment and monitoring unit, or version control.
The limitations for this claim further recite an additional insignificant extra solution activity under prong 2 step 2A.
4. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the determination of the vehicle computing unit is controlled by a list of criteria comprising at least one of: determining a type of the vehicle computing unit; determining a function of the vehicle computing unit; determining computing power of the vehicle computing unit; determining at least one of memory size and/or memory performance of the vehicle computing unit; or determining energy consumption of the vehicle computing unit.
The limitations for this claim further recite an additional mental process under prong 1.
5. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the determination of the vehicle computing unit comprises a selection of an alternative function of the program package.
The limitations for this claim further recite an additional mental process under prong 1.
6. The method as claimed in claim, 1 wherein at least one of the determination of the vehicle computing unit or the provision of the validated program package comprise(s) storing information about the program package in a vehicle register.
The limitations for this claim further recite an additional mental process under prong 1.
7. The method as claimed in claims 1, further comprising: at least one of stopping or uninstalling the vehicle function on another vehicle computing unit.
The limitations for this claim further recite an additional insignificant extra solution activity under prong 2 step 2A.
8. The method as claimed in claim 7, wherein the stopping of the vehicle function of another vehicle computing unit comprises evaluating a criticality of the vehicle function.
The limitations for this claim further recite an additional insignificant extra solution activity under prong 2 step 2A.
9. The method as claimed in claims 1, wherein the starting of the validated program package on the vehicle computing unit is controlled by a start trigger.
The limitations for this claim further recite an additional insignificant extra solution activity under prong 2 step 2B.
10. The method as claimed in claims 1, wherein at least one of the loading of the program package, the storing of the program package, the testing of the program package, the provision of the validated program package or the starting of the validated program package involve(s) an authentication.
The limitations for this claim further recite an additional insignificant extra solution activity under prong 2 step 2A.
11. A program element which, when executed on one or more computing units of a vehicle system of a vehicle and/or on another computing unit, instructs the at least one computing unit to carry out the method as claimed in claim 1.
The limitation for this claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer and/or mere computer components to carry out the exception under prong 2 step 2A.
12. A computer-readable medium on which a program element as claimed in claim 11 is stored.
The limitation for this claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer and/or mere computer components to carry out the exception under prong 2 step 2A. Further, claim recites computer-readable medium. However, applicants do not describe or provide any substantial evidence in the specification [0024]. Thus, the computer-readable medium under BRI can broadly interpreted to cover the signal. Thus, the claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 13, this claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directing to a system claim under Step 1.
13. (Currently amended) A vehicle system configured to start up a new program package on at least one vehicle computing unit of a vehicle, the vehicle system comprising:
a vehicle-specific archive configured to store a program package from a multiplicity of program packages and to test the program package;
a multiplicity of vehicle computing units configured to execute vehicle-specific commands; and
an assignment and monitoring unit configured to determine the vehicle computing unit from the multiplicity of computing units of the vehicle,
provide the validated program package on the vehicle computing unit, and start the validated program package on the vehicle computing unit.
Regarding claim 13, the limitations “an assignment and monitoring unit configured to determine the vehicle computing unit from the multiplicity of computing units of the vehicle” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. For example, a person is capable of determining/choose a vehicle computing unit based on output of validation program package with the aid of pen and paper to pick the vehicle computing unit from multiple computing units. Therefore, these limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, the additional elements “a vehicle-specific archive configured to store a program package from a multiplicity of program packages and to test the program package; a multiplicity of vehicle computing units configured to execute vehicle-specific commands;” and “provide the validated program package on the vehicle computing unit” is recited recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). For the additional elements “start the validated program package on the vehicle computing unit” merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea. Therefore, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Under Step 2B, the claims 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 additional elements of “a vehicle-specific archive configured to store a program package from a multiplicity of program packages and to test the program package; a multiplicity of vehicle computing units configured to execute vehicle-specific commands;” and “provide the validated program package on the vehicle computing unit” the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018)), thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d). For the additional elements “start the validated program package on the vehicle computing unit” amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or abstract idea. Therefore, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Lastly, for the additional elements, “vehicle system configured to start up a new program package on at least one vehicle computing unit of a vehicle” merely link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, thus does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
14. The vehicle system as claimed in claim 13, wherein the assignment and monitoring unit is further configured to at least one of monitoring the vehicle computing units, or implementing a fail-operational concept by transferring sub-functions, and/or wherein the assignment and monitoring unit further comprises a vehicle register comprising information relating to which vehicle function is assigned to which vehicle computing unit from the multiplicity of computing units.
The limitations for this claim further recite an additional insignificant extra solution activity under prong 2 step 2A.
15. The vehicle system as claimed in claim 13, wherein the vehicle-specific archive comprises a test unit which is configured to at least one of test, simulate or emulate vehicle functions.
The limitations for this claim further recite an additional insignificant extra solution activity under prong 2 step 2A.
16. A system for starting up a new program package on at least one target processor of a vehicle, the system comprising: a central archive configured to store a multiplicity of program packages for a vehicle; and a vehicle system as claimed in claim 13.
The limitations “starting up a new program package on at least one target processor of a vehicle” for this claim further recite an additional mental process under prong 2 step 2B. The limitations “a central archive configured to store a multiplicity of program packages for a vehicle” for this claim further recite an additional insignificant extra solution activity under prong 2 step 2A. The limitations “A system” and “a vehicle system” for this claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer and/or mere computer components to carry out the exception under prong 2 step 2A.
17. A vehicle with a vehicle system as claimed in claim 13.
The limitations for this claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer and/or mere computer components to carry out the exception under prong 2 step 2A.
18. The use of a vehicle system as claimed in claim 13, for starting up a new program package on at least one vehicle computing unit of a vehicle, for at least one of updating, upgrading, load balancing correcting errors or implementing a fail-operational concept of at least one vehicle function.
The limitations for this claim further recite an additional mental process under prong 2 step 2B.
19. The vehicle system of claim 13, wherein the assignment and monitoring unit is further configured to at least one of monitoring the vehicle computing units, or implementing a fail-operational concept by transferring sub-functions.
The limitations for this claim further recite an additional insignificant extra solution activity under prong 2 step 2A.
20. The vehicle system of claim 13, wherein the assignment and monitoring unit further comprises a vehicle register comprising information relating to which vehicle function is assigned to which vehicle computing unit from the multiplicity of computing units.
The limitations for this claim further recite an additional mental process under prong 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPN 20180152341 to Maeda et al.
Per claim 1:
Maeda discloses:
1. A method for starting up a new program package on at least one vehicle computing unit of a vehicle, the method comprising:
loading the program package from a central archive (Paragraph [0062] “server 500 (i.e., central archive) that acts as an external device located externally to the vehicle is a computer that includes a function of delivering via the network 400 FW update information, which is data for updating the firmware of the ECUs 100a to 100d”);
storing the program package in a vehicle-specific archive (Paragraph [0059] “memory (i.e., to store) is memory such as ROM and RAM, and is able to store a control program (a computer program as software) executed by the processor. The firmware is all or part of the control program, and is stored in non-volatile memory (designated the boot ROM) such as electrically erasable read-only memory (EEPROM)” also, FW update processing unit 370 functions as an update processing unit that receives FW update information including FW data such as updated firmware, see paragraph [0082]);
validating the program package in the vehicle-specific archive (Paragraph [0084] “FW update processing unit 370 requests the signature verifying unit 373 for a signature verification of FW update information including FW data such as updated firmware” also see Fig. 22 and related discussion);
determining a vehicle computing unit from a multiplicity of computing units of the vehicle (Paragraph [0038] “a gateway device connected to a bus used in communication by a plurality of electronic control units provided on-board a vehicle… acquiring system configuration information indicating a type of each of the plurality of electronic control units connected to the bus, and performing a controlling operation to update firmware of the relevant electronic control unit on a basis of the updated firmware”);
providing the validated program package on the vehicle computing unit (Paragraph [0040] “the firmware update information includes verified configuration information indicating the type of each of the plurality of electronic control units used in the operation verification of the updated firmware”); and
starting the validated program package on the vehicle computing unit, (note here that after the updates are verified/validated successfully then start (resets) the ecu to execute new firmware, see Paragraph [0103] “FW update processing unit 160 requests the signature verifying unit 163… if the signature verification is successful, updates (rewrites) the firmware inside the boot ROM of the ECU 100a… firmware to be executed after a reset (i.e., start) by the processor of the ECU 100a”) wherein the program package performs a vehicle function (Paragraph [0102] “ECU 100a connected to the engine 101 is equipped with a function of emitting an alarm sound”).
Per claim 2:
Maeda discloses:
2. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the validation of the program package comprises a simulation and/or emulation of functions that are not executable on an archive processor of the vehicle-specific archive (Paragraph [0046] “firmware update information includes verified configuration… confirming that the same types as all of the types indicated by the system configuration information are not indicated by the verified configuration information, executing a simulation of operation of the updated firmware using respective electronic control units of the same types as all of the types indicated by the system configuration information”).
Per claim 3:
Maeda discloses:
3. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the loading of the program package is triggered by at least one of a request from a user, a request from an assignment and monitoring unit, or version control (Since this appears to be MARKUSH type language requiring at a minimum just one from the list, Maeda teaches Paragraph [0044] “identification information regarding a version of firmware implemented in each electronic control unit for specifying the type” also see Paragraphs [0096, 0103]).
Per claim 4:
Maeda discloses:
4. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the determination of the vehicle computing unit is controlled by a list of criteria comprising at least one of: determining a type of the vehicle computing unit; determining a function of the vehicle computing unit; determining computing power of the vehicle computing unit; determining at least one of memory size and/or memory performance of the vehicle computing unit; or determining energy consumption of the vehicle computing unit (Since this appears to be MARKUSH type language requiring at a minimum just one from the list, Maeda teaches Paragraph [0096] “system configuration information in this example is a list of ECU information for each ECU… ECU-ID is an identifier (identification information) such as a serial number unique to each ECU… multiple ECUs of different types are multiple ECUs having mutually different functions related to such operation”).
Per claim 5:
Maeda discloses:
5. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the determination of the vehicle computing unit comprises a selection of an alternative function of the program package (note here the pre-update (i.e., alternative) is selected upon unsuccessful boot, see Paragraph [0153] “if the reboot in step S1307 is unsuccessful (step S1308), the ECU 100a boots from the pre-update firmware saved in the FW cache storing unit 161”).
Per claim 6:
Maeda discloses:
6. The method as claimed in claim, 1 wherein at least one of the determination of the vehicle computing unit or the provision of the validated program package comprise(s) storing information about the program package in a vehicle register (Paragraph [0200] “FW update information including information such as the registered updated firmware and verified ECU configuration information indicating each ECU used in the operation verification of the firmware, and delivers the FW update information”).
Per claim 7:
Maeda discloses:
7. The method as claimed in claims 1, further comprising:
at least one of stopping or uninstalling the vehicle function on another vehicle computing unit (note here that if an error occurs, the previous version is restored, i.e., the current update is stopped and uninstalled, see Paragraph [0103] “enable recovery to the pre-update state if the update fails”).
Per claim 10:
Maeda discloses:
10. The method as claimed in claims 1, wherein at least one of the loading of the program package (Paragraph [0062] “server 500 that acts as an external device… delivering via the network 400 FW update information, which is data for updating the firmware of the ECUs 100 a to 100 d”), the storing of the program package (Paragraph [0059] “firmware is all or part of the control program, and is stored in non-volatile memory”), the testing of the program package (Paragraph [0195] “FW operation verifying unit 530… determined to have a successful operation verification exists among the tested verification sequence patterns”), the provision of the validated program package (Paragraph [0195] “FW operation verifying unit 530 a records the verification sequence pattern having the successful operation verification as update sequence information”) or the starting of the validated program package involve(s) an authentication (Paragraph [0103] “FW update processing unit 160 requests the signature verifying unit 163 for a signature verification (i.e., authentication) of FW data received… if the signature verification is successful, updates (rewrites) the firmware… firmware to be executed after a reset (i.e., start) by the processor of the ECU 100a”).
Per claim 11:
Maeda discloses:
11. A program element which, when executed on one or more computing units of a vehicle system of a vehicle and/or on another computing unit, instructs the at least one computing unit to carry out the method as claimed in claim 1 (Paragraph [0059] “memory is memory such as ROM and RAM, and is able to store a control program (a computer program as software) executed by the processor”).
Per claim 12:
Maeda discloses:
12. A computer-readable medium on which a program element as claimed in claim 11 is stored (Paragraph [0245] “present disclosure may be realized by recording the computer program or the digital signal onto a computer-readable recording medium, such as a flexible disk, hard disk, CD-ROM, MO, DVD, DVD-ROM, DVD-RAM, Blu-ray (registered trademark) Disc (BD), or semiconductor memory”).
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN US20180152341A1 to Maeda et al. in view of USPN US20200225930A1 to Teraoka et al.
Per claim 8:
The rejection of claim 7 is incorporated and further, Maeda does not explicitly disclose wherein the stopping of the vehicle function of another vehicle computing unit comprises evaluating a criticality of the vehicle function.
However, Teraoka discloses in an analogous computer system wherein the stopping of the vehicle function of another vehicle computing unit comprises evaluating a criticality of the vehicle function (note here that the evolution of critical error is done by dealer, see Paragraph [0251] “software has been aborted by a critical error and that recovering the update needs making contact with the dealer”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the method of wherein the stopping of the vehicle function of another vehicle computing unit comprises evaluating a criticality of the vehicle function as taught by Teraoka into the method of updates firmware in an electronic control unit as taught by Maeda. The modification would be obvious because of one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to add/incorporate the features of wherein the stopping of the vehicle function of another vehicle computing unit comprises evaluating a criticality of the vehicle function to provide an efficient technique to prevent the system from being affected when the abnormality in update occurs so as the system is running as expected as suggested by Teraoka (paragraph [0003]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 20180152341 to Maeda et al. in view of USPN 20180048473 to Miller et al.
Per claim 9:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further, Maeda does not explicitly disclose wherein the starting of the validated program package on the vehicle computing unit is controlled by a start trigger
However, Miller discloses in an analogous computer system wherein the starting of the validated program package on the vehicle computing unit is controlled by a start trigger (Paragraph [0032] “requesting the authentication key 302 of the ECU 114 from the ECU 114 via the in-vehicle network 102… authentication key request may be triggered responsive to input provided to the user interface 112 from a user/technician requesting initiation of the update process”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the method of wherein the starting of the validated program package on the vehicle computing unit is controlled by a start trigger as taught by Miller into the method of updates firmware in an electronic control unit as taught by Maeda. The modification would be obvious because of one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to add/incorporate the features of wherein the starting of the validated program package on the vehicle computing unit is controlled by a start trigger to provide an efficient technique controlling the validated program by a start trigger for securing the system from being tampered and have an authenticator installed software as suggested by Miller (paragraph [0002]).
Claim(s) 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 20180152341 to Maeda et al. in view of USPN 20240419429 to Mesde et al.
Per claim 13:
Maeda discloses:
13. A vehicle system configured to start up a new program package on at least one vehicle computing unit of a vehicle, the vehicle system comprising:
a vehicle-specific archive configured to store a program package from a multiplicity of program packages (Paragraph [0059] “memory (i.e., to store) is memory such as ROM and RAM, and is able to store a control program (a computer program as software) executed by the processor. The firmware is all or part of the control program, and is stored in non-volatile memory (designated the boot ROM) such as electrically erasable read-only memory (EEPROM)” also, FW update processing unit 370 functions as an update processing unit that receives FW update information including FW data such as updated firmware, see paragraph [0082]) and;
a multiplicity of vehicle computing units (Paragraph [0059] “on-board network system 10 is configured to include ECUs 100 a to 100 d”) configured to execute vehicle-specific commands (Paragraph [0059] “ECU is a device that includes components such as a processor (microprocessor)… plural combination of instruction codes indicating commands to the processor in order to achieve a designated function”); and
an assignment and monitoring unit configured to determine the vehicle computing unit from the multiplicity of computing units of the vehicle (Paragraph [0223] “multiple virtual machines 805 (equal to the number of ECUs constituting the operating environment) may be generated and made to run on the virtual machine monitor 801”),
provide the validated program package on the vehicle computing unit (Paragraph [0040] “the firmware update information includes verified configuration information indicating the type of each of the plurality of electronic control units used in the operation verification of the updated firmware”), and start the validated program package on the vehicle computing unit (note here that after the updates are verified/validated successfully then start (resets) the ecu to execute new firmware, see Paragraph [0103] “FW update processing unit 160 requests the signature verifying unit 163… if the signature verification is successful, updates (rewrites) the firmware inside the boot ROM of the ECU 100a… firmware to be executed after a reset (i.e., start) by the processor of the ECU 100a”).
Maeda does not explicitly disclose to test the program package.
However, Mesde discloses in an analogous computer system to test the program package (Paragraph [0029] “testing to certify the vehicle software and it may be necessary to install the software modules in the same sequence as was used in testing in order to satisfy certification requirements”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the method of to test the program package as taught by Mesde into the method of updates firmware in an electronic control unit as taught by Maeda. The modification would be obvious because of one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to add/incorporate the features of to test the program package to provide an efficient that software module be compatible with an execution environment of a particular ECU that the vehicle software module will be deployed in as suggested by Mesde (paragraph [0001]).
Per claim 14:
Maeda discloses:
14. The vehicle system as claimed in claim 13,
wherein the assignment and monitoring unit is further configured to at least one of monitoring the vehicle computing units, or implementing a fail-operational concept by transferring sub-functions (Paragraph [0223] “virtual machine monitor 801 may be configured to simulate the bus-mediated communication between ECUs by communicating between the multiple virtual hardware configurations running on the virtual machine monitor 801”), and/or
wherein the assignment and monitoring unit further comprises a vehicle register comprising information relating to which vehicle function is assigned to which vehicle computing unit from the multiplicity of computing units (Paragraph [0225] “which firmware is registered in the server 500 a, an operation verification is conducted in advance, in an environment corresponding to the ECU configuration of the vehicle model… which includes verified ECU configuration information including information related to the ECUs used in the operation verification for the firmware registered via operation verification, as well as the firmware itself, to the gateway 300 a of each vehicle”).
Claims 15 is/are the vehicle system claim corresponding to method claim 2 and rejected under the same rational set forth in connection with the rejection of claim 2 as noted above.
Per claim 16:
Maeda discloses:
16. A system for starting up a new program package on at least one target processor of a vehicle, the system comprising:
a central archive configured to store a multiplicity of program packages for a vehicle; and
a vehicle system as claimed in claim 13 (Paragraph [0110] “server 500 is a computer located externally to the vehicle in which the on-board network system 10 is installed on-board, and includes components such as a storage medium like memory or a hard disk, a processor, and a communication circuit… Presupposing that multiple ECUs related to an on-board network are installed on-board each of multiple vehicles, the server 500 includes a function of managing the firmware provided by the manufacturing companies or the like of various ECUs, conducting a firmware operation verification, and delivering FW update information including updated firmware to each vehicle”).
Per claim 17:
Maeda discloses:
17. A vehicle with a vehicle system as claimed in claim 13 (Fig. 1 and related discussion).
Per claim 18:
Maeda discloses:
18. The use of a vehicle system as claimed in claim 13, for starting up a new program package on at least one vehicle computing unit of a vehicle, for at least one of updating, upgrading, load balancing correcting errors or implementing a fail-operational concept of at least one vehicle function (Since this appears to be MARKUSH type language requiring at a minimum just one from the list, Maeda teaches Paragraph [0103] “firmware to be executed after a reset by the processor of the ECU 100a… updating the firmware inside the boot ROM, the FW update processing unit 160 stores the existing firmware in the FW cache storing unit 161, for example, to enable recovery to the pre-update state if the update fails”).
Per claim 19:
Maeda discloses:
19. The vehicle system of claim 13, wherein the assignment and monitoring unit is further configured to at least one of monitoring the vehicle computing units, or implementing a fail-operational concept by transferring sub-functions (Since this appears to be MARKUSH type language requiring at a minimum just one from the list, Maeda teaches Paragraph [0223] “virtual machine monitor 801 may be configured to simulate the bus-mediated communication between ECUs by communicating between the multiple virtual hardware configurations running on the virtual machine monitor 801”).
Per claim 20:
Maeda discloses:
20. The vehicle system of claim 13, wherein the assignment and monitoring unit further comprises a vehicle register comprising information relating to which vehicle function is assigned to which vehicle computing unit from the multiplicity of computing units (Paragraph [0225] “which firmware is registered in the server 500 a, an operation verification is conducted in advance, in an environment corresponding to the ECU configuration of the vehicle model… which includes verified ECU configuration information including information related to the ECUs used in the operation verification for the firmware registered via operation verification, as well as the firmware itself, to the gateway 300 a of each vehicle”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Related cited arts:
Aust, Stefan. "Vehicle update management in software defined vehicles." 2022 IEEE 47th Conference on Local Computer Networks (LCN). IEEE, 2022. pp. 261-263.
Herberth, Roland, et al. "Automated scheduling for optimal parallelization to reduce the duration of vehicle software updates." IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology 68.3 (2019): pp. 2921-2933.
Hicks, Michael, Jonathan T. Moore, and Scott Nettles. "Dynamic software updating." ACM SIGPLAN Notices 36.5 (2001): pp. 13-23.
US 20200023862 A1 - A system and method for disabling a function of a feature of a vehicle based on a validation request to a centralized validation authority, prior to a use of the feature includes determining that a condition is met as part of a startup sequence of the vehicle, transmitting the validation request to the centralized validation authority, in response to determining the condition is met, wherein the validation request is part of the startup sequence of the vehicle, receiving a validation decision from the centralized validation authority, and disabling the feature of the vehicle as a function of the receiving the validation decision.
US 20160259584 A1 - A method for programming a control unit of a motor vehicle, a previous program code executed in the control unit being stored in a memory area, a new program code being written into the control unit, and a check of this new program code being carried out, the program code being executed by the control unit if the new program code is successfully verified in the course of the check, and the previous program code stored in the memory area being written from the memory area into the control unit and the previous program code being executed by the control unit if the new program code is not successfully verified in the course of the check.
US 20150082289 A1 - A testing device for real-time testing of at least a part of a virtual electronic control unit with an electronic control unit code is provided. The testing device has a computing unit of a first type, and a computing unit of a second type. The testing of a virtual electronic control unit with electronic control unit code, which is executable on the computing unit of the second type with a second instruction set, is made possible in that a computing unit of the first type executes an emulator for emulating the computing unit of the second type and the emulator executes the electronic control unit code. The emulator also has a simulation environment interface for exchanging data and/or events with the simulation environment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Satish Rampuria whose telephone number is 571-272-3732. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chat Do, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3721. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
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.
/Satish Rampuria/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193
*****