Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 08/30/2024. Claims 1-10 are pending in this application. Claims 1 and 6 are independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claims 1 and 6 are corresponding to one of four statutory categories including method, system, and method respectively under step 1. The claims 1 and 6 similarly recites “a method performed by an apparatus configured to update vehicle software, the method comprising: receiving a request regarding a vehicle software update; determining whether a state of charge (SOC) of a vehicle battery can be calculated; determining, based on a determination that the SOC of the vehicle battery can be calculated, whether the vehicle software can be updated according to a value obtained by subtracting an expected amount of discharge from a current capacity of a battery being greater than a predetermined amount of energy; determining, based on a determination that the SOC of the vehicle battery cannot be calculated, whether the vehicle software can be updated according to an amount of accumulated current being greater than the expected amount of discharge; and updating, based on (i) a determination that the vehicle software can be updated and (ii) a vehicle engine being turned off, the vehicle software according to a remaining capacity of the vehicle battery, wherein the expected amount of discharge is an amount of energy required to update the vehicle software”
The limitation of the claims 1 and 6 of “determining whether a state of charge (SOC) of a vehicle battery can be calculated” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine whether a state of charge (SOC) of a vehicle battery can be calculated with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1 and 6 of “determining, based on a determination that the SOC of the vehicle battery can be calculated, whether the vehicle software can be updated according to a value obtained by subtracting an expected amount of discharge from a current capacity of a battery being greater than a predetermined amount of energy” as drafted, is a mathematical operation that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical operation but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “calculating” and “subtracting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine, based on a determination that the SOC of the vehicle battery can be calculated, whether the vehicle software can be updated according to a value obtained by subtracting an expected amount of discharge from a current capacity of a battery being greater than a predetermined amount of energy with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operations” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1 and 6 of “determining, based on a determination that the SOC of the vehicle battery cannot be calculated, whether the vehicle software can be updated according to an amount of accumulated current being greater than the expected amount of discharge, wherein the expected amount of discharge is an amount of energy required to update the vehicle software” as drafted, is a mathematical operation that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical operation but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “determining … greater than … [calculating]” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine, based on a determination that the SOC of the vehicle battery cannot be calculated, whether the vehicle software can be updated according to an amount of accumulated current being greater than the expected amount of discharge, wherein the expected amount of discharge is an amount of energy required to update the vehicle software with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operations” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1 and 6 recite additional elements such as “receiving a request regarding a vehicle software update”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1 and 6 recite additional elements such as “updating, based on (i) a determination that the vehicle software can be updated and (ii) a vehicle engine being turned off, the vehicle software according to a remaining capacity of the vehicle battery”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to apply it under MPEP § 2106.05(f): Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 2 and 7 recite additional elements such as “wherein the predetermined amount of energy is a value required to turn on the vehicle engine, and wherein the amount of accumulated current is an amount of current charged while the vehicle engine is operating”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
The limitation of the claims 3 and 8 of “the amount of accumulated current is calculated based on a map, and wherein the amount of accumulated current is calculated based on a temperature of a vehicle battery liquid, a charging voltage, and a charging current” as drafted, is a mathematical operation that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical operation but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “calculating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may calculate the amount of accumulated current based on a map, and wherein the amount of accumulated current is calculated based on a temperature of a vehicle battery liquid, a charging voltage, and a charging current with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operations” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 4 and 9 of “wherein the amount of accumulated current is calculated by multiplying a value of the charging current by a weight based on a range of the temperature of the vehicle battery liquid and a range of the charging current” as drafted, is a mathematical operation that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical operation but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “calculating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may calculate the amount of accumulated current by multiplying a value of the charging current by a weight based on a range of the temperature of the vehicle battery liquid and a range of the charging current with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operations” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 5 and 10 of “the expected amount of discharge is calculated by multiplying a value of discharge current by time taken to update the vehicle software” as drafted, is a mathematical operation that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical operation but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “calculating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may calculate the expected amount of discharge by multiplying a value of discharge current by time taken to update the vehicle software with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Operations” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
Dependent claims 2-5 and 7-10 are also similar rejected under same rationale as cited above wherein these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These claims are merely further elaborate the mental process itself or providing additional definition of process which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 2-5 and 7-10 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their independent claims 1 and 6 respectively.
Reasons for Allowance
4. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior-art, Poenaru (US Patent 10394542), in view of Xie (US PGPub 20210208202), in view of Teraoka (US PGPub 20180018160), and further in view of Fushiki (US PGPub 20150032326) failed to disclose of a method performed by an apparatus configured to update vehicle software, the method comprising: receiving a request regarding a vehicle software update; determining whether a state of charge (SOC) of a vehicle battery can be calculated; determining, based on a determination that the SOC of the vehicle battery can be calculated, whether the vehicle software can be updated according to a value obtained by subtracting an expected amount of discharge from a current capacity of a battery being greater than a predetermined amount of energy; determining, based on a determination that the SOC of the vehicle battery cannot be calculated, whether the vehicle software can be updated according to an amount of accumulated current being greater than the expected amount of discharge; and updating, based on (i) a determination that the vehicle software can be updated and (ii) a vehicle engine being turned off, the vehicle software according to a remaining capacity of the vehicle battery, wherein the expected amount of discharge is an amount of energy required to update the vehicle software, as recited by the independent claim 1.
Regarding Claim 1, the closest prior-art found, Mishra, Sato, Redford and Ido discloses of a method performed by an apparatus configured to update vehicle software, the method comprising: receiving a request regarding a vehicle software update; determining whether a state of charge (SOC) of a vehicle battery can be calculated; determining, based on a determination that the SOC of the vehicle battery can be calculated, whether the vehicle software can be updated according to a value obtained by subtracting an expected amount of discharge from a current capacity of a battery being greater than a predetermined amount of energy; and updating, based on (i) a determination that the vehicle software can be updated and (ii) a vehicle engine being turned off, the vehicle software according to a remaining capacity of the vehicle battery, wherein the expected amount of discharge is an amount of energy required to update the vehicle software.
Individually, Poenaru teaches to determine that the firmware code update is not successfully received, determine, based on determining that the firmware code update is not successfully received, an amount of power remaining in a battery, send a request to retransmit the firmware code update based on determining that the amount of power remaining in the battery satisfies a threshold, determine, based on sending the request and determining that the firmware code update is not successfully received, and based on determining that the amount of power remaining in the battery does not satisfy the threshold, that the secondary memory includes a backup firmware, wherein the backup firmware includes a set of functionalities for the electronic device, and install the backup firmware, from the secondary memory, in the main memory to provide functionality to the electronic device; and the battery to supply power to the main memory, the secondary memory, and the one or more processors.
Xie teaches that according to some embodiments of the present application, the method for updating voltage difference of battery further includes detecting a state of charge-2 of the battery (hereinafter SOC-2) and an actual capacity-1 of the battery; determining a first state of charge (hereinafter first SOC) according to the SOC-2 and the actual capacity-1 of the battery; and determining the SOC-1 according to the first SOC.
Teraoka teaches that the update control unit 11011 of the software updating apparatus 11 calculates (S2111) power consumption of update processing by adding power consumption D3111 and D3211 included in the update information 5 together. Next, the update control unit 11011 transmits a battery level acquisition request to the power source management ECU 14 via the in-car communication control unit 11013 (S2112). Once the battery level acquisition request is received, the power source management ECU 14 transmits a reply including the battery level of the storage battery (S2113). Once the battery level acquisition reply is received, the update control unit 11011 of the software updating apparatus 11 compares a value obtained by subtracting power consumption calculated beforehand from the battery level included in the received reply with a predetermined value d (for example, a value obtained by adding a margin to the amount of power necessary for staring an engine, such as 1 Wh) (S2114). It is determined to be a state where update cannot be started in a case where the value obtained by subtracting power consumption from the battery level is equal to or lower than the predetermined value d, it is determined to be a state where update can be started in a case where the value obtained by subtracting power consumption from the battery level is larger than the predetermined value d, and this result is used in start determination S212 for the update of FIG. 8.
Fushiki teaches that there is proposed a technique in which a threshold value of SOC_of a battery used for determining whether to start or stop an engine during external electric power supply is made different from a threshold value of SOC of the battery while the vehicle is running.
However, the prior-art, Poenaru, Xie, Teraoka and Fushiki failed to disclose the following subject matter such as “determining, based on a determination that the SOC of the vehicle battery cannot be calculated, whether the vehicle software can be updated according to an amount of accumulated current being greater than the expected amount of discharge, wherein the expected amount of discharge is an amount of energy required to update the vehicle software”.
Claim 6 is a system claim, similar to the claim 1.
Therefore, the prior-art, Poenaru, Xie, Teraoka and Fushiki failed to teach the method of claim 1 and the system claim of claim 6 as well as their dependent claims. Thus, claims 1-10 contain allowable subject matter.
5. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAE UK JEON whose telephone number is (571)270-3649. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-6pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chat Do can be reached on 571-272-3721. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAE U JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights