DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial Office action based on the application filed on August 8, 2024.
Claims 1-9 are pending.
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 Interpretation
For clarity of the prosecution history record, Claims 1-9 are directed to an update management system comprising a plurality of arithmetic operation devices. It is noted that the Applicant’s specification expressly states that “[t]he first arithmetic operation device 101 includes an operation unit 104 […]” (paragraph [0012]) and “[t]he operation unit 104 is configured with a central processing unit (CPU) and includes: an arithmetic operation unit 105 that executes a program; a random access memory (RAM) 106 in which data can be written and from which data can be read out; and a ROM 107 from which data can be read out” (paragraph [0013]). Thus, such statements appear to provide a special definition that explicitly excludes an arithmetic operation device from being interpreted as software per se. Therefore, Claims 1-9 can rely on the special definition and are eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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: UPDATE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR AN ELECTRONIC CONTROL UNIT (ECU) MOUNTED ON A VEHICLE.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “after updating the program stored in the second arithmetic operation device.” It should read -- after updating the program stored in the second arithmetic operation device is completed --.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claims 2 and 3 recite “the vehicle stops.” It should read -- the vehicle stops traveling --.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 3 recites “after updating the program stored in the first arithmetic operation device.” It should read -- after updating the program stored in the first arithmetic operation device is completed --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim Interpretation: It is essential that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of a claim as a whole be established prior to examining the claim for eligibility. Under the BRI, the limitations of Claim 1 are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111.
The BRI of Claim 1 is an update management system for determining whether a second arithmetic operation device is executing a redundant process while a vehicle is traveling, and when determining that the second arithmetic operation device is not executing the redundant process, an update management device restricts execution of the redundant process by a first arithmetic operation device and updates a program stored in the second arithmetic operation device.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP § 2106.03. Claim 1 is directed to an update management system, which is a machine, and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP § 2106.04(II), a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation:
(a) […] determines whether the second arithmetic operation device is executing a redundant process while the vehicle is traveling, and when determining that the second arithmetic operation device is not executing the redundant process […].
These recited steps, under the BRI, cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, other than reciting:
(1) a plurality of arithmetic operation devices; and an update management device that controls the plurality of arithmetic operation devices, wherein the plurality of arithmetic operation devices include at least a first arithmetic operation device and a second arithmetic operation device.
Nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the limitation (a) in the context of the claim encompasses a human observing an arithmetic operation device in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to determine whether the arithmetic operation device is executing a redundant process while a vehicle is traveling. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its BRI, covers a practical performance in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper 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. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element:
(1) a plurality of arithmetic operation devices; and an update management device that controls the plurality of arithmetic operation devices, wherein the plurality of arithmetic operation devices include at least a first arithmetic operation device and a second arithmetic operation device.
The additional element (1) is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The update management device is used as a tool to perform the determining step of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(2) […] the update management device restricts execution of the redundant process by the first arithmetic operation device and updates a program stored in the second arithmetic operation device.
The additional element (2) fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional element recites only the ideas of restricting execution of a redundant process and updating a program without details on how they are accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how restricting execution of the redundant process and updating the program solve a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solutions to the identified problems of restricting execution of the redundant process and updating the program with no restriction on how they are accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing them, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the judicial exception. (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO). The claim is directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited judicial exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim recites the additional element:
(1) a plurality of arithmetic operation devices; and an update management device that controls the plurality of arithmetic operation devices, wherein the plurality of arithmetic operation devices include at least a first arithmetic operation device and a second arithmetic operation device.
The additional element (1) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Also, the claim recites the additional element:
(2) […] the update management device restricts execution of the redundant process by the first arithmetic operation device and updates a program stored in the second arithmetic operation device.
The additional element (2) does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. Therefore, the additional element attempts to cover any solutions to the identified problems of restricting execution of the redundant process and updating the program with no restriction on how they are accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing them, and does not provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components and only the idea of a solution or outcome, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-9 are dependent on Claim 1, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the judicial exception deficiencies of Claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein, when the update management device determines, after updating the program stored in the second arithmetic operation device, that the vehicle stops, the update management device instructs the second arithmetic operation device to execute the updated program and updates a program stored in the first arithmetic operation device.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 3 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein, when the update management device determines, after updating the program stored in the first arithmetic operation device, that the vehicle stops, the update management device instructs the first arithmetic operation device to execute the updated program and lifts the restriction of execution of the redundant process by the plurality of arithmetic operation devices.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 4 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the instruction issued by the update management device to the second arithmetic operation device includes an instruction for executing, before executing the updated program, a synchronization process to synchronize the updated program and a program being executed by the first arithmetic operation device with each other.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 5 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the synchronization process includes a process in which the second arithmetic operation device outputs a value obtained by recalculating, based on the updated program, a value output by the first arithmetic operation device.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 6 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the synchronization process includes a process in which the second arithmetic operation device outputs a same value as a value output by the first arithmetic operation device.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 7 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the synchronization process includes a process in which the second arithmetic operation device outputs an initial value included in the updated program.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 8 recites the limitation:
(a) a map and route information management device,
(b) wherein the update management device acquires map and route information from the map and route information management device and determines, based on a traveling state of the vehicle and the map and route information, whether the plurality of arithmetic operation devices are performing the redundant process.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 9 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the update management device partially updates the programs stored in the first arithmetic operation device and the second arithmetic operation device.
Claims 2, 3, and 8 recite further mental steps which can be practically performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper and thus, fail to make the claim any less abstract under Step 2A, Prong One (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claim 8 recites further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because they are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components under Step 2A, Prong Two (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and thus, are also not significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2-4 and 9 recite further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because they do not require any particular application of the judicial exception and are, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong Two (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and thus, are also not significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 5-8 recite further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because they are mere data gathering/transmitting/outputting recited at a high level of generality and thus, are insignificant extra-solution activities under Step 2A, Prong Two (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and thus, are also not significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Thus, Claims 2-9 do not add any steps or additional elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert Claim 1 into patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, Claims 1-9 are not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0105426 (hereinafter “Noda”) in view of US 2019/0193746 (hereinafter “Golov”) and US 2010/0162252 (hereinafter “Bacher”).
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).
Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to a program update technique for an electronic control unit (ECU) mounted on a vehicle (specification, paragraph [0001]). As for the “same field of endeavor” test, Noda is generally directed to performing vehicle processing that is based on a service provided by a server (specification, paragraph [0002]). And Golov is generally directed to determining reliability of commands generated by computing devices for autonomous control of vehicles (specification, paragraph [0002]). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Bacher is generally directed to efficiently combining high-end mainframe systems and lower-end server systems to provide stable and cost-effective computing environments (specification, paragraph [0001]). Thus, Noda, Golov, and Bacher are all 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, Noda discloses:
An update management system mounted on a vehicle (paragraph [0047], “The ECUs 2 and 3 are information processing apparatuses mounted in the vehicle 1.”), the update management system comprising:
a plurality of arithmetic operation devices; and an update management device that controls the plurality of arithmetic operation devices (Figure 1; paragraph [0046]1, “[…] a plurality of ECUs 2 and 3 may be connected in a bus network configuration, a ring network configuration or the like (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0049], “[…] the ECU 2 [an update management device] is an apparatus on the server side that provides a service, and an ECU 3 is an apparatus on the client side that is provided with a service [controls the plurality of arithmetic operation devices]. Note that this relation between a client and a server is exemplary, and each of the ECUs 2 and 3 can be a client or a server.”),
1Examiner’s Remarks: Note that the Applicant’s specification expressly states that “[t]he first arithmetic operation device 101, the second arithmetic operation device 102, and the vehicle control device 103 are ECUs that are mounted on, for example, a vehicle and exhibit various functions and that are connected to each other via a communication network such as a controller area network (CAN)” (paragraph [0011], emphasis added). Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the plain meaning of the limitation “a plurality of arithmetic operation devices” includes ECUs, which is consistent with the specification. Thus, the limitation “a plurality of arithmetic operation devices,” given its plain meaning consistent with the specification, is mapped to Noda’s ECUs. See MPEP § 2173.01(I).
wherein the plurality of arithmetic operation devices include at least a first arithmetic operation device and a second arithmetic operation device (Figure 1; paragraph [0047], “The ECUs 2 and 3 may include various ECUs such as an ECU that controls automated driving of the vehicle 1, an ECU that controls the operation of the engine, an ECU that controls the locking and unlocking of a door, an ECU that turns a light on and off, an ECU that controls the operation of an airbag, and an ECU that controls the operation of the ABS (Antilock Brake System) [a first arithmetic operation device and a second arithmetic operation device].”), and
the update management device […] updates a program stored in the second arithmetic operation device (paragraph [0057], “[…] the ECUs 2 and 3a to 3c included in the in-vehicle information processing system can be subjected to a version upgrade as a result of software thereof being updated (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0090], “The ECU 2 receives the request message in which the service version is set to “1.2”, performs information processing for providing the service whose service version is “1.2”, and transmits a response message in which the service version is set to “1.2”, to the ECU 3 [the update management device {…} updates a program stored in the second arithmetic operation device].”).
Noda discloses “the update management device,” but Noda does not explicitly disclose:
the update management device determines whether the second arithmetic operation device is executing a redundant process while the vehicle is traveling, and when determining that the second arithmetic operation device is not executing the redundant process, the update management device restricts execution of the redundant process by the first arithmetic operation device […].
However, Golov discloses:
the […] management device determines whether the second arithmetic operation device is executing a redundant process while the vehicle is traveling, and when determining that the second arithmetic operation device is not executing the redundant process, the update management device [discards] execution of the redundant process by the first arithmetic operation device (paragraph [0020], “To reduce the amount of memory tests performed during the autonomous driving of the vehicle [while the vehicle is traveling], the vehicle may optionally be configured to have identical or redundant computing devices that operate on the same input data to generate redundant driving commands. The command controller [the update management device] inspects the commands received from the redundant computing devices to determine whether they agree with each other [determines whether the second arithmetic operation device is executing a redundant process]; and if so, the command controller assumes that the commands are reliable, skips the memory test, and allows the execution of one of the commands that match with each other. However, when there is a mismatch in the commands generated by the redundant computing devices, the command controller tests portions of the memories of the computing devices to identify an unreliable command generated by a faulty one of the computing devices. The unreliable command is filtered out and/or discarded [when determining that the second arithmetic operation device is not executing the redundant process, the update management device {discards} execution of the redundant process by the first arithmetic operation device] (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0068], “[…] at least two identical SoCs (e.g., 105) can be used to process the same input data (103) to generate redundant ones of the command (123) for autonomous driving of the vehicle (101). The use of the redundant components in the vehicle (101) improves reliability of the vehicle (101) as a whole (emphasis added).”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Noda and Golov 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 Golov into the teaching of Noda to include “the update management device determines whether the second arithmetic operation device is executing a redundant process while the vehicle is traveling, and when determining that the second arithmetic operation device is not executing the redundant process, the update management device [discards] execution of the redundant process by the first arithmetic operation device.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reduce the amount of memory tests performed during the autonomous driving of a vehicle (Golov, paragraph [0020]).
Noda discloses “the update management device,” but the combination of Noda and Golov does not explicitly disclose:
[…] the update management device restricts execution of the redundant process by the first arithmetic operation device […].
However, Bacher discloses:
[…] the […] management device restricts execution of the redundant process by the first arithmetic operation device […] (paragraph [0079], “In step 270U, the kernel U stops executing the duplicate process, and notifies the kernel K that the duplicate process halted [{…} the {…} management device restricts execution of the redundant process by the first arithmetic operation device {…}]. As the kernel U stops executing the duplicate process, the kernel U freezes status and context data of the duplicate process in a running stack of the kernel U. The kernel U proceeds with step 280U.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Bacher 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 Bacher into the combined teachings of Noda and Golov to include “[…] the update management device restricts execution of the redundant process by the first arithmetic operation device […].” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to cost-effectively execute computation-intensive workloads in a vehicle (Bacher, paragraph [0003]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Noda in view of Golov and Bacher as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2018/0319402 (hereinafter “Mills”).
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).
Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to a program update technique for an electronic control unit (ECU) mounted on a vehicle (specification, paragraph [0001]). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Mills is generally directed to identifying scenarios for automatically activating driver assistance features (specification, paragraph [0001]). Thus, Mills 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 8, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Noda, Golov, and Bacher discloses “wherein the update management device […] determines, based on a traveling state of the vehicle […], whether the plurality of arithmetic operation devices are performing the redundant process,” but the combination of Noda, Golov, and Bacher does not explicitly disclose:
a map and route information management device,
wherein the update management device acquires map and route information from the map and route information management device and determines, based on a traveling state of the vehicle and the map and route information, whether the plurality of arithmetic operation devices are performing the redundant process.
However, Mills discloses:
a map and route information management device (paragraph [0042], “The navigation system 116 can be an ECU for monitoring and/or obtaining vehicle location data, route information, map data, and other geographical information from the location-determining receiver 136.”),
wherein the update management device acquires map and route information from the map and route information management device and determines, based on […] the map and route information, whether the plurality of arithmetic operation devices are performing the […] process (paragraph [0023], “[…] the one or more ECUs may include the vehicle navigation system, the vehicle camera system, and/or an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS). In one embodiment, the ADAS may be configured to collect data from the navigation and/or camera systems and identify lane change events, including a highway merge event, based on the collected data.”; paragraph [0049], “The advanced driving assistance system (ADAS) 114 can be an ECU for monitoring the vehicle environment, traffic conditions, and other surroundings and when needed, implementing various driving assistance features that automate, adapt, or enhance select vehicle systems. In some cases, the ADAS 114 may be comprised of a plurality of individual systems or ECUs, each unit configured to handle a specific type of driver assistance (e.g., an ACC system, a TJA system, a Lane Keeping Assist system, a Highway Assist system, etc.). Using the vehicle data bus 110, the ADAS 114 can receive inputs (e.g., image data, detected information, measurements, etc.) from the vehicle camera system 106, the vehicle sensors 108, the navigation system 116, and/or one or more other ECUs, and can provide outputs (e.g., control commands, feedback, warning messages, etc.) to the processor 102, the HMI 112, the driver assistance module 126, and/or one or more other ECUs.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Mills 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 Mills into the combined teachings of Noda, Golov, and Bacher to include “a map and route information management device, wherein the update management device acquires map and route information from the map and route information management device and determines, based on a traveling state of the vehicle and the map and route information, whether the plurality of arithmetic operation devices are performing the redundant process.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to monitor the vehicle environment, traffic conditions, and other surroundings and when needed, implement various driving assistance features that automate, adapt, or enhance select vehicle systems (Mills, paragraph [0049]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Noda in view of Golov and Bacher as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2022/0121440 (hereinafter “Tamano”).
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).
Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to a program update technique for an electronic control unit (ECU) mounted on a vehicle (specification, paragraph [0001]). As for the “same field of endeavor” test, Tamano is generally directed to distributing a program for an update to an automobile (specification, paragraph [0046]). Thus, Tamano is an analogous art to the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem).
As per Claim 9, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Noda, Golov, and Bacher does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the update management device partially updates the programs stored in the first arithmetic operation device and the second arithmetic operation device.
However, Tamano discloses:
wherein the update management device partially updates the programs stored in the first arithmetic operation device and the second arithmetic operation device (paragraph [0061], “N ECUs 22 are control circuits that control various devices, including an engine, a motor, a meter, a transmission, a brake, a steering, a power window, and an air conditioner, provided in automobile 200.”; paragraph [0066], “Managing ECU 220 manages an update of a program to be executed by ECU 230. Managing ECU 220 provides ECU 230 with storage 240 that functions as a virtual storage. Managing ECU 220 is implemented by, for example, at least one ECU among n ECUs 22. Managing ECU 220 may include TCU 21. Managing ECU 220 is an example of a second controller.”; paragraph [0121], “Managing ECU 220 updates the first partial program stored in the first partial area to be processed to a second partial program by use of partial data, of the data for an update, that corresponds to this first partial program (S13).”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Tamano 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 Tamano into the combined teachings of Noda, Golov, and Bacher to include “wherein the update management device partially updates the programs stored in the first arithmetic operation device and the second arithmetic operation device.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reduce the amount of data used in a storage when updating a program stored in an ECU (Tamano, paragraph [0009]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103, but would be allowable over the cited prior art if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and overcome any corresponding objections and/or rejections set forth hereinabove.
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As per Claim 2, the closest cited prior art, the combination of Noda, Golov, and Bacher, fails to teach or suggest, among the other claimed limitations, “wherein, when the update management device determines, after updating the program stored in the second arithmetic operation device, that the vehicle stops1, the update management device instructs the second arithmetic operation device to execute the updated program and updates a program stored in the first arithmetic operation device.” These claimed limitations, in combination with the other claimed limitations, are neither taught nor suggested by the combination of Noda, Golov, and Bacher.
1Examiner’s Remarks: Note that the Applicant’s specification expressly states that “[…] the expression ‘stop of traveling’ used here does not include a temporary stop due to a red light or the like, and refers to a state in which the engine or the motor is completely stopped” (paragraph [0019]). When the Applicant acts as their own lexicographer, the Applicant may rebut the presumption that claim terms are to be given their ordinary and customary meaning. 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. Toro Co. v. White Consolidated Industries Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1301, 53 USPQ2d 1065, 1069 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus, given the explicit definition provided by the Applicant, the scope of the limitation “the vehicle stops” is limited to a state in which the engine or the motor of the vehicle is completely stopped. See MPEP § 2111.01(IV)(A).
As per Claims 3-7, these claims depend directly or indirectly from Claim 2, respectively, and encompass the required limitations recited in Claim 2 as discussed hereinabove.
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 2020/0133812 (hereinafter “Ogawa”) discloses a control apparatus configured to communicate with a plurality of on-vehicle control devices through in-vehicle communication lines, and includes an acquisition unit configured to acquire electric energy of a battery supplying electric power to the plurality of on-vehicle control devices, and a control unit configured to instruct, in a case where predicted electric energy of the battery at a time when a process by a target device that is one of the plurality of on-vehicle control devices is completed is lower than a first threshold, other on-vehicle control devices to stop respective processes by the other on-vehicle control devices executed in parallel with the process by the target device.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
US 2020/0159180 (hereinafter “Ishigooka”) discloses a technique for safely switching to a backup control program when a failure occurs in a control system.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
US 2024/0001967 (hereinafter “Hayakawa”) discloses a redundant system mounted on a vehicle configured to autonomously travel.
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