Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This is the initial office action based on the application filed on September 06th, 2024, which claims 1-11 are presented for examination.
Status of Claims
3. Claims 1-11 are pending, of which claims, of which claim 1, 10 and 11 are in independent form.
Priority
4. This application has a priority JAPAN 2022-036515 03/09/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. Information disclosure statement filed on 09/06/2024, has been reviewed and considered by Examiner.
The Office's Note:
6. The Office has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers in the reference(s) applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim(s), other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the cited passages as taught by the prior art or relied upon by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
7. The claims 1-9 in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claim 2 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The Office suggested to move claim 2 into each independent claim to place an application in condition for allowance.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Instant application 18/844,699
Co-pending application 18/715,373
1. An in-vehicle device communicably connected to an update device that executes processing for updating a program of an in-vehicle ECU mounted on a vehicle with an update program acquired from an external server outside the vehicle, the in-vehicle device comprising
a control unit configured to execute processing for updating a program in the update device, wherein
the control unit executes proxy processing of at least a part of the processing executed in the update device when the update device is included in a target to be updated by the update program.
1. An in-vehicle device comprising:
a control unit configured to obtain an update program transmitted from an external server outside a vehicle and to perform processing for updating a program of an in-vehicle ECU mounted in the vehicle,
wherein the control unit
obtains an update program to be applied to the in-vehicle device from the external server,
selects, as a substitute ECU, one in-vehicle ECU whose program is not an update target among a plurality of in-vehicle ECUs mounted in the vehicle, and
performs activation processing for applying the obtained update program to the in-vehicle device in response to an activation instruction from the selected substitute ECU.
10. A program that causes a computer communicably connected to an update device that executes processing for updating a program of an in-vehicle ECU mounted on a vehicle with an update program acquired from an external server outside the vehicle to execute processing for updating a program in the update device, and
causes the computer to execute processing for proxying at least a part of the processing for updating the program, which is executed in the update device when the update device is included in a target to be updated by the update program.
9.A program that causes a computer configured to obtain an update program transmitted from an external server outside a vehicle and to perform processing for updating a program of an in-vehicle ECU mounted in the vehicle to execute processing for:
obtaining an update program to be applied to the computer from the external server,
selecting, as a substitute ECU, any in-vehicle ECU whose program is not an update target among a plurality of in-vehicle ECUs mounted in the vehicle, and
performing activation processing for applying the obtained update program to the computer in response to an activation instruction from the selected substitute ECU.
11. A program updating method comprising:
causing a computer communicably connected to an update device that executes processing for updating a program of an in-vehicle ECU mounted on a vehicle with an update program acquired from an external server outside the vehicle to execute processing for updating a program in the update device; and
causing the computer to execute processing for proxying at least a part of the processing for updating the program, which is executed in the update device when the update device is included in a target to be updated by the update program.
10.A method for causing a computer configured to obtains an update program transmitted from an external server outside a vehicle and to perform processing for updating a program of an in-vehicle ECU mounted in the vehicle to execute processing for:
obtaining an update program to be applied to the computer from the external server,
selecting, as a substitute ECU, one in-vehicle ECU whose program is not an update target among a plurality of in-vehicle ECUs mounted in the vehicle, and
performing activation processing for applying the obtained update program to the computer in response to an activation instruction from the selected substitute ECU.
9. Claim 1, claim 10 and claim 11 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claim 1, claim 9 and claim 10 of co-pending U.S. application 18/715,373. Claim 1, claim 9 and claim 10 of the copending application teaches includes all the features of claim 1, claim 10 and claim 11 of the instant U.S. application 18/844,699. Both claims teach to select a substitute ECU to act as a proxy ECU to update an update device (OTA master) and an in-vehicle ECU (update target) . This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection.
Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ujiie, et al. (US 20200310782).
Claim 1 is rejected, Ujiie, teaches an in-vehicle device communicably connected to an update device that executes processing for updating a program of an in-vehicle ECU mounted on a vehicle with an update program acquired from an external server outside the vehicle, the in-vehicle device comprising (Ujiie,, abstract and summary)
a control unit configured to execute processing for updating a program in the update device, wherein the control unit executes proxy processing of at least a part of the processing executed in the update device when the update device is included in a target to be updated by the update program (Ujiie,, US 20200310782, para [0040-0042], Consequently, in the case in which, from among electronic control units (ECUs) connected to a bus, the ECU whose firmware is to be updated does not include a function for executing a certain process related to the update (such as a signature verification process, for example), or in the case of a situation in which the certain process cannot be executed, for example, a gateway device is able to perform control so that another ECU or the gateway device itself executes the certain process instead of (in other words, as a proxy for) the ECU. For this reason, a firmware update may be performed suitably, even for an ECU that does not have the functions necessary to conduct a firmware update while ensuring security, for example. Para [003-0046]. Fig. 3 and para [0080]. Fig. 24 and para [0187-0188], The gateway 1300, based on the list of ECU information stored by the ECU information storing unit 372 (see FIG. 6), selects an ECU which is different from the ECU whose firmware is to be updated, and which includes a function of executing a process related to the firmware update, as the ECU to execute that process by proxy (proxy ECU) (step S2200). Specifically, in the FW update ECU proxy process, the ECU 1100a that includes the FW cache function is selected as the proxy ECU to execute by proxy a process related to the FW cache function.).
Claim 3 is rejected for the reasons set forth hereinabove for claim 1, Ujiie, teaches the in-vehicle device according to claim 1 [[or 2]], wherein the proxy processing includes rollback processing depending on a result of activation processing (Ujiie,, para [0148], The ECU 100a is preconfigured to boot from the contents of the FW cache storing unit 161 if booting from the boot ROM is unsuccessful, and thus if the reboot in step S1308 is unsuccessful (step S1309), the ECU 100a boots from the pre-update firmware saved in the FW cache storing unit 161 (step S1310). Subsequently, under the control of the pre-update firmware, the pre-update firmware saved in the FW cache storing unit 161 is copied to the boot ROM, thereby reverting the contents of the boot ROM back to the pre-update state (step S1311).) .
Claim 4 is rejected for the reasons set forth hereinabove for claim 1, Ujiie, teaches the in-vehicle device according to claim 1, wherein a storage unit of the update device stores in advance information for identifying the in- vehicle device as a proxy ECU that executes the proxy processing(Ujiie,, Fig. 24 and para [0187-0188], The gateway 1300, based on the list of ECU information stored by the ECU information storing unit 372 (see FIG. 6), selects an ECU which is different from the ECU whose firmware is to be updated, and which includes a function of executing a process related to the firmware update, as the ECU to execute that process by proxy (proxy ECU) (step S2200). Specifically, in the FW update ECU proxy process, the ECU 1100a that includes the FW cache function is selected as the proxy ECU to execute by proxy a process related to the FW cache function.).
Claim 5 is rejected for the reasons set forth hereinabove for claim 1, Ujiie, teaches the in-vehicle device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit acquires an instruction signal indicating an instruction to execute the proxy processing from the update device, and starts the proxy processing in response to the acquired instruction signal(Ujiie,, Fig. 24 and para [0187-0188], The gateway 1300, based on the list of ECU information stored by the ECU information storing unit 372 (see FIG. 6), selects an ECU which is different from the ECU whose firmware is to be updated, and which includes a function of executing a process related to the firmware update, as the ECU to execute that process by proxy (proxy ECU) (step S2200). Specifically, in the FW update ECU proxy process, the ECU 1100a that includes the FW cache function is selected as the proxy ECU to execute by proxy a process related to the FW cache function.).
Claim 6 is rejected for the reasons set forth hereinabove for claim 1, Ujiie, teaches the in-vehicle device according to claim 1, wherein the proxy processing includes processing for updating the program of the in-vehicle ECU, the update device has a relay function for relaying data transmitted and received between in-vehicle ECUs, and the control unit changes the processing for updating the program of the in-vehicle ECU depending on whether the update device maintains the relay function when the update device is included in the target to be updated by the update program(Ujiie,, Fig. 24 and para [0187-0188], The gateway 1300, based on the list of ECU information stored by the ECU information storing unit 372 (see FIG. 6), selects an ECU which is different from the ECU whose firmware is to be updated, and which includes a function of executing a process related to the firmware update, as the ECU to execute that process by proxy (proxy ECU) (step S2200). Specifically, in the FW update ECU proxy process, the ECU 1100a that includes the FW cache function is selected as the proxy ECU to execute by proxy a process related to the FW cache function.).
Claim 7 is rejected for the reasons set forth hereinabove for claim 1, Ujiie, teaches the in-vehicle device according to claim 1,wherein the update device is connected to a communication line on the external server side and a communication line on the in-vehicle ECU side, and the in-vehicle device is connected to the communication line on the external server side (Ujiie,, para [0040-0042], Consequently, in the case in which, from among electronic control units (ECUs) connected to a bus, the ECU whose firmware is to be updated does not include a function for executing a certain process related to the update (such as a signature verification process, for example), or in the case of a situation in which the certain process cannot be executed, for example, a gateway device is able to perform control so that another ECU or the gateway device itself executes the certain process instead of (in other words, as a proxy for) the ECU. For this reason, a firmware update may be performed suitably, even for an ECU that does not have the functions necessary to conduct a firmware update while ensuring security, for example. Para [003-0046]. Fig. 3 and para [0080].).
Claim 8 is rejected for the reasons set forth hereinabove for claim 1, Ujiie, teaches the in-vehicle device according to claim 7, wherein the control unit acquires the update program from the external server without going through the update device, and outputs a request signal to request the update device to start the proxy processing based on the acquired update program (Ujiie,, para [0040-0042], Consequently, in the case in which, from among electronic control units (ECUs) connected to a bus, the ECU whose firmware is to be updated does not include a function for executing a certain process related to the update (such as a signature verification process, for example), or in the case of a situation in which the certain process cannot be executed, for example, a gateway device is able to perform control so that another ECU or the gateway device itself executes the certain process instead of (in other words, as a proxy for) the ECU. For this reason, a firmware update may be performed suitably, even for an ECU that does not have the functions necessary to conduct a firmware update while ensuring security, for example. Para [003-0046]. Fig. 3 and para [0080]).
Claim 9 is rejected for the reasons set forth hereinabove for claim 1, Ujiie, teaches the in-vehicle device according to claim 7 [[or 8]], wherein the communication line on the external server side is connected to an out-vehicle communication device for wireless communication with the external server, and the in-vehicle device is included in the out-vehicle communication device (Ujiie,, US 20200310782, para [0040-0042], Consequently, in the case in which, from among electronic control units (ECUs) connected to a bus, the ECU whose firmware is to be updated does not include a function for executing a certain process related to the update (such as a signature verification process, for example), or in the case of a situation in which the certain process cannot be executed, for example, a gateway device is able to perform control so that another ECU or the gateway device itself executes the certain process instead of (in other words, as a proxy for) the ECU. For this reason, a firmware update may be performed suitably, even for an ECU that does not have the functions necessary to conduct a firmware update while ensuring security, for example. Para [003-0046]. Fig. 3 and para [0080].).
As per claim 10, this is the program claim to an in-vehicle device claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons as above.
As per claim 11, this is the method claim to an in-vehicle device claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY KHUONG THANH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7139. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 to 5.
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, Lewis Bullock can be reached on 5712723759. 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.
/DUY KHUONG T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Prosecution Insights