DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial Office action based on the preliminary amendment filed on July 12, 2024.
Claims 1-17 are pending.
Claims 1-17 are currently amended.
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 .
Internet Communications
Without a written authorization for Internet communications by the Applicant in place, the USPTO cannot communicate with the Applicant via email and will not respond via email to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 122, such as claimed subject matter in an interview agenda or proposed claim amendments for an Examiner’s Amendment.
Therefore, in the interest of facilitating compact prosecution, the Examiner kindly asks the Applicant to authorize Internet communications with the USPTO by using Form PTO/SB/439 (available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms). The form may be submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system (Patent Center) using the document description “Internet Communications Authorized” to facilitate processing. The written authorization for Internet communications must be submitted on a separate paper to be entitled to acceptance in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.4(c). The separate paper will facilitate processing and avoid confusion. The written authorization for Internet communications may not be submitted via an email. See MPEP § 502.03(II).
Claim Interpretation
During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” See MPEP § 2111. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, the drawings, and the prior art. See MPEP § 2111.01(I).
Applicant is entitled to be their own lexicographer and may rebut the presumption that claim terms are to be given their ordinary and customary meaning by clearly setting forth a definition of the term that is different from its ordinary and customary meaning(s) in the specification at the relevant time. Where an explicit definition is provided by the Applicant for a term, that definition will control interpretation of the term as it is used in the claim. See MPEP § 2111.01(IV)(A). Any such lexicographic definition for a term will be expressly noted by the Examiner in the prior art rejections of the claims.
Claim Mapping
For clarity of the prosecution history record, the Examiner has provided annotations in the prior art rejections of the claims to aid the Applicant in understanding the Examiner’s interpretations of the claimed invention and the prior art, such as emphasizing notable and relevant portions of the prior art citations, using item-to-item matching to the prior art citations, pairing exact claim language to particular language used in the prior art citations, and/or clearly explaining the Examiner’s interpretation as to how a prior art citation maps to the claim language, especially when there is no one-to-one matching of terms. Furthermore, the annotations are provided in the prior art rejections of the claims at the Examiner’s discretion where the Examiner deemed to be appropriate and necessary.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR § 1.55.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: DEVICE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT METHOD THEREOF USING A PARTITIONED MEMORY.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-5, 11, 14, 15, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “the second program.” It should read -- the updated second program --.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claims 3 and 4 contain a typographical error: a comma (,) should be added after the limitation “the at least one processor is configured to.”
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 5 recites “the partitioned areas of the memory.” It should read -- the separately partitioned areas of the memory --.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 5 contains a typographical error: “Wherein” should read -- wherein --.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 11 recites “the processor.” It should read -- the at least one processor --.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 14 contains a typographical error: the colon (:) after the word “comprising” should be deleted.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 15 contains a typographical error: the semicolon (;) after the word “stored” should be deleted.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 17 contains a typographical error: the comma (,) after the word “comprising” should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 11 and 15 recite the limitation “the device” at lines 6-8, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner subsequently interprets this limitation as reading “a device” for the purpose of further examination.
Claims 12-14, 16, and 17 depend on Claim 11. Therefore, Claims 12-14, 16, and 17 suffer the same deficiency as Claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0378511 (hereinafter “Jung”) in view of US 2018/0259925 (hereinafter “Fujimura”).
EXAMINER’S REMARKS
In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).
The claimed invention is generally directed to a device management system including a partitioned memory and a program management method system using the memory (specification, paragraph [0002]). As for the “same field of endeavor” test, Jung is generally directed to an electronic device having a separate external memory and a method for operating the same (specification, paragraph [0002]). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Fujimura is generally directed to evaluating functional safety of a safety program (specification, paragraph [0002]). Thus, Jung and Fujimura are both analogous art to the claimed invention (even if they address different problems or are not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
As per Claim 1, Jung discloses:
A device management system (Figure 3) configured to interconnect with a device, the device management system comprising:
at least one processor (Figure 1: 120); and
a memory (Figure 1: 130) configured to store a device management program (Figure 3: 330) including at least one instruction executed by the at least one processor,
wherein the at least one processor is configured to stores a first program and a second program independently in separately partitioned areas in the memory (Figure 5; paragraph [0086], “[…] the internal part of the external memory 430 may be divided into a plurality of partition areas. The plurality of partition areas may be recognized as if the electronic device has a plurality of external memories. Each partition existing in the plurality of partition areas can store individually different programs and information [stores a first program and a second program independently in separately partitioned areas in the memory]. If necessary, the external memory 430 can store different programs and information by configuring into a plurality of partition areas (emphasis added).”), wherein […] the second program is unrelated to the functional safety of the device (paragraph [0108], “The system data 523 operates based on the kernel operating system of the electronic device and includes middleware for driving an upper level application program and framework operating system data. For example, the system data 523 may be a combination of Android framework data, iOS framework data, and application programs pre-installed by a manufacturer (emphasis added).”).
EXAMINER’S REMARKS
Jung discloses that the system data includes middleware for driving an upper level application program and framework operating system data. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that the application programs of the system data are unrelated to functional safety of a device.
Jung does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first program is related to functional safety of the device […].
However, Fujimura discloses:
wherein the first program is related to functional safety of the device […] (paragraph [0003], “In order to safely use machines that are used in many manufacturing sites, safety equipment (safety components) in accordance with international standards has to be used. This safety equipment is for preventing human safety from being threatened by automatically moving apparatuses such as robots. Such safety equipment includes a safety controller that executes a safety program as well as a detection device that detects the presence or intrusion of persons, an input device that receives operations in an emergency, an output device that actually stops a device, and the like (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0040], “[…] the ‘safety program’ is a program for causing an output device to operate such that safety is maintained if predetermined conditions (safety conditions) are satisfied, and means a group of commands that define processing of a safety controller. More specifically, the safety program includes a combination of commands for deciding values of one or more output signals for one or more input signals (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0066], “In the computation processing unit 108, the processor 102 realizes functional safety in accordance with a control target by expanding and executing, in the main memory 104, a system program, a safety program, and the like that are stored in the flash memory 106 [wherein the first program is related to functional safety of the device {…}] (emphasis added).”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Jung and Fujimura are both analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Fujimura into the teaching of Jung to include “wherein the first program is related to functional safety of the device […].” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to execute a safety program that detects the presence or intrusion of persons, an input device that receives operations in an emergency, an output device that actually stops a device, and the like (Fujimura, paragraph [0003]).
As per Claim 2, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Jung further discloses:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to independently store version information of the first program and version information of the second program in the separately partitioned areas of the memory (Figure 5; paragraph [0113], “[…] the firmware update information storage area 526 can store information (for example, software, operation recording program, and data) in order to update the firmware stored in the firmware storage area corresponding to a version of a different electronic device. In this case, the firmware update information storage area 526 may store information required for updating to various firmware versions.”).
As per Claim 3, the rejection of Claim 2 is incorporated; and Jung further discloses:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to in response to at least one of the first program and the second program being updated, update the version information of the updated first program or the second program (paragraph [0127], “In the process of sharing an external memory, information stored in the external memory can be replaced with a version corresponding to the different electronic device. For example, based on a firmware version (for example, version 2) stored in the firmware update information storage area, the external memory 600 can update an operating system area of another partition from version 1 to version 2. The storage of a version can be performed under the control of the control unit 440.”).
As per Claim 5, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Jung further discloses:
wherein the partitioned areas of the memory include a first area in which the first program is stored and a second area in which the second program is stored (Figure 5; paragraph [0086], “[…] the internal part of the external memory 430 may be divided into a plurality of partition areas. The plurality of partition areas may be recognized as if the electronic device has a plurality of external memories. Each partition existing in the plurality of partition areas can store individually different programs and information. If necessary, the external memory 430 can store different programs and information by configuring into a plurality of partition areas.”); and
Wherein [sic] the first area is assigned to a fixed specific location on the memory (Figure 5; paragraph [0103], “The internal parts of the external memory 520 is configured with a plurality of partition areas, and each partition area may store different information.”).
EXAMINER’S REMARKS
Figure 5 of Jung depicts an external memory configured with a plurality of partition areas. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that the plurality of partition areas are assigned to fixed specific locations on the external memory.
As per Claim 9, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Jung further discloses:
wherein the memory is a non-volatile memory (paragraph [0056], “The memory 230 (e.g. memory 130) may include at least one of the internal memory 232 and an external memory 234. The internal memory 232 may include at least one of a volatile memory (e.g. Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM), Static RAM (SRAM), Synchronous Dynamic RAM (SDRAM) or a non-volatile memory (e.g. One Time Programmable Read Only Memory (OTPROM), Programmable ROM (PROM), Erasable and Programmable ROM (EPROM), Electrically Erasable and Programmable ROM (EEPROM), mask ROM, flash ROM, NAND flash memory, and NOR flash memory).”).
As per Claim 10, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Jung further discloses:
wherein the device management system is a battery management system located within a battery system (paragraph [0071], “The power manager 345 may operate together with a Basic Input/Output System (BIOS) to manage a battery or power and provide power information required for the operation.”).
As per Claim 11, Jung discloses:
A program management method (paragraph [0002], “Various embodiments of the present disclosure relate to an electronic device having a separate external memory and a method for operating the same.”) of a device management system including at least one processor (Figure 1: 120) and a memory (Figure 1: 130) for storing a device management program (Figure 3), the program management method comprising:
storing, by the processor (Figure 1: 120), a first program and a second program independently in separately partitioned areas in the memory, wherein […] the second program is unrelated to the functional safety of the device (Figure 5; paragraph [0086], “[…] the internal part of the external memory 430 may be divided into a plurality of partition areas. The plurality of partition areas may be recognized as if the electronic device has a plurality of external memories. Each partition existing in the plurality of partition areas can store individually different programs and information [storing {…} a first program and a second program independently in separately partitioned areas in the memory]. If necessary, the external memory 430 can store different programs and information by configuring into a plurality of partition areas (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0108]1, “The system data 523 operates based on the kernel operating system of the electronic device and includes middleware for driving an upper level application program and framework operating system data. For example, the system data 523 may be a combination of Android framework data, iOS framework data, and application programs pre-installed by a manufacturer (emphasis added).”); and
EXAMINER’S REMARKS
Jung discloses that the system data includes middleware for driving an upper level application program and framework operating system data. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that the application programs of the system data are unrelated to functional safety of a device.
storing, by the processor, version information of the first program and version information of the second program independently, in the separately partitioned areas of the memory (Figure 5; paragraph [0093], “[…] the control unit 440 can control to store firmware version (binary information) corresponding to a different model name of an electronic device (for example, a different electronic device) in the firmware update information storage area of the external memory 430. Namely, the control unit 440 can update firmware stored in the firmware update information storage area of the external memory 430 (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0113], “[…] the firmware update information storage area 526 can store information (for example, software, operation recording program, and data) in order to update the firmware stored in the firmware storage area corresponding to a version of a different electronic device. In this case, the firmware update information storage area 526 may store information required for updating to various firmware versions (emphasis added).”).
Jung does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first program is related to a functional safety of the device […].
However, Fujimura discloses:
wherein the first program is related to a functional safety of the device […] (paragraph [0003], “In order to safely use machines that are used in many manufacturing sites, safety equipment (safety components) in accordance with international standards has to be used. This safety equipment is for preventing human safety from being threatened by automatically moving apparatuses such as robots. Such safety equipment includes a safety controller that executes a safety program as well as a detection device that detects the presence or intrusion of persons, an input device that receives operations in an emergency, an output device that actually stops a device, and the like (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0040], “[…] the ‘safety program’ is a program for causing an output device to operate such that safety is maintained if predetermined conditions (safety conditions) are satisfied, and means a group of commands that define processing of a safety controller. More specifically, the safety program includes a combination of commands for deciding values of one or more output signals for one or more input signals (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0066], “In the computation processing unit 108, the processor 102 realizes functional safety in accordance with a control target by expanding and executing, in the main memory 104, a system program, a safety program, and the like that are stored in the flash memory 106 [wherein the first program is related to functional safety of the device {…}] (emphasis added).”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Jung and Fujimura are both analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Fujimura into the teaching of Jung to include “wherein the first program is related to a functional safety of the device […].” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to execute a safety program that detects the presence or intrusion of persons, an input device that receives operations in an emergency, an output device that actually stops a device, and the like (Fujimura, paragraph [0003]).
As per Claim 12, the rejection of Claim 11 is incorporated; and Jung further discloses:
independently updating only version information of an updated program, in response to at least one of the first program and the second program being updated (paragraph [0127], “In the process of sharing an external memory, information stored in the external memory can be replaced with a version corresponding to the different electronic device. For example, based on a firmware version (for example, version 2) stored in the firmware update information storage area, the external memory 600 can update an operating system area of another partition from version 1 to version 2. The storage of a version can be performed under the control of the control unit 440.”).
As per Claim 13, the rejection of Claim 11 is incorporated; and Jung further discloses:
determining one of the first program and the second program as an update target program when an update mode of the device management program is initiated (paragraph [0168], “The control unit 440 detects a firmware update request at operation 1003. The firmware update request can be selected to update firmware (delta information) stored in the firmware update information storage area of the external memory. The selection can be detected through an input unit of the electronic device.”); and
independently updating the determined update target program (paragraph [0171], “Subsequently, the control unit 440 updates the firmware (delta information) stored in the firmware update information storage area with firmware corresponding to the different electronic device 940 at operation 1009.”).
As per Claim 14, the rejection of Claim 11 is incorporated; and Jung further discloses:
allocating an area where the first program is stored in a fixed specific location on the memory (Figure 5; paragraph [0103], “The internal parts of the external memory 520 is configured with a plurality of partition areas, and each partition area may store different information.”).
EXAMINER’S REMARKS
Figure 5 of Jung depicts an external memory configured with a plurality of partition areas. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that the plurality of partition areas are assigned to fixed specific locations on the external memory.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Fujimura as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2020/0285458 (hereinafter “Matsuda”).
EXAMINER’S REMARKS
In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).
The claimed invention is generally directed to a device management system including a partitioned memory and a program management method system using the memory (specification, paragraph [0002]). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Matsuda is generally directed to updating of programs used in control devices in a control system having multiple control devices (specification, paragraph [0004]). Thus, Matsuda is an analogous art to the claimed invention (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
As per Claim 4, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Jung and Fujimura does not explicitly disclose:
wherein, when an update mode of the device management program is initiated, the at least one processor is configured to in response to only one of the first program or the second program requiring an update, update the one of the first program or the second program that requires the update; and in response to both the first program and second program requiring an update, update the first program before the second program.
However, Matsuda discloses:
wherein, when an update mode of the device management program is initiated (paragraph [0067], “When the programs are updated, the control system 10A needs to stop the system. The system is stopped since no process can be executed for the time required for writing and restarting of the memories in the ECUs 13, 14.”), the at least one processor is configured to in response to only one of the first program or the second program requiring an update, update the one of the first program or the second program that requires the update; and in response to both the first program and second program requiring an update, update the first program before the second program (paragraph [0088], “If the first program needing to be updated exists (YES at S03), the control system 10A acquires the first program needing to be updated in accordance with the acquisition method included in the address data acquired at step S02 and stores the first program into the storage 129b (S04).”; paragraph [0092], “The control system 10A then acquires the second program needing to be updated in accordance with the acquisition method included in the address data acquired at step S02 and stores the second program into the program storage 129b (S07).”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Matsuda is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Matsuda into the combined teachings of Jung and Fujimura to include “wherein, when an update mode of the device management program is initiated, the at least one processor is configured to in response to only one of the first program or the second program requiring an update, update the one of the first program or the second program that requires the update; and in response to both the first program and second program requiring an update, update the first program before the second program.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to acquire a first program needing to be updated before acquiring a second program needing to be updated (Matsuda, paragraph [0058]).
Claims 6-8 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Fujimura as applied to Claims 5 and 11 above, and further in view of US 2006/0018227 (hereinafter “Nakajima”).
EXAMINER’S REMARKS
In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).
The claimed invention is generally directed to a device management system including a partitioned memory and a program management method system using the memory (specification, paragraph [0002]). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Nakajima is generally directed to a data rewriting method that can recover data, even if power turns off in process of writing and the data processing is interrupted (specification, paragraph [0003]). Thus, Nakajima is an analogous art to the claimed invention (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
As per Claim 6, the rejection of Claim 5 is incorporated; and Jung further discloses:
wherein each of the first area and the second area includes:
a code storage area for storing control logic for the device (paragraph [0105], “The second booting area 521 is separated from the first booting area 511 and may be configured to boot the electronic device. For example, the second booting area 521 may be a boot loader or Sboot. The second booting area 521 can provide information for distinguishing a model (type) of the electronic device. For example, the second booting area 521 may include information set by an electronic device manufacturer; however, it may not be essential.”); and
data storage area for storing data necessary for management or control of the device (paragraph [0108], “The system data 523 operates based on the kernel operating system of the electronic device and includes middleware for driving an upper level application program and framework operating system data. For example, the system data 523 may be a combination of Android framework data, iOS framework data, and application programs pre-installed by a manufacturer.”).
The combination of Jung and Fujimura does not explicitly disclose:
a verification information storage area in which verification information about for verifying whether data stored in each area is changed is stored.
However, Nakajima discloses:
a verification information storage area in which verification information about for verifying whether data stored in each area is changed is stored (paragraph [0061], “When the status flag of the status flag (management) area 14 is changed, the data rewriting process unit (the data management means) 22 inputs the data into the data memory area in which the status flag is changed (step S11). The data ‘abz’ is written into the data memory area into which the data is newly written, as shown in step S11 in FIG. 7.”; paragraph [0062], “Next, the status flag of the data memory area having the old data (abc) therein is changed into the status flag indicating that ‘the old data in process of rewriting’ (step S12). The data rewriting process unit (the data management means) 22 changes the status flag of the data memory area having the old data (abc) therein in step S12 shown in FIG. 7, into the ‘old data in process of rewriting’.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Nakajima is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Nakajima into the combined teachings of Jung and Fujimura to include “a verification information storage area in which verification information about for verifying whether data stored in each area is changed is stored.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to change a status flag of a memory having old data therein indicating that “the old data in process of rewriting” (Nakajima, paragraph [0062]).
As per Claim 7, the rejection of Claim 6 is incorporated; and Jung further discloses:
wherein a first code storage area included in the first area stores […] logic related to […] the device (paragraph [0105], “The second booting area 521 is separated from the first booting area 511 and may be configured to boot the electronic device. For example, the second booting area 521 may be a boot loader or Sboot. The second booting area 521 can provide information for distinguishing a model (type) of the electronic device. For example, the second booting area 521 may include information set by an electronic device manufacturer; however, it may not be essential.”), and
a first data storage area included in the first area stores set values related to the […] logic (paragraph [0108], “The system data 523 operates based on the kernel operating system of the electronic device and includes middleware for driving an upper level application program and framework operating system data. For example, the system data 523 may be a combination of Android framework data, iOS framework data, and application programs pre-installed by a manufacturer.”).
The combination of Jung and Nakajima does not explicitly disclose:
[…] diagnosis logic related to the functional safety of the device.
However, Fujimura discloses:
[…] diagnosis logic related to the functional safety of the device (paragraph [0003], “In order to safely use machines that are used in many manufacturing sites, safety equipment (safety components) in accordance with international standards has to be used. This safety equipment is for preventing human safety from being threatened by automatically moving apparatuses such as robots. Such safety equipment includes a safety controller that executes a safety program as well as a detection device that detects the presence or intrusion of persons, an input device that receives operations in an emergency, an output device that actually stops a device, and the like.”; paragraph [0040], “[…] the ‘safety program’ is a program for causing an output device to operate such that safety is maintained if predetermined conditions (safety conditions) are satisfied, and means a group of commands that define processing of a safety controller. More specifically, the safety program includes a combination of commands for deciding values of one or more output signals for one or more input signals.”; paragraph [0066], “In the computation processing unit 108, the processor 102 realizes functional safety in accordance with a control target by expanding and executing, in the main memory 104, a system program, a safety program, and the like that are stored in the flash memory 106.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Fujimura is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Fujimura into the combined teachings of Jung and Nakajima to include “[…] diagnosis logic related to the functional safety of the device.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to execute a safety program that detects the presence or intrusion of persons, an input device that receives operations in an emergency, an output device that actually stops a device, and the like (Fujimura, paragraph [0003]).
As per Claim 8, the rejection of Claim 7 is incorporated; and the combination of Jung and Fujimura does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to update verification information stored in a first verification information storage area of the first area when the data stored in at least one of the first code storage area and the first data storage area is changed.
However, Nakajima discloses:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to update verification information stored in a first verification information storage area of the first area when the data stored in at least one of the first code storage area and the first data storage area is changed (paragraph [0061], “When the status flag of the status flag (management) area 14 is changed, the data rewriting process unit (the data management means) 22 inputs the data into the data memory area in which the status flag is changed (step S11). The data ‘abz’ is written into the data memory area into which the data is newly written, as shown in step S11 in FIG. 7.”; paragraph [0062], “Next, the status flag of the data memory area having the old data (abc) therein is changed into the status flag indicating that ‘the old data in process of rewriting’ (step S12). The data rewriting process unit (the data management means) 22 changes the status flag of the data memory area having the old data (abc) therein in step S12 shown in FIG. 7, into the ‘old data in process of rewriting’.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Nakajima is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Nakajima into the combined teachings of Jung and Fujimura to include “wherein the at least one processor is configured to update verification information stored in a first verification information storage area of the first area when the data stored in at least one of the first code storage area and the first data storage area is changed.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to change a status flag of a memory having old data therein indicating that “the old data in process of rewriting” (Nakajima, paragraph [0062]).
As per Claim 15, the rejection of Claim 11 is incorporated; and Jung further discloses:
wherein the memory includes a first area in which the first program is stored; and a second area in which the second program is stored (Figure 5; paragraph [0086], “[…] the internal part of the external memory 430 may be divided into a plurality of partition areas. The plurality of partition areas may be recognized as if the electronic device has a plurality of external memories. Each partition existing in the plurality of partition areas can store individually different programs and information. If necessary, the external memory 430 can store different programs and information by configuring into a plurality of partition areas.”), and
each of the first area and the second area includes:
a code storage area for storing control logic for the device (paragraph [0105], “The second booting area 521 is separated from the first booting area 511 and may be configured to boot the electronic device. For example, the second booting area 521 may be a boot loader or Sboot. The second booting area 521 can provide information for distinguishing a model (type) of the electronic device. For example, the second booting area 521 may include information set by an electronic device manufacturer; however, it may not be essential.”); and
data storage area for storing data necessary for management or control of the device (paragraph [0108], “The system data 523 operates based on the kernel operating system of the electronic device and includes middleware for driving an upper level application program and framework operating system data. For example, the system data 523 may be a combination of Android framework data, iOS framework data, and application programs pre-installed by a manufacturer.”).
The combination of Jung and Fujimura does not explicitly disclose:
a verification information storage area in which verification information about whether data stored in each area is changed.
However, Nakajima discloses:
a verification information storage area in which verification information about whether data stored in each area is changed (paragraph [0061], “When the status flag of the status flag (management) area 14 is changed, the data rewriting process unit (the data management means) 22 inputs the data into the data memory area in which the status flag is changed (step S11). The data ‘abz’ is written into the data memory area into which the data is newly written, as shown in step S11 in FIG. 7.”; paragraph [0062], “Next, the status flag of the data memory area having the old data (abc) therein is changed into the status flag indicating that ‘the old data in process of rewriting’ (step S12). The data rewriting process unit (the data management means) 22 changes the status flag of the data memory area having the old data (abc) therein in step S12 shown in FIG. 7, into the ‘old data in process of rewriting’.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Nakajima is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Nakajima into the combined teachings of Jung and Fujimura to include “a verification information storage area in which verification information about whether data stored in each area is changed.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to change a status flag of a memory having old data therein indicating that “the old data in process of rewriting” (Nakajima, paragraph [0062]).
As per Claim 16, the rejection of Claim 15 is incorporated; and Jung further discloses:
storing […] logic related to […] the device in a first code storage area included in the first area and storing set values related to the […] logic in a first data storage area included in the first area (paragraph [0105], “The second booting area 521 is separated from the first booting area 511 and may be configured to boot the electronic device. For example, the second booting area 521 may be a boot loader or Sboot. The second booting area 521 can provide information for distinguishing a model (type) of the electronic device. For example, the second booting area 521 may include information set by an electronic device manufacturer; however, it may not be essential.”; paragraph [0108], “The system data 523 operates based on the kernel operating system of the electronic device and includes middleware for driving an upper level application program and framework operating system data. For example, the system data 523 may be a combination of Android framework data, iOS framework data, and application programs pre-installed by a manufacturer.”).
The combination of Jung and Nakajima does not explicitly disclose:
[…] diagnosis logic related to the functional safety of the device […].
However, Fujimura discloses:
[…] diagnosis logic related to the functional safety of the device […] (paragraph [0003], “In order to safely use machines that are used in many manufacturing sites, safety equipment (safety components) in accordance with international standards has to be used. This safety equipment is for preventing human safety from being threatened by automatically moving apparatuses such as robots. Such safety equipment includes a safety controller that executes a safety program as well as a detection device that detects the presence or intrusion of persons, an input device that receives operations in an emergency, an output device that actually stops a device, and the like.”; paragraph [0040], “[…] the ‘safety program’ is a program for causing an output device to operate such that safety is maintained if predetermined conditions (safety conditions) are satisfied, and means a group of commands that define processing of a safety controller. More specifically, the safety program includes a combination of commands for deciding values of one or more output signals for one or more input signals.”; paragraph [0066], “In the computation processing unit 108, the processor 102 realizes functional safety in accordance with a control target by expanding and executing, in the main memory 104, a system program, a safety program, and the like that are stored in the flash memory 106.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Fujimura is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Fujimura into the combined teachings of Jung and Nakajima to include “[…] diagnosis logic related to the functional safety of the device […].” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to execute a safety program that detects the presence or intrusion of persons, an input device that receives operations in an emergency, an output device that actually stops a device, and the like (Fujimura, paragraph [0003]).
As per Claim 17, the rejection of Claim 16 is incorporated; and the combination of Jung and Fujimura does not explicitly disclose:
updating verification information stored in a first verification information storage area of the first area when the data stored in at least one of the first code storage area and the first data storage area is changed.
However, Nakajima discloses:
updating verification information stored in a first verification information storage area of the first area when the data stored in at least one of the first code storage area and the first data storage area is changed (paragraph [0061], “When the status flag of the status flag (management) area 14 is changed, the data rewriting process unit (the data management means) 22 inputs the data into the data memory area in which the status flag is changed (step S11). The data ‘abz’ is written into the data memory area into which the data is newly written, as shown in step S11 in FIG. 7.”; paragraph [0062], “Next, the status flag of the data memory area having the old data (abc) therein is changed into the status flag indicating that ‘the old data in process of rewriting’ (step S12). The data rewriting process unit (the data management means) 22 changes the status flag of the data memory area having the old data (abc) therein in step S12 shown in FIG. 7, into the ‘old data in process of rewriting’.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Nakajima is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Nakajima into the combined teachings of Jung and Fujimura to include “updating verification information stored in a first verification information storage area of the first area when the data stored in at least one of the first code storage area and the first data storage area is changed.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to change a status flag of a memory having old data therein indicating that “the old data in process of rewriting” (Nakajima, paragraph [0062]).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure. They are as follows:
US 2017/0262328 (hereinafter “Hirose”) discloses a physical memory to be partitioned into a plurality of areas and to store storage information.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
US 2022/0100490 (hereinafter “Hwang”) discloses updating of an existing software package being used and execute a download service of new software.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
US 2022/0250764 (hereinafter “Roche”) discloses single-core and multi-core systems for graphical user interfaces.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Qing Chen whose telephone number is 571-270-1071. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/ interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Wei Mui, can be reached at 571-272-3708. 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 more 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.
/Qing Chen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191
Prosecution Insights