DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 10 are currently amended.
Claims 1-18 are pending.
35 U.S.C. § 101
Remark 1: Applicant contends that the present claims are directed to a specific technical sequence of machine operations: (i) a cloud-based system generating a software policy data structure on-demand based on engineer input; (ii) transmitting that data structure via an API call to a vehicle ECU; (iii) the ECU storing the data structure in a defined memory location; (iv) the ECU executing software code according to configuration parameters defined by that data structure for a defined period of execution cycles; and (iv) the ECU automatically deleting the data structure from memory when the period expires. Applicant submits that these are technical operations performed by technical components - a cloud-based system, an API, an ECU, a memory, and a software execution environment, not human organizational activities.
Response to Remark 1: Applicant's argument is not persuasive because these features are part of the additional elements discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two.
Remark 2: Applicant contends that this combination of limitations of on-demand generation without permanent policy creation, structural distinction from permanent policies, and automatic deletion after expiration, defines a specific technical improvement to the existing vehicle software policy management technology.
Response to Remark 2: Examiner respectfully disagrees. What applicant contends is an improvement is merely an improvement in the recited abstract idea, and not an improvement in the functioning of computers, nor technology, nor a technical field. Moreover, a general-purpose computer would be capable of performing these same operations of a mere improvement in the abstract idea. Here, the additional elements individually and in combination, are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, this contention is unpersuasive.
Remark 3: Applicant contends that the claims apply the abstract idea with a particular machine that is integral to the claim.
Response to Remark 3: It is important to note that a general-purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine (See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)). Here, applicant has used generic computing components and Examiner asserts that in combination they amount to a generic computer, therefore a particular machine is not claimed.
Remark 4: Applicant contends that the Examiner concluded that the specification does not assert that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer. The amended claims now expressly recite that the temporary policy is generated without prior creation of a permanent policy, directly asserting an improvement over the conventional multi-step workflow that requires permanent policy creation. The specification at the Background and Description sections expressly describes this as an improvement over conventional technology. Also, eliminating mandatory permanent policy creation, enabling automatic deletion, and using a single API call, is an improvement to the technical architecture of vehicle software policy management, not an improvement to the abstract concept of policy management in general.
Response to Remark 4: Examiner respectfully disagrees. What applicant contends is an improvement is merely an improvement in the recited abstract idea, and not an improvement in the functioning of computers, nor technology, nor a technical field. Moreover, a general-purpose computer would be capable of performing these same operations of a mere improvement in the abstract idea. Here, the additional elements individually and in combination, are recited at a high level of generality as generic and conventional computers and components merely serving as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, this contention is unpersuasive.
Remark 5: Applicant contends that the ordered combination of the following claim features, (1) a vehicle ECU configured to receive and execute software code according to software policies; (2) a cloud-based system that generates a temporary policy on-demand without prior creation of a permanent policy; (3) delivery via an API call; (4) temporary storage in ECU memory; (5) execution for a temporary period of execution cycles; and (6) automatic deletion after the temporary period, is not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the field of vehicle ECU software management.
Response to Remark 5: Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because these features are part of the abstract idea discussed in Step 2A, Prong One and thus do not provide an inventive concept.
35 U.S.C. § 103
Remark 1: Applicant contends that the amended claim limitations of claims 1 and 10 are not taught by the cited art.
Response to Remark 1: Regarding claims 1-9, Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previous rejections. Accordingly, the previous rejections are withdrawn. Regarding claim 10, the combination of Fukuyo in view of Barrett does not disclose "wherein the temporary software policy is generated on-demand by the cloud-based system without prior creation of a reusable permanent policy and is distinct from any permanent software policy stored at the ECU, and wherein the temporary software policy is automatically deleted from the memory of the ECU after the temporary period expires." However, the limitation does not define a step nor an act to be performed in the process claim (See MPEP 2103(I)(C) because it does not constitute any positively-recited method steps. Thus, it does not have a limiting effect. Examiner suggests amending the claims in order for the limitations to have a limiting effect.
Remark 2: Applicant contends that, regarding claim 11, paragraph [0018] of the Barrett reference discloses an API call for delivering software to a vehicle ECU, but does not disclose a single API call that handles the complete workflow from temporary policy delivery through storage, execution triggering, and execution result return, particularly in the context of a temporary policy generated on-demand without prior permanent policy creation.
Response to Remark 2: Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the features noted by Applicant are not claimed (e.g., complete workflow from temporary policy delivery through storage, execution triggering, and execution result return). The claimed term “is” is singular and only refers to one of the claimed features, rather than use of “are”. Also, the claimed term “is performed via a single API call” is not a positively-recited method step, thus does not define a step nor an act to be performed in the process claim (See MPEP 2103(I)(C)). Examiner suggests amending the claim in order for the limitations to have a limiting effect.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter (See MPEP § 2106.03, subsections I and II). Claims 1-9 are directed to a computer-implemented system (i.e., machine, and manufacture). Claims 10-18 are directed to a computer-implemented method (i.e., process). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon (MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1)). Claims 1 and 10 under a broadest reasonable interpretation recite an abstract idea because the claims describe generating, delivering, storing, and executing a temporary policy on-demand, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas because the limitations describe fundamental economic principles or practices, including mitigating risk, and describe commercial or legal interactions, including agreements in the form of contracts, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea.
Claim 1:
A live software policy management system for vehicle, the system comprising:
an electronic control unit (ECU) of the vehicle that is configured to
receive and execute a software code according to one or more software policies; and
a cloud-based system configured to:
generate, on-demand, a temporary software policy based on input from a software engineer, and
deliver, via an application program interface (API) call, the temporary software policy to the ECU,
wherein in response to receiving the temporary software policy, the ECU is further configured to:
store the temporary software policy in a memory of the ECU, and
execute the software code according to the temporary software policy for a temporary period,
wherein the temporary software policy is generated on-demand by the cloud-based system without prior creation of a reusable permanent policy and is distinct from any permanent software policy stored at the ECU, and wherein the temporary software policy is automatically deleted from the memory of the ECU after the temporary period expires.
Claim 10:
A live software policy management method for vehicle, the method comprising:
providing an electronic control unit (ECU) of the vehicle that is configured to receive and execute a software code according to one or more software policies;
generating on-demand, by a cloud-based system, a temporary software policy based on input from a software engineer;
delivering, by the cloud-based system and via an application program interface (API) call, the temporary software policy to the ECU; and
in response to receiving the temporary software policy:
storing, by the ECU, the temporary software policy in a memory of the ECU; and
executing, by the ECU, the software code according to the temporary software policy for a temporary period,
wherein the temporary software policy is generated on-demand by the cloud-based system without prior creation of a reusable permanent policy and is distinct from any permanent software policy stored at the ECU, and wherein the temporary software policy is automatically deleted from the memory of the ECU after the temporary period expires.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2)). Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations discussed in more detail in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.04(d)(2), 2106.05(a) through (c) and 2106.05(e) through (h). Here, the non-underlined claim limitations above recite additional elements. The additional elements do not improve the functioning of computers, another technology, or a technical field (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)). The Specification does not assert that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. The claim does not purport to improve computer capabilities, but rather invokes computers merely as a tool by adding general purpose computers post-hoc to an abstract idea. A commonplace business method being applied on a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement to technology. The claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. The Specification and the claim language provide evidence that the focus of the claim is on a scheme. An improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. Even if the Specification describes technical improvements, they are not claimed. The additional elements do not apply the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)). The additional elements do not implement the abstract idea with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim (MPEP § 2106.05(b)). A general-purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. The additional elements do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP § 2106.05(c)). The claim does not recite any transformation of an article where the article changes to a different state or thing. Nor do the additional elements apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way or impose a meaningful limit on it beyond linking its use to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05(e)). The additional elements generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. A wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of additional feature that provides any practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea itself. The additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements are being used in their ordinary capacity. The additional elements do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. The additional elements generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to the abstract idea identified above.
Step 2B
Step 2B determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP § 2106.05). In Step 2B examiners carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two; carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e), (f) and (h); re-evaluate any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and evaluate whether any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d). The additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The additional elements generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Here, the additional elements simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Here, the specification of the application indicates that additional elements are well-known or conventional (See Spec. 0017-0019, 0022-0024, 0028-0031). There is nothing in the specification to indicate that the operations recited in the claims require any specialized hardware or inventive computer components or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. The ordered combination recites no more than the individual elements do. Thus, the additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to the abstract idea identified above without significantly more. The claims are not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Dependent Claims
Claim 2 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes generating, delivering, storing, and executing a temporary policy on-demand, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0017-0019, 0022-0024, 0028-0031). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the cloud-based system is configured to
deliver the temporary software policy to the ECU and
cause its storage in the memory and its subsequent execution via a single API call.
Claim 3 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes generating, delivering, storing, and executing a temporary policy on-demand, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0017-0019, 0022-0024, 0028-0031). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the cloud-based system is further configured to
receive information relating to the execution of the software code according to the temporary software policy.
Claim 4 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes generating, delivering, storing, and executing a temporary policy on-demand, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0017-0019, 0022-0024, 0028-0031). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the cloud-based system is configured to
receive the information as a response to the single API call.
Claim 5 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes generating, delivering, storing, and executing a temporary policy on-demand, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0017-0019, 0022-0024, 0028-0031). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the memory is a temporary or rolling buffer that only temporarily stores the temporary software policy and then deletes the temporary software policy.
Claim 6 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes generating, delivering, storing, and executing a temporary policy on-demand, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0017-0019, 0022-0024, 0028-0031). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the temporary period during which the temporary software policy is utilized is specified by a message accompanying the delivery of the temporary software policy via the API call.
Claim 7 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes generating, delivering, storing, and executing a temporary policy on-demand, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0017-0019, 0022-0024, 0028-0031). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the temporary period is a number of execution cycles in which the temporary software policy is utilized.
Claim 8 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes generating, delivering, storing, and executing a temporary policy on-demand, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0017-0019, 0022-0024, 0028-0031). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the one or more software policies include the temporary software policy and a permanent software policy, and wherein the temporary software policy defines a different JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) library than the permanent software policy.
Claim 9 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes generating, delivering, storing, and executing a temporary policy on-demand, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0017-0019, 0022-0024, 0028-0031). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein each of the one or more software policies, including the temporary software policy, defines a set of configuration parameters or an environment for executing the software code.
Claim 11 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes generating, delivering, storing, and executing a temporary policy on-demand, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0017-0019, 0022-0024, 0028-0031). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the delivering of the temporary software policy to the ECU and the storing of the temporary software policy in the memory and its subsequent execution is performed via a single API call.
Claim 12 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes generating, delivering, storing, and executing a temporary policy on-demand, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0017-0019, 0022-0024, 0028-0031). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
receiving, by the cloud-based system, information relating to the execution of the software code according to the temporary software policy.
Claim 13 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes generating, delivering, storing, and executing a temporary policy on-demand, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0017-0019, 0022-0024, 0028-0031). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the receiving of the information is via a response to the single API call.
Claim 14 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes generating, delivering, storing, and executing a temporary policy on-demand, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0017-0019, 0022-0024, 0028-0031). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the memory is a temporary or rolling buffer that only temporarily stores the temporary software policy and then deletes the temporary software policy.
Claim 15 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes generating, delivering, storing, and executing a temporary policy on-demand, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0017-0019, 0022-0024, 0028-0031). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the temporary period during which the temporary software policy is utilized is specified by a message accompanying the delivery of the temporary software policy via the API call.
Claim 16 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes generating, delivering, storing, and executing a temporary policy on-demand, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0017-0019, 0022-0024, 0028-0031). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the temporary period is a number of execution cycles in which the temporary software policy is utilized.
Claim 17 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes generating, delivering, storing, and executing a temporary policy on-demand, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0017-0019, 0022-0024, 0028-0031). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the one or more software policies include the temporary software policy and a permanent software policy, and wherein the temporary software policy defines a different JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) library than the permanent software policy.
Claim 18 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes generating, delivering, storing, and executing a temporary policy on-demand, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0017-0019, 0022-0024, 0028-0031). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein each of the one or more software policies, including the temporary software policy, defines a set of configuration parameters or an environment for executing the software code.
Claims Free of Art
Claims 1-9 are free of art. The closest prior art of record is US 2024/0201977 A1 (“Fukuyo”). Fukuyo teaches:
an electronic control unit (ECU) of the vehicle that is configured to receive and execute a software code according to one or more software policies [providing an electronic control unit (ECU) of the vehicle that is configured to receive and execute a software code according to one or more software policies] (0049, 0052, 0059-0060)
a cloud-based system configured to: generate, on-demand, a temporary software policy based on input from a software engineer [generating on-demand, by a cloud-based system, a temporary software policy based on input from a software engineer] (0027, 0055, 0061-0062)
deliver, … , the temporary software policy to the ECU [delivering, by the cloud-based system … the temporary software policy to the ECU] (0056, 0060, 0064)
wherein in response to receiving the temporary software policy, the ECU is further configured to: store the temporary software policy in a memory of the ECU, and [in response to receiving the temporary software policy: storing, by the ECU, the temporary software policy in a memory of the ECU] (0048-0049, 0059)
execute the software code according to the temporary software policy for a temporary period [executing, by the ECU, the software code according to the temporary software policy for a temporary period] (0052, 0057, 0060, 0072, 0094)
US 2014/0129047 A1 (“Barrett”) is also of interest. Barrett teaches:
via an application program interface (API) call (0018, 0020-0021, 0053, 0071)
Therefore, the prior art does not teach, neither singly nor in combination the following:
wherein the temporary software policy is generated on-demand by the cloud-based system without prior creation of a reusable permanent policy and is distinct from any permanent software policy stored at the ECU, and wherein the temporary software policy is automatically deleted from the memory of the ECU after the temporary period expires.
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 10-13, 15, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0201977 A1 (“Fukuyo”) in view of US 2014/0129047 A1 (“Barrett”).
Claims 10:
Fukuyo discloses:
an electronic control unit (ECU) of the vehicle that is configured to receive and execute a software code according to one or more software policies [providing an electronic control unit (ECU) of the vehicle that is configured to receive and execute a software code according to one or more software policies] (0049, 0052, 0059-0060)
a cloud-based system configured to: generate, on-demand, a temporary software policy based on input from a software engineer [generating on-demand, by a cloud-based system, a temporary software policy based on input from a software engineer] (0027, 0055, 0061-0062)
deliver, … , the temporary software policy to the ECU [delivering, by the cloud-based system … the temporary software policy to the ECU] (0056, 0060, 0064)
wherein in response to receiving the temporary software policy, the ECU is further configured to: store the temporary software policy in a memory of the ECU, and [in response to receiving the temporary software policy: storing, by the ECU, the temporary software policy in a memory of the ECU] (0048-0049, 0059)
execute the software code according to the temporary software policy for a temporary period [executing, by the ECU, the software code according to the temporary software policy for a temporary period] (0052, 0057, 0060, 0072, 0094)
Fukuyo does not disclose:
via an application program interface (API) call
wherein the temporary software policy is generated on-demand by the cloud-based system without prior creation of a reusable permanent policy and is distinct from any permanent software policy stored at the ECU, and wherein the temporary software policy is automatically deleted from the memory of the ECU after the temporary period expires.
Barrett, an analogous art of vehicle ECUs, discloses:
via an application program interface (API) call (0018, 0020-0021, 0053, 0071)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the software delivery of Fukuyo to include an API call, as disclosed in Barrett. One or ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to improve security and flexibility (See Barrett, 0002-0004).
The combination of Fukuyo in view of Barrett does not disclose:
wherein the temporary software policy is generated on-demand by the cloud-based system without prior creation of a reusable permanent policy and is distinct from any permanent software policy stored at the ECU, and wherein the temporary software policy is automatically deleted from the memory of the ECU after the temporary period expires.
However, the limitation does not define a step nor an act to be performed in the process claim (See MPEP 2103(I)(C) because it does not constitute any positively-recited method steps. Thus, it does not have a limiting effect. Examiner suggests amending the claims in order for the limitations to have a limiting effect
Claim 11:
The combination of Fukuyo in view of Barrett discloses all limitations of claim 10. Fukuyo further discloses:
wherein the delivering of the temporary software policy to the ECU and (0056, 0060, 0064)
the storing of the temporary software policy in the memory and its subsequent execution is performed] … (0048-0049, 0052, 0059-0060)
Fukuyo does not disclose:
via a single API call
Barrett further discloses:
via a single API call (0018, 0020-0021, 0053, 0071)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the software delivery of Fukuyo to include a single API call, as disclosed in Barrett. One or ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to improve security and flexibility (See Barrett, 0002-0004).
Claim 12:
The combination of Fukuyo in view of Barrett discloses all limitations of claim 11. Fukuyo further discloses:
receiving, by the cloud-based system, information relating to the execution of the software code according to the temporary software policy (0042, 0048-0052)
Claim 13:
The combination of Fukuyo in view of Barrett discloses all limitations of claim 12. Fukuyo further discloses:
wherein the receiving of the information is via a response (0042, 0048-0052)
Fukuyo does not disclose:
to the single API call
Barrett further discloses:
to the single API call (0018, 0020-0021, 0053, 0071)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the software delivery of Fukuyo to include a single API call, as disclosed in Barrett. One or ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to improve security and flexibility (See Barrett, 0002-0004).
Claim 15:
The combination of Fukuyo in view of Barrett discloses all limitations of claim 10. Fukuyo further discloses:
wherein the temporary period during which the temporary software policy is utilized is specified by a message accompanying the delivery of the temporary software policy (0057, 0072, 0094)
Fukuyo does not disclose:
via the API call
Barrett further discloses:
via the API call (0018, 0020-0021, 0053, 0071)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the software delivery of Fukuyo to include an API call, as disclosed in Barrett. One or ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to improve security and flexibility (See Barrett, 0002-0004).
Claim 17:
The combination of Fukuyo in view of Barrett discloses all limitations of claim 10. Fukuyo further discloses:
wherein the one or more software policies include the temporary software policy and a permanent software policy, and wherein the temporary software policy defines a different JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) library than the permanent software policy. (0053, 0057, 0059, 0093)
Claim 18:
The combination of Fukuyo in view of Barrett discloses all limitations of claim 10. Fukuyo further discloses:
wherein each of the one or more software policies, including the temporary software policy, defines a set of configuration parameters or an environment for executing the software code. (0053, 0057, 0072, 0093-0094)
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuyo in view of Barrett and further in view of WO 2024/003276 A1 (“Rohan”).
Claim 14:
The combination of Fukuyo in view of Barrett discloses all limitations of claim 10. Fukuyo in view of Barrett does not disclose:
wherein the memory is a temporary or rolling buffer that only temporarily stores the temporary software policy and then deletes the temporary software policy
Rohan, an analogous art of vehicle ECUs, discloses:
wherein the memory is a temporary or rolling buffer that only temporarily stores the temporary software policy and then deletes the temporary software policy (0020-0022)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fukuyo in view of Barrett to include the memory being a temporary or rolling buffer that only temporarily stores the temporary software policy and then deletes the temporary software policy, as disclosed in Rohan. One or ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to improve security and flexibility (See Rohan, 0002-0005).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuyo in view of Barrett and further in view of US 2017/0090982 A1 (“Govindarajan”).
Claim 16:
The combination of Fukuyo in view of Barrett discloses all limitations of claim 15. Fukuyo in view of Barrett does not disclose:
wherein the temporary period is a number of execution cycles in which the temporary software policy is utilized
Govindarajan, an analogous art of vehicle ECUs, discloses:
wherein the temporary period is a number of execution cycles in which the temporary software policy is utilized (0014-0015; claims 3, 8)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fukuyo in view of Barrett to include wherein the temporary period is a number of execution cycles in which the temporary software policy is utilized, as disclosed in Govindarajan. One or ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to improve security (See Govindarajan, 0003-0005).
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2024/0192945 A1 to Choi discloses: An embodiment method for managing at least one vehicle network including at least one electronic control unit (ECU) among a plurality of ECUs in a vehicle network management apparatus is provided, which may include, based on information of at least one default partial network cluster including at least one ECU among the plurality of ECUs according to at least one default partial network function provided by default in a mapping database, configuring a new partial network cluster by adding an ECU according to user customization to the at least one default partial network cluster, and storing information of the new partial network cluster in the mapping database.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ari Shahabi whose telephone number is (571)272-2565. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00.
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, John W Hayes can be reached at 571-272-6708. 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.
/ARI SHAHABI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
