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 Office Action is in response to the application filed on 05/31/2024. Claims 1-11 are pending in this application. Claims 1,9,10 and 11 are independent claims.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites “configured to obtains” in the first line and should read “configured to obtain”. Appropriate correction is required.
The drawings are objected to because Figure 6 recites “Store update program for in-vehicle device” as corresponding to steps S101-S107, S109-S111, however the specification refers to these steps as corresponding to other steps. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to a program with no underlying hardware which is considered software per se. Examiner has evaluated the claims for the mental process in the interest of compact prosecution.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “selects as a substitute ECU, one in-vehicle ECU whose program is not an update target among a plurality of in-vehicle ECUs mounted in the vehicle,” as drafted, is a function that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. This limitation encompasses a human mind carrying out these functions through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the “selecting” limitation can be performed by looking at the target configuration details for an update and recording a substitute ECU from the available ECUs in the vehicle that are not listed in the configuration details. Thus, the limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements, ”a control unit configured to obtain an update program transmitted from an external server outside a vehicle” and “wherein the control unit obtains an update program to be applied to the in-vehicle device from the external server,” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering data. The additional elements, “to perform processing for updating a program of an in-vehicle ECU mounted in the vehicle” and “performs activation processing for applying the obtained update program to the in-vehicle device in response to an activation instruction from the selected substitute ECU”, merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract ideas, thus is not a practical application under Prong 2. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and (f), respectively.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above in prong 2, the additional element “performs activation processing for applying the obtained update program to the in-vehicle device in response to an activation instruction from the selected substitute ECU”, merely recites instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The additional element “wherein the control unit obtains an update program to be applied to the in-vehicle device from the external server,” is merely gathering data which the courts have identified as well-understood, routine conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.06(d), I.Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).
Therefore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 2 , the additional elements of the claim, “wherein when a rollback instruction is obtained from the substitute ECU after the control unit performed the activation processing, the control unit performs the rollback processing for returning the program applied to the in-vehicle device to an original program that is a program applied thereto before the update program is applied”, integrates the judicial exception into a practical application under prong 2, as the use of the substitute ECU in performing the rollback initialization applies the abstract idea in a meaningful way. Accordingly, claim 2 is eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 3, The additional elements recited in the claim are analyzed under prong 2 as mere data gathering and transmitting which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amounts to significantly more under step 2b for the same reasons provided in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, the additional elements of the claim, “wherein the control unit performs the rollback processing in response to a rollback instruction from the substitute ECU, and then outputs a rollback instruction to the in-vehicle ECU to be updated to return the program applied to the in-vehicle ECU to be updated to the original program that is a program applied thereto before the update program is applied”, integrates the judicial exception into a practical application under prong 2, as the use of the substitute ECU in performing the rollback initialization applies the abstract idea in a meaningful way. Accordingly, claim 4 is eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 5, The additional elements recited in the claim are analyzed under prong 2 merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amounts to significantly more under step 2b for the same reasons provided in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, the limitations “wherein the control unit specifies a plurality of candidate ECUs having a function of the substitute ECU among the plurality of in-vehicle ECUs mounted in the vehicle” and “selects any one of the plurality of candidate ECUs as the substitute ECU in accordance with a transmission result of the substitution request transmitted to the specified candidate ECUs” recites additional mental process under Prong 1.
Regarding claims 7, the limitations “wherein the control unit specifies the candidate ECUs by referring to the vehicle configuration information” recites additional mental process under Prong 1. The additional element “a storage unit configured to store vehicle configuration information including information of the in-vehicle ECUs mounted in the vehicle” is analyzed under Prong 2 as mere data gathering which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, or amounts to significantly more under Step 2B for the reasons provided in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 8, the limitations “the control unit selects, as the substitute ECU, an in-vehicle ECU connected to the same segment as a segment to which an in-vehicle ECU whose program is an update target is connected” recites additional mental process under Prong 1. The additional element “wherein an in-vehicle network included in the vehicle includes a plurality of segments to which the in-vehicle ECUs are connected” is analyzed under Prong 2 as merely reciting instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amounts to significantly more under step 2b for the same reasons provided in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 9, 10 and 11, the claims recite limitations similar to that of claim 1 and therefore are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 . Claims 9 recites further additional elements “A program that causes a computer”. Claim 10 recites further additional elements “A method for causing a computer”. Claim 11 recites further additional elements “in-vehicle updating system comprising: a plurality of in-vehicle ECUs”. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the additional elements recited in claims 9, 10, and 11 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under prong2, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
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 limitations are: “a control unit” in claim 1.
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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the substitution request" in the last line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1, 9, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (US 20230145100 A1) hereafter Nagata.
Regarding claim 1, Nagata teaches: An in-vehicle device comprising: a control unit configured to obtain an update program transmitted from an external server outside a vehicle and to perform processing for updating a program of an in-vehicle ECU mounted in the vehicle ([0006]” A vehicle according to one aspect of this disclosure includes a plurality of control devices and a communications device. The communications device is configured to wirelessly receive data from outside, the data being used to update programs stored in the control devices. The control devices include: a first control device having a storage area in which a current program is stored; a second control device having a free space in which the current program is storable, and a third control device configured to control an updating process of the programs in the first and second control devices. In a case where the current program stored in the storage area of the first control device is to be updated, the third control device controls the first and second control devices such that, prior to updating of the current program, the first and second control devices make a backup of the current program in the free space of the second control device.” [0035-37] “The DCM 35 is an in-vehicle communications module. The DCM 35 is configured to allow the ECU 31 and the server 1 to bidirectionally exchange data with each other and also allow the ECU 31 and the control center 2 to bidirectionally exchange data with each other. The DCM 35 corresponds to a “communications device” according to this disclosure... In addition, in the present embodiment, the ECU 31 receives (downloads) a program from the control center 2 via the DCM 35 and stores (installs) the downloaded program in a memory (described later) of the ECU 31 at an appropriate timing. “ “[0028] The control center 2 is a server of a company (e.g., a vehicle manufacturer) that provides a program for an electronic control unit (ECU) 31 provided in each of the vehicles 3 (see FIGS. 2, 3).”)The vehicle contains a plurality of control devices which each comprise ECU’s (electronic control units). The third control device ECU downloads a program for updating the first or second ECUs, wirelessly from the server, which corresponds to, an in-vehicle device comprising: a control unit configured to obtain an update program transmitted from an external server outside a vehicle. The third control device ECU controls the first and second control devices to back up the current program of the first device prior to updating, which corresponds to, and to perform processing for updating a program of an in-vehicle ECU mounted in the vehicle.
wherein the control unit obtains an update program to be applied to the in-vehicle device from the external server, ([0037]” In addition, in the present embodiment, the ECU 31 receives (downloads) a program from the control center 2 via the DCM 35 and stores (installs) the downloaded program in a memory (described later) of the ECU 31 at an appropriate timing. “[0028] The control center 2 is a server of a company (e.g., a vehicle manufacturer) that provides a program for an electronic control unit (ECU) 31 provided in each of the vehicles 3 (see FIGS. 2, 3).” ) The update is obtained from the control center server, which corresponds to, wherein the control unit obtains an update program to be applied to the in-vehicle device from the external server.
selects, as a substitute ECU, one in-vehicle ECU whose program is not an update target among a plurality of in-vehicle ECUs mounted in the vehicle
([0043-48] ”The processor 41 of the central ECU 4 controls an updating process of programs in the master ECU 5 and the subsidiary ECU 6…the subsidiary ECU 6 corresponds to a “first control device” in this disclosure. The master ECU 5 corresponds to a “second control device” in this disclosure. The central ECU 4 corresponds to a “third control device” in this disclosure… in a case where the program in the subsidiary ECU 6 is to be updated, the current program is sequentially rewritten to the new program during execution of the updating process. In this case, when the updating process fails, the current program cannot be recovered because the current program has been already partially or fully deleted. As a result, the vehicle 3 might not work appropriately. In view of this, in the present embodiment, prior to the execution of the updating process of the program, the current program in the subsidiary ECU 6 is copied in the free space of the flash memory 523 of the master ECU 5… Regardless of the capacity of the free space of the flash memory 623, the backup of the current program in the subsidiary ECU 6 may be made in the flash memory 523 of the master ECU 5.” [0050-53]” With reference to sequence diagrams, the following describes details of a process to be executed in a case where the program in the subsidiary ECU 6 by the OTA is successfully updated and a process to be executed in a case where the program in the subsidiary ECU 6 by the OTA fails in updating…The central ECU 4 grasps the free space of the flash memory 623 of the subsidiary ECU 6 and also grasps the free space of the flash memory 523 of the master ECU 5. Further, the central ECU 4 acquires, from the control center 2, the size of a new program for the subsidiary ECU 6 that is to be downloaded. For example, in a case where the size of the new program is larger than the free space of the flash memory 623 of the subsidiary ECU 6 and the size of the program is smaller than the free space of the flash memory 523 of the master ECU 5, …In SQ11, the central ECU 4 instructs the subsidiary ECU 6 to transmit the current program from the subsidiary ECU 6 to the master ECU 5. Upon receipt of the instruction from the central ECU 4, the subsidiary ECU 6 transmits the current program to the master ECU 5 (SQ12). The master ECU 5 makes a backup of the current program received from the subsidiary ECU 6 in the flash memory 523 (SQ13).”)
See Fig, 4 SQ11-SQ13 where the central ECU instructs the subsidiary ECU which is the update target to utilize the storage space of the non-target master ECU to store a backup of the current program of the subsidiary ECU. See also figure 3, the central ECU, master ECU and subsidiary ECU are connected to the same communication line. In this regard, when the subsidiary ECU is the target of an update, the master ECU has been pre-identified as a substitute ECU capable of being utilized to back up the program of the subsidiary ECU regardless of whether or not the subsidiary ECU has the storage capability. When the central ECU receives the size of the program to be downloaded for the subsidiary ECU, the determination of whether or not to utilize the master ECU’s storage space as backup for the subsidiary ECUs program correlates to selecting of the Master ECU as a substitute ECU so that the update can be carried out on the subsidiary ECU. Thus, the determination to use Master ECU which is not the target of the update corresponds, selects, as a substitute ECU, one in-vehicle ECU whose program is not an update target among a plurality of in-vehicle ECUs mounted in the vehicle.
and performs activation processing for applying the obtained update program to the in-vehicle device, in response to an activation instruction from the selected substitute ECU.([0053-0054] When the backup process is completed, the master ECU 5 notifies the central ECU 4 of the completion of the backup process. In SQ14, the central ECU 4 instructs the subsidiary ECU to update the current program. Upon receipt of the instruction from the central ECU 4, the subsidiary ECU 6 updates the current program (SQ15). That is, the subsidiary ECU 6 rewrites the current program stored in the flash memory 623 by the new program received from the control center 2 (the subsidiary ECU 6 installs the new program). Then, the subsidiary ECU 6 activates the installed new program at an appropriate timing.”) See Fig, 4 SQ14-SQ15 which correspond to activation processing. The master ECU which corresponds to a substitute ecu in the present embodiment, sends a notification to the central ECU which is used to signal that the program of the subsidiary ECU has been successfully backed up, triggering subsequent update steps SQ14-SQ15. Thus, the notification corresponds to an activation instruction from the selected substitute ECU. Following receipt of the notification, the central ECU proceeds with step SQ14 of instructing the subsidiary ECU to update the current program. Process SQ14 (instruct updating of current program) corresponds to an activation processing step carried out by the central ECU . Thus, step SQ14 in the central ECU for instructing the update of the current program, in response to the complete notification received from the master ECU , corresponds to, performs activation processing for applying the obtained update program to the in-vehicle device, in response to an activation instruction from the selected substitute ECU.
Regarding claim 9, it is a program claim having similar limitations cited in the
rejection of claim 1. Thus, claim 9 is also rejected under the same rationale as
cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 10, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in the
rejection of claim 1. Thus, claim 10 is also rejected under the same rationale as
cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 11, it is a system claim having similar limitations cited in the
rejection of claim 1. Thus, claim 11 is also rejected under the same rationale as
cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
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 2-4, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US20230145100A1) hereafter Nagata in view of Harata et al. (US11999360B2) hereafter Harata.
Regarding claim 2 Nagata teaches the device of claim 1 above, Nagata further teaches: after the control unit performed the activation processing, the control unit performs the rollback processing for returning the program applied to the in-vehicle device to an original program that is a program applied thereto before the update program is applied.([0056-0057]” FIG. 5 is a first sequence diagram to describe the procedure of a process to be executed in a case where the program in the subsidiary ECU 6 fails in updating… Upon receipt of the updating failure notification from the subsidiary ECU 6, the central ECU 4 instructs the master ECU 5 to transmit, to the subsidiary ECU 6, the backup made in the flash memory 523 of the master ECU 5 in SQ23 (SQ27). The master ECU 5 transmits, to the subsidiary ECU 6, the backup in accordance with the instruction from the central ECU 4 (SQ28). The subsidiary ECU 6 rewrites the new program for updating by the backup received from the master ECU 5. That is, the subsidiary ECU 6 recovers (installs) the backup instead of the new program that has failed in updating (SQ29). When the backup has been recovered, the subsidiary ECU 6 notifies the central ECU 4 of the completion of the recovery of the backup.”) See Fig.5 updating steps SQ21-SQ25, and rollback steps SQ26-SQ29.The central ECU which controls the update for the target subsidiary ECU, receives a failure notification from the subsidiary ECU following the update, and initiates the rollback process by instructing the master ECU to transmit the backup to the subsidiary ECU. The transmitting of the instruction by the central ECU which directs the transfer and installation of the backup in the subsidiary ECU thus corresponds to, after the control unit performed the activation processing, the control unit performs the rollback processing for returning the program applied to the in-vehicle device to an original program that is a program applied thereto before the update program is applied.
Nagata does not explicitly teach: wherein when a rollback instruction is obtained from the substitute ECU
However, Harata teaches: wherein when a rollback instruction is obtained from the substitute ECU ([Col 14, Lines 6-18]” The master device 11 controls a program update function of the vehicle side in the vehicle program rewriting system 1, and functions as an OTA master… The CGW 13 may have some or all of the functions of the DCM 12, or the DCM 12 may have some or all of the functions of the CGW 13. That is, in the master device 11, function sharing between the DCM 12 and the CGW 13 may be configured in any manner. The master device 11 may be configured with two ECUs such as the DCM 12 and the CGW 13.” [Col 94, Lines 5-14] ”The rollback execution control process will be described with reference to FIGS. 119 to 130. The vehicle program rewriting system 1 executes the rollback execution control process in the CGW 13. The rollback indicates writing for returning the memory of the rewrite target ECU 19 to a predetermined state, such as returning an application program to an original version, in a case where rewriting of the application program is stopped, and is to return a state of the rewrite target ECU 19 to a state before writing of write details initiated from the viewpoint of the user.” [Col 94, Lines 26-40]” When an abnormality occurs in the system and the center device 3 is notified of the abnormality in the system, the center device 3 notifies the CGW 13 of the program rewrite cancellation request via the DCM 12. The abnormality in the system is, for example, that a certain rewrite target ECU 19
succeeds in writing, but another rewrite target ECU 19 performing a cooperative control with the certain rewrite target ECU 19 fails in writing. As mentioned above, when at
least one of a plurality of rewrite target ECU s 19 performing a cooperative control fails in writing, the system is determined to be abnormal, and the center device 3 notifies the
CGW 13 of the program rewrite cancellation request via the DCM 12 for the rewrite target ECU 19 that has succeeds in writing. That is, an operation performed by the user and the occurrence of an abnormality in the system may cause the cancellation request to generate.” )The master device of Harata implements the CGW and DCM as ECUs which perform different aspects for updating and rollback of the rewrite target ECUs 19. The CGW corresponds to a main update unit and the DCM corresponds to a substitute ECU because the DCM is a non-update target ECU that assists the CGW with aspects of the update and rollback process for other target ECUs. The DCM ECU communicates with the center device to receive notifications regarding abnormal states of the update target ECUs and transmits the message to the CGW to proceed with rollback of the target ECUs 19, which corresponds to, wherein when a rollback instruction is obtained from the substitute ECU.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Nagata with, wherein when a rollback instruction is obtained from the substitute ECU, as taught by Harata, in order to utilize the non-update target ECU that is in working order, to receive monitoring notifications of an updated ECUs and report the notification to the CGW for subsequent processing such as a rollback to ensure the system remains in working order.
Regarding claim 3, Nagata teaches the device of claim 1 above. Nagata further teaches: wherein the control unit obtains, from the external server, an update program to be applied to an in-vehicle ECU whose program is an update target ([0013]“ A control method of a vehicle according to one aspect of this disclosure controls a vehicle configured to wirelessly receive data from outside, the data being used to update programs stored in a plurality of control devices… The control method includes a step of, in a case where the current program stored in the storage area of the first control device is to be updated, making a backup of the current program in the free space of the second control device prior to updating of the current program.)The update program is obtained from the server is used to apply the new program to the first control device ECU, which corresponds to, are obtained from the external server and used to update the program of the control devices which are ECUs. In the Embodiment where a first storage area of the first control device is to be updated, the program stored in the storage area of the first control device corresponds to the update target.
and outputs an activation instruction for applying the update program for the in-vehicle ECU to the in-vehicle ECU to be updated.([0053-0054] In SQ14, the central ECU 4 instructs the subsidiary ECU to update the current program. Upon receipt of the instruction from the central ECU 4, the subsidiary ECU 6 updates the current program (SQ15). That is, the subsidiary ECU 6 rewrites the current program stored in the flash memory 623 by the new program received from the control center 2 (the subsidiary ECU 6 installs the new program). Then, the subsidiary ECU 6 activates the installed new program at an appropriate timing.”)The central ECU sends an instruction to the subsidiary ECU to update its program, which corresponds to, and outputs an activation instruction for applying the update program for the in-vehicle ECU to the in-vehicle ECU to be updated.
Nagata does not explicitly teach: wherein the control unit [] outputs the obtained update program for the in-vehicle ECU to the in-vehicle ECU to be updated before performing activation processing of the in-vehicle device,
However, Harata teaches: wherein the control unit [] outputs the obtained update program for the in-vehicle ECU to the in-vehicle ECU to be updated before performing activation processing of the in-vehicle device,([Col 13, Lines 63-67; Col 14, Lines 1-5]“The CGW 13 has a data relay function, and, when the write data is acquired from the DCM 12, the CGW instructs a rewrite target ECU that is a rewrite target of an application 65 program to write the acquired write data, and distributes the write data to the rewrite target ECU. When writing of the write data has been completed in the rewrite target ECU and rewriting of the application program has been completed, the CGW 13 instructs the rewrite target ECU to perform activation for validating the application program after being rewritten.”)The CGW which controls the update for the target ECU outputs the program to the target ECU for activation and validation, which corresponds to, wherein the control unit [] outputs the obtained update program for the in-vehicle ECU to the in-vehicle ECU to be updated before performing activation processing of the in-vehicle device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Nagata with, wherein the control unit [] outputs the obtained update program for the in-vehicle ECU to the in-vehicle ECU to be updated before performing activation processing of the in-vehicle device, as taught by Harata in order to transmit the update downloaded by the CGW to the target of the update. The process of transferring an update program to the target of the update prior to applying the update is a well-known technique in the field of software updating.
Regarding claim 4, Nagata in view of Harata teaches the device of claim 3 above. Nagata does not explicitly teach: wherein the control unit performs the rollback processing in response to a rollback instruction from the substitute ECU, and then outputs a rollback instruction to the in-vehicle ECU to be updated to return the program applied to the in-vehicle ECU to be updated to the original program that is a program applied thereto before the update program is applied.
However, Harata teaches: wherein the control unit performs the rollback processing in response to a rollback instruction from the substitute ECU([Col 93, Lines 33-47] “when at least one of a plurality of rewrite target ECUs 19 performing a cooperative control fails in writing, the system is determined to be abnormal, and the center device 3 notifies the CGW 13 of the program rewrite cancellation request via the DCM 12 for the rewrite target ECU 19 that has succeeds in writing…The rollback method specifying unit 86b specifies a rollback method for returning a state of the rewrite target ECU 19 to a state where writing of write data has not yet been initiated according to the memory type of the flash memory mounted in the rewrite target ECU 19 and the datatype of write data of a new program or an old program.”[Col 94, Lines 66-67;Col 95, Lines 1-3]” Next, an operation of the rollback execution control unit 86 in the CGW 13 will be described with reference to FIGS. 120 to 130. The CGW 13 executes a rollback execution control program and thus performs the rollback execution control process… When the rollback method specifying process is initiated, the CGW 13 analyzes the CGW rewrite specification data 10 acquired from the DCM 12 (S1501), specifies a rollback method on the basis of an analysis result thereof (S1502),and terminates the rollback method specifying process”.) See Fig. 50 item 86, the rollback execution control unit is a member of the CGW; See Fig.119 item 86, 86b. The rollback method specifying unit (rollback method determination unit) 86b is a member of Rollback execution control unit 86 of the CGW. The rewrite cancellation request is received by the CGW ECU which is the update control unit, from the DCM ECU which is a substitute ECU, and is used to trigger the rollback method specifying process by the rollback execution control unit 86 in the CGW ECU. Thus, the cancellation request sent by the DCM which initiates the rollback method specifying process by the CGW ECU, thus corresponds to, wherein the control unit performs the rollback processing in response to a rollback instruction from the substitute ECU.
and then outputs a rollback instruction to the in-vehicle ECU to be updated to return the program applied to the in-vehicle ECU to be updated to the original program that is a program applied thereto before the update program is applied.([Col 94, Lines 57-61]” When the rollback method is specified by the rollback method specifying unit 86b, the rollback execution unit 86c instructs the rewrite target ECU 19 to perform rollback in accordance with the rollback method, and operates the rewrite target ECU 19 with the old program.” The rollback execution unit of the CGW instructs the rewrite target ECU 19 to perform rollback in accordance with the rollback method, which corresponds to, and then outputs a rollback instruction to the in-vehicle ECU to be updated to return the program applied to the in-vehicle ECU to be updated to the original program that is a program applied thereto before the update program is applied.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Nagata with, wherein the control unit performs the rollback processing in response to a rollback instruction from the substitute ECU, and then outputs a rollback instruction to the in-vehicle ECU to be updated to return the program applied to the in-vehicle ECU to be updated to the original program that is a program applied thereto before the update program is applied, as taught by Harata, In order to utilize the substitute ECU which is not an update target to signal the CGW that an updated ECU requires a program rollback in order to ensure the system functions properly.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US20230145100A1) Nagata in view of (Making Full Vehicle OTA Updates a Reality, Published: May 2016) hereafter McKenna.
Regarding claim 5, Nagata does not teach: wherein the control unit performs processing related to an update program in a period in which the vehicle is prohibited from entering an activated state
However, McKenna teaches: wherein the control unit performs processing related to an update program in a period in which the vehicle is prohibited from entering an activated state([Page 3, In place approach] ”The update cannot be run while the ECU is in normal operation – meaning that the vehicle will be inoperable for a period of time. This period of time will be determined predominately by the time required to reprogram the flash of the ECU. Major ECUs in the vehicle, like the engine controller, will have several MBs of flash which, should the full firmware need to be reprogrammed, can take in the order of tens of seconds to complete. This is a challenge for OEMs - will customers accept the fact that they are unable to start their engine for up to a minute?”) During the update process for an ECU where the ECU is flashed and possibly reprogrammed, the vehicle is unable to start the engine, which corresponds to, wherein the control unit performs processing related to an update program in a period in which the vehicle is prohibited from entering an activated state.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Nagata with wherein the control unit performs processing related to an update program in a period in which the vehicle is prohibited from entering an activated state, in order to prevent the user from attempting to operate functions of the vehicle that are undergoing updates.
Claim 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US20230145100A1) Nagata in view of (US11537382B2) hereafter Yamamoto.
Regarding claim 6, Nagata teaches the device of claim 1 above. Nagata does not teach: wherein the control unit specifies a plurality of candidate ECUs having a function of the substitute ECU among the plurality of in-vehicle ECUs mounted in the vehicle, and selects any one of the plurality of candidate ECUs as the substitute ECU in accordance with a transmission result of the substitution request transmitted to the specified candidate ECUs.
However, Yamamoto teaches: wherein the control unit specifies a plurality of candidate ECUs having a function of the substitute ECU among the plurality of in-vehicle ECUs mounted in the vehicle, and selects any one of the plurality of candidate ECUs as the substitute ECU in accordance with a transmission result of the substitution request transmitted to the specified candidate ECUs.
([Col 3, Lines 50-63] ”a control unit configured to cause the communication unit to transmit a request message when a target device defined below is unable to execute an update process for a control program. The request message requests an alternative device, which is a non-target device defined below, to alternatively execute a part of the update process… Thus, even when the on-vehicle control device as an update target is unable to execute the update process for the control program, at least a part of the update process is executed by the alternative device.”[Col 4, Lines 16-35]"Preferably, the control unit inquires of a plurality of non-target devices as to whether or not the non-target devices can serve as the alternative device, in accordance with priority levels of the non-target devices…when the control unit has received a response message indicating that dynamic processing capability is not lower than a predetermined value, the control unit determines, as the alternative device, the non-target device that has transmitted the response message…. the control unit determines the alternative device from among a plurality of non-target devices that have transmitted response messages, in accordance with priority levels of the non-target devices.” [Col 13, Lines 35-39] “Alternatively, the determination unit 112 may make the inquiry to only ECUs having high priority levels (e.g., not lower than a predetermined priority level) among the ECUs other than the target ECU. Thus, an alternative ECU can be efficiently determined.”) The control unit is responsible for updating a target ECU, and executes the process for selecting an alternate nontarget device which has the processing capability to assist with applying the update to the target ECU. When the determination unit contained in the control unit selects from the plurality candidates with ECU’s having high priority levels, this means that the pool of potential alternative ECU’s is first limited to those most likely to be able to carry out the function of the alternative ECU based on various factors such as processing power , and the ECU’s role in the vehicle, which corresponds to, wherein the control unit specifies a plurality of candidate ECUs having a function of the substitute ECU among the plurality of in-vehicle ECUs mounted in the vehicle. The determination unit makes an inquiry to the high priority candidate ECU’s and selects an alternative ECU based on the response from the candidate indicating that its dynamic processing capability is not lower than a predetermined value, which corresponds to, selects any one of the plurality of candidate ECUs as the substitute ECU in accordance with a transmission result of the substitution request transmitted to the specified candidate ECUs.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Nagata with, wherein the control unit specifies a plurality of candidate ECUs having a function of the substitute ECU among the plurality of in-vehicle ECUs mounted in the vehicle, and selects any one of the plurality of candidate ECUs as the substitute ECU in accordance with a transmission result of the substitution request transmitted to the specified candidate ECUs, as taught by Yamamoto, in order to minimize the time spent looking for an alternative ECU by considering multiple candidates at once.
Regarding claim 8, Nagata teaches the device of claim 1 above. Nagata does not explicitly teach: wherein an in-vehicle network included in the vehicle includes a plurality of segments to which the in-vehicle ECUs are connected ,the control unit selects, as the substitute ECU, an in-vehicle ECU connected to the same segment as a segment to which an in-vehicle ECU whose program is an update target is connected.
However, Yamamoto teaches: wherein an in-vehicle network included in the vehicle includes a plurality of segments to which the in-vehicle ECUs are connected,
([Col 5, Lines 51-64] “Each vehicle 1 is provided with: an in-vehicle network (communication network) 4 including a plurality of ECUs 30 and a gateway 10 which are connected via in-vehicle communication lines 16; a wireless communication unit 15; and various on-vehicle devices (not shown) controlled by the respective ECUs 30…The in-vehicle network 4 has a plurality of in-vehicle communication lines 16A and 16B. The in-vehicle network 4 includes a plurality of communication groups, i.e., ECUs 30A to 30C bus-connected to the in-vehicle communication line 16A and ECUs 30D and 30E bus-connected to the in-vehicle communication line 16B. The gateway 10 relays communication between the communication groups. “[col7, Lines 18-20]“The in-vehicle communication unit 14 communicates with the ECUs 30 according to the standard of CAN (Controller Area Network), for example.”) See figure 1, ECUs 30A, 30B and 30C connected to communication line 16A, and ECUs 30D and 30E connected to communication line 16B. The in-vehicle network comprises ECU communication groups for the plurality of ECUs connected via CAN communication lines such as 16A and 16B which correspond to segments.
and the control unit selects, as the substitute ECU, an in-vehicle ECU connected to the same segment as a segment to which an in-vehicle ECU whose program is an update target is connected.([Col 12, Lines 66-67; Col 13, Lines 1-33] “the priority level of an ECU connected to the same in-vehicle communication line 16 as an in-vehicle communication line 16 that connects the gateway 10 and the target ECU is set to be higher than the priority level of an ECU connected to a different in-vehicle communication line 16. Specifically, in the case where the in-vehicle network 4 has the configuration shown in FIG. 1 and the target ECU is the ECU 30A, the ECUs 30B and 30C connected to the in-vehicle communication line 16A to which the ECU 30A is connected are given higher priority levels than the ECUs 30D and 30E connected to a different in-vehicle communication line 16B…In FIG. 6 and later-described FIG. 9 and FIG. 10 , the ECU 30B is used as an example of the alternative ECU. It is considered that the ECU 30B is determined as the alternative ECU because the priority level thereof is higher than the priority levels of the ECUs 30D and 30E… The determination unit 112 may make the inquiry to all the ECUs 30 installed in the vehicle 1 , except the target ECU ( e.g. , the ECU 30A ) “) See figure 1, ECUs 30A, 30B and 30C connected to communication line 16A. Selecting ECU 30B as the alternative ECU when ECU 30A is the update target, corresponds to, and the control unit selects, as the substitute ECU, an in-vehicle ECU connected to the same segment as a segment to which an in-vehicle ECU whose program is an update target is connected.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Nagata with, and the control unit selects, as the substitute ECU, an in-vehicle ECU connected to the same segment as a segment to which an in-vehicle ECU whose program is an update target is connected, as taught by Yamamoto, in order to avoid selecting an alternative device that is connected to a different communication line than the target ECU. When an alternate ECU is selected that is not connected to the target ECU via a shared communication line, this may result in the undesired activation of other control devices connected to the communication line of the alternate device, as evidenced by Yamamoto [Col 13, Lines 11-23].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US20230145100A1) Nagata in view of (US11537382B2) Yamamoto, and further in view of Ujie et al. (US10725762B2) hereafter Ujie.
Regarding claim 7, Nagata in view of Yamamoto teaches the device of claim 6 above. Nagata does not explicitly teach: a storage unit configured to store vehicle configuration information including information of the in-vehicle ECUs mounted in the vehicle, wherein the control unit specifies the candidate ECUs by referring to the vehicle configuration information.
However Ujie teaches: a storage unit configured to store vehicle configuration information including information of the in-vehicle ECUs mounted in the vehicle, wherein the control unit specifies the candidate ECUs by referring to the vehicle configuration information.([Col 24, Lines 18-27]“The gateway 1300, based on the list of ECU information stored by the ECU information storing unit 372 (see FIG. 6), selects an ECU which is different from the ECU whose firmware is to be updated, and which includes a function of executing a process related to the firmware update, as the ECU to execute that process by proxy (proxy ECU) (step S2200). Specifically, in the FW update ECU proxy process, the ECU 1100 a that includes the FW cache function is selected as the proxy ECU to execute by proxy a process related to the FW cache function.”) The ECU information storing unit 372 corresponds to, a storage unit configured to store vehicle configuration information including information of the in-vehicle ECUs mounted in the vehicle. The Gateway 1300 utilizes the stored ECU information to select a non-target proxy ECU to carry out a function of the update processing for the target ECU, which corresponds to, wherein the control unit specifies the candidate ECUs by referring to the vehicle configuration information.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Nagata with, a storage unit configured to store vehicle configuration information including information of the in-vehicle ECUs mounted in the vehicle, wherein the control unit specifies the candidate ECUs by referring to the vehicle configuration information, because storing vehicle configuration information centrally allows the control unit to efficiently identify a capable ECU for a given task by reference to pre-stored data, rather than requiring real-time interrogation of each ECU candidate.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure:
(US 20230004381 A1) Tao Ma: A software version rollback method, apparatus, and system are provided for updating ECUs in a vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE O'CONNOR EMANUEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8975. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:00 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.
/L.S.O./ Examiner, Art Unit 2193
/Chat C Do/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights