DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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.
Status of the application
This Office Action is in response to Applicant's Application filed on 06/28/2024. Claims 1-6 and 9-20 are pending for this examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS’s) submitted on 06/28/2024, 07/22/2025 and 07/22/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Foreign Priority Claimed
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 03/20/2023. A certified copy of the application CN2023276888 has been received as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
Claims use the term “a digital key system” and its upgrade. Specification recites in paragraph [0003] of the specification starting at line 2, “original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) generally require that the ECUs of the digital key system should be upgraded through the controller area network (CAN) of the car in two manners including a diagnostic instrument or a car entertainment navigation system”. This shows that upgrade of the digital key system is equivalent to upgrade of the ECO. As such, for this examination, the examiner will consider upgrade of the digital key system means upgrade of an ECU.
Claims use the term “target terminal” and “target upgrade node”. The term “target terminal” has been described in specification [0026] “The target terminal may be an operating terminal connected to the CAN hardware device and the digital key system. For example, the target terminal may be a computer.” This shows that a target terminal is a device from which an update process can be operated. In contrast, the term “target upgrade node” means a node which will receive an upgrade.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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 3 recites “in response to the target upgrade mode being a first upgrade mode, generating a first to-be-upgraded node set according to a preprocessing node, a master control node and a slave control node, and determining the target upgrade node according to the first to-be- upgraded node set;”. Here the phrase “according to” make the meaning of the claim limitation unclear. The meaning of the phrase “according to” as defined in Meriam-Webster dictionary is “in conformity with”, “as stated or attested by”, or “depending on”. Considering the above meanings of the phrase, meaning of the claim limitation becomes unclear. Appropriate correction or explanation is required. Similarly, the 2nd limitation uses the same phrase “according to” and meaning of the claim limitation becomes unclear as shown above.
Claims 12 and 17 are respectively a device and a computer readable medium claim that are substantially similar to method claim 3. As such, they can be rejected using the same rationale as above.
Claims 4, 5, 6, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19 and 20 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakurai et al. (hereinafter Sakurai, Pub. No.: US 2023/0005305).
As per claim 1, (Original) Sakurai teaches,
An upgrade method, performed by a target terminal, wherein the target terminal is separately connected to a controller area network (CAN) hardware device and a digital key system, and (Examiner interprets this preamble to mean, a target terminal is connected using a controlled area network to any ECU and another ECU which represents a digital key system. Sakurai Fig. 47 (a1) shows a “center device display terminal”. This is considered to be a target terminal. Box 12 shows “DCM” or diagnostic communication manager, this is a CAN hardware device or any other ECU can be considered a CAN hardware device. Fig. 1 shows multiple ECUs are connected to the network. Sakurai recites in [0278] starting at line 2, “The ECUs 19 connected to the second bus 15 are ECUs controlling the body system including, for example, a door ECU controlling locking/unlocking of a door,”. This shows that one of the ECUs 19 is a digital key system. Sakurai recites in [0281] starting at line 4, “The buses 14 to 18 inside the vehicle and the bus 21 outside the vehicle are configured with, for example, Controller Area Network (CAN) (registered trademark) buses, and the CGW 13 performs data communication with the DCM 12, the various ECUs 19, and the tool 23 in accordance with the CAN data communication standard and the diagnosis communication standard (UDS: ISO14229).” This shows use of CAN as the network.)
the upgrade method comprises:
acquiring identification information of the CAN hardware device and (Sakurai recites in [0004] starting at line 4, “The vehicle related information is related to device
identification of each of the plurality of ECUs and data identification of data stored in each of the plurality of ECUs. Please note that “CAN hardware” DCM is an ECU or any other ECU can be considered a “CAN hardware device”, whose identification information is saved with vehicle related information.)
a target upgrade mode; (Sakurai recites in [0004] last line “A device related information storage unit is configured to store an attribute of the target ECU and update data related information that is related to the update data.” Here update data is the “upgrade mode”.)
determining a target upgrade node according to the target upgrade mode; and (Sakurai recites in [0004] starting at line 7, “An update data storage unit is configured to store update data for a target ECU that is a target in which data is to be updated
among the plurality of ECUs.” This shows update data includes target ECU.)
upgrading the digital key system according to an upgrade file corresponding to the target upgrade node and the identification information of the CAN hardware device. (It has been shown above that ECU 19 is a door ECU controlling locking/unlocking of a door. Fig. 21 bottom box shows program update download, installation and activation. This update is applicable to any target ECU including ECU 19, which is the digital key system.)
As per claim 9, this is a device claim that substantially parallels the limitations of the method claim 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to implement the prescribed method steps as a device.
As per claim 10, this is a computer readable medium claim that substantially parallels the limitations of the method claim 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to implement the prescribed method steps as a medium.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 11 and 16 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurai as applied to claims 1, 9 and 10 in view of Sang et al. (hereinafter Sang, Publication No.: KR102064519B1).
As per claim 2. (Original), Sakurai teaches ECU software/firmware updating. Sakurai does not explicitly mention, “wherein acquiring the identification information of the CAN hardware device and the target upgrade mode comprises: in response to detecting a touch operation from a user on a device loading control in an upgrade interface, displaying a CAN hardware device list; in response to detecting a touch operation from the user on a CAN hardware device in the CAN hardware device list, acquiring the identification information of the CAN hardware device; and in response to detecting a touch operation from the user on a target upgrade mode control in the upgrade interface, acquiring the target upgrade mode.” However, in analogous art of ECU software updating, Sang teaches,
wherein acquiring the identification information of the CAN hardware device and the target upgrade mode comprises:
in response to detecting a touch operation from a user on a device loading control in an upgrade interface, displaying a CAN hardware device list;
in response to detecting a touch operation from the user on a CAN hardware device in the CAN hardware device list, acquiring the identification information of the CAN hardware device; and in response to detecting a touch operation from the user on a target upgrade mode control in the upgrade interface, acquiring the target upgrade mode. (Sang recites in [0012] “Additionally, a vehicle ECU software update system according to an embodiment of the present invention comprises: a communication unit for receiving ECU-specific update information, including software latest version information and update importance information for each of a plurality of ECUs, from an update server via a wireless communication network; a memory for
storing the ECU-specific update information received through the communication unit; and for at least one of the plurality of ECUs, a display unit for comparing software latest version information stored in the memory with software current version information of the corresponding ECU, and if the version information is different as a result of the comparison, determining at least one of whether to display a screen and the timing of display of a software update-related user interface (UI) of the ECU according to the
acquired update importance information, and displaying the user interface (UI)
on a screen according to the determination; wherein when a software update for the ECU is selected through the user interface (UI) displayed on the screen, the communication unit receives a software update image for the ECU from the update server and transmits it to the ECU via a vehicle communication network.” This shows ECU update. Sang recites in [0049] “Meanwhile, although FIG. 2 is illustrated as a communication unit (120) transmitting data to a plurality of ECUs (10 to 15) through a display unit (110), the present invention is not limited thereto, and the communication unit (120) can directly transmit data such as an ECU software update image to each
ECU through a vehicle communication network, for example, a CAN communication network.” This shows CAN network.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the above teaching of Sakurai of ECU upgrading by incorporating the teaching “wherein acquiring the identification information of the CAN hardware device and the target upgrade mode comprises: in response to detecting a touch operation from a user on a device loading control in an upgrade interface, displaying a CAN hardware device list; in response to detecting a touch operation from the user on a CAN hardware device in the CAN hardware device list, acquiring the identification information of the CAN hardware device; and in response to detecting a touch operation from the user on a target upgrade mode control in the upgrade interface, acquiring the target upgrade mode.” Of Sang. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills of the art would have implemented the function of Sang of using a user interface to list a number of ECUs and select the ECUs which require upgrading.
As per claim 11, this is a device claim that substantially parallels the limitations of the method claim 2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to implement the prescribed method steps as a device.
As per claim 16, this is a computer readable medium claim that substantially parallels the limitations of the method claim 2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to implement the prescribed method steps as a medium.
References of Note
Examiner has cited particular columns, line numbers, references, or figures in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses to fully consider the reference in entirety, as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention. See MPEP §§ 2141.02 and 2123.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSSAIN MORSHED whose telephone number is (571)272-3335. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday12:00 PM – 9 PM Eastern Time. The email address for the examiner is hossain.morshed@uspto.gov.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone or 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, Wei Mui can be reached on (571)272-3708.
/HOSSAIN M MORSHED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191 June 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights