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
1. This action is responsive to the application filed on April 9, 2024.
2. Claims 1-10 have been examined.
Claim Objections
3. Please spell out “ECU” in line 3 of claim 1.
4. Please spell out “IG” in claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC 101
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 9, and 20 are within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Prong 1, Step 2A: under its broadest reasonable interpretation, "obtains, from the external server, an operation check scenario for performing operation check of an in-vehicle ECU to be updated when obtaining the update program, outputs, to the in-vehicle ECU to be updated, the obtained update program and operation check scenario, and performs processing related to the operation check of the in-vehicle ECU to be updated, based on the operation check scenario" cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic processing device. Thus these claim limitations fall within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A.
Prong 2, Step 2A: the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Additional elements (vehicle, device, external server, control unit, ECU…) are recited at high level of generality. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.05(g).
Prong 2, Step 2B: the additional elements, considering them both individually and in combination, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. As discussed above, elements that are mere use of generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, and the processes are insignificant extra-solution activity which are recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, according to MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 2: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 3: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 4: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 5: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 6: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 7: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 8: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
7. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, which may comprise only software components.
Data structures not claimed as embodied in computer-readable media are descriptive material per se and are not statutory because they are not capable of causing functional change in the computer. See, e.g., Warmerdam, 33 F.3d at 1361, 31 USPQ2d at 1760 (claim to a data structure per se held nonstatutory). Such claimed data structures do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the data structure and other claimed aspects of the invention which permit the data structure's functionality to be realized. In contrast, a claimed computer-readable medium encoded with a data structure defines structural and functional interrelationships between the data structure and the computer software and hardware components which permit the data structure's functionality to be realized, and is thus statutory.
Similarly, computer programs claimed as computer listings per se, i.e., the descriptions or expressions of the programs, are not physical "things." They are neither computer components nor statutory processes, as they are not "acts" being performed. Such claimed computer programs do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and other claimed elements of a computer which permit the computer program's functionality to be realized. In contrast, a claimed computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program is a computer element which defines structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and the rest of the computer which permit the computer program's functionality to be realized, and is thus statutory. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d at 1035. Accordingly, it is important to distinguish claims that define descriptive material per se from claims that define statutory inventions. See MPEP 2106.
Under the principles of compact prosecution, claim 9 has been examined as the Examiner anticipates the claims will be amended to obviate these 35 USC § 101 issues. For example,
A program stored in a memory. . .
A program stored in a non-transitory computer-readable medium. . .
Allowable Subject Matter
8. After search and analysis, Examiner concluded that the claimed invention has been recited in such a manner that dependent claim 6 is not taught by any prior reference found through search.
The primary reason for allowance of the claims in this case, is the inclusion of the limitations “The in-vehicle device according to of claims to claim 1, wherein the control unit enhances the operation check scenario obtained from the external server, using a relay log collected when a relay processing of communication between a plurality of in-vehicle ECUs mounted in the vehicle is performed, outputs the obtained update program and the enhanced operation check scenario to the in-vehicle ECU to be updated, and performs processing related to the operation check of the in-vehicle ECU to be updated, based on the enhanced operation check scenario,” which are not found in the prior art of record.
Resolving the 35 U.S.C. §101 issue and incorporating claim 6 into claims 1, 9, and 10 would put the case in condition for allowance.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §102
9. 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
10. Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2020/0249937 to Teraoka et al. (hereafter “Teraoka”).
Claim 1.
Teraoka discloses an in-vehicle device that obtains an update program transmitted from an external server outside a vehicle and performs processing for updating a program of an in-vehicle ECU mounted in the vehicle (FIG.1, Server 2, Vehicle 1, ECUs, and related text),
the in-vehicle device comprising: a control unit configured to perform processing related to the update program (FIG.2, Microcomputer 101, CPU 1011, and related text), wherein the control unit
obtains, from the external server, an operation check scenario for performing operation check of an in-vehicle ECU to be updated when obtaining the update program (FIG.14, update script has a plurality of operation check scenarios at lines 2, 5, 12, 18, 23),
outputs, to the in-vehicle ECU to be updated, the obtained update program and operation check scenario (FIG.6, update package includes update program and update script), and
performs processing related to the operation check of the in-vehicle ECU to be updated, based on the operation check scenario (FIG.17, step S30601 activate script and related text).
Claim 4.
Teraoka discloses the in-vehicle device according to of claim 1, wherein the operation check scenario includes determination information for determining a result of the operation check of the in-vehicle ECU to be updated, and the control unit performs processing related to an operation check of the in-vehicle ECU to be updated, and obtains a result of the operation check (FIG.10, update incompleted, update completed, and related text), and
determines whether or not the program update in the in-vehicle ECU to be updated has succeeded, based on the obtained result of the operation check and the determination information included in the operation check scenario (FIG.14, line 21 Return SUCCESS, line 25, Return ERROR, and related text).
Claim 5.
Teraoka discloses the in-vehicle device according to claim 4, wherein the control unit: obtains, from the in-vehicle ECU to be updated, a result of a stand-alone diagnosis performed by the in-vehicle ECU to be updated based on the operation check scenario, and determines whether or not the program update in the in-vehicle ECU to be updated has succeeded, based on the obtained result of the stand-alone diagnosis (0053, 0081, 0082, 0091, 0104).
Claim 7.
Teraoka discloses the in-vehicle device according to any of to claim 1, wherein, when an IG switch of the vehicle is turned off, the control unit performs processing related to the operation check of the in-vehicle ECU to be updated, based on the operation check scenario (0064, 0072, 0073, 0091).
Claim 9.
This claim is a program version, which recites the same limitations as those of claim 1, wherein all claimed limitations have been addressed and/or set forth above. Therefore, as the reference teaches all of the limitations of the above claim, it also teaches all of the limitations of this claim.
Claim 10.
This claim is a method version, which recites the same limitations as those of claim 1, wherein all claimed limitations have been addressed and/or set forth above. Therefore, as the reference teaches all of the limitations of the above claim, it also teaches all of the limitations of this claim.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §103
11. 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 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 of this title, 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.
12. Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teraoka in view of US 2019/0227785 to Kanamori (hereafter “Kanamori”).
Claim 2.
Teraoka does not disclose the in-vehicle device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit substitutes for another in-vehicle ECU other than the in-vehicle ECU to be updated, based on the operation check scenario, and performs processing related to the operation check of the in-vehicle ECU to be updated.
However, Kanamori discloses the control unit substitutes for another in-vehicle ECU other than the in-vehicle ECU to be updated (FIG.3, from updating ECU 1a, switch to update ECU 2),
based on the operation check scenario (FIG.3, S11/yes and related text), and
performs processing related to the operation check of the in-vehicle ECU to be updated (FIG.3, S13 switch to update ECU 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine ’s teaching into ‘s teaching. One would have been motivated to do so to update ECUs based on step number instructed from a higher level as suggested by Kanamori (0053, 0055, 0056).
Claim 3.
Teraoka does not disclose the in-vehicle device according to claim 2, wherein the operation check scenario includes: a processing sequence in which the control unit that substitutes for the other in-vehicle ECU transmits data to the in-vehicle ECU to be updated, and a processing sequence in which the in-vehicle ECU to be updated to which the update program is applied transmits data to the other in-vehicle ECU substituted by the control unit.
However, Kanamori discloses the operation check scenario includes: a processing sequence in which the control unit that substitutes for the other in-vehicle ECU transmits data to the in-vehicle ECU to be updated, and a processing sequence in which the in-vehicle ECU to be updated to which the update program is applied transmits data to the other in-vehicle ECU substituted by the control unit (FIG.3, processing sequences to update ECU 1a and ECU 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine ’s teaching into ‘s teaching. One would have been motivated to do so to update ECUs based on step number instructed from a higher level as suggested by Kanamori (0053, 0055, 0056).
13. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teraoka in view of US 2019/0210545 to Sangameswaran et al. (hereafter “Sangameswaran”).
Claim 8.
Teraoka does not disclose the in-vehicle device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit outputs, to the other in-vehicle ECUs other than the in-vehicle ECU to be updated, a sleep signal for transitioning to a sleep mode, and performs, after outputting the sleep signal, processing related to the operation check for the in-vehicle ECU to be updated, based on the operation check scenario.
However, Sangameswaran discloses the control unit outputs, to the other in-vehicle ECUs other than the in-vehicle ECU to be updated, a sleep signal for transitioning to a sleep mode, and performs, after outputting the sleep signal, processing related to the operation check for the in-vehicle ECU to be updated, based on the operation check scenario (0005, 0032, 0037, 0039).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Sundareswaran’s teaching into Teraoka’s teaching. One would have been motivated to do so to disable keyoff functions of ECUs that are operable during keyoff but are not required for performance of installation of the software updates as suggested by Sundareswaran (0032).
Conclusion
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to examiner Thuy (Twee) Dao, whose telephone/fax numbers are (571) 272 8570 and (571) 273 8570, respectively. Examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday, 5:30am - 2:00pm ET.
If attempts to reach Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, Examiner’s supervisor, Hyung (Sam) Sough, can be reached at (571) 272 6799.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273 8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature of relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the TC 2100 Group receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272 2100.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Thuy Dao/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights