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 .
Response to Arguments
This office action is in response to amendments filed 03/20/2026. Claims 1, 3-12 are pending.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments to the claims with respect to rejections of Claims 12 under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of Claims 12 under 35 USC 101 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments to the claims with respect to prior art rejections of Claims 1, 3-12 under 35 USC 102/103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of Claims 1, 3-12 under 35 USC 102/103 have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new rejection is made in view of Searle et al (US 20160294605, hereinafter Searle).
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.
The claims 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: creation unit, communication unit in claim(s) 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The creation unit and communication unit will be interpreted as functional software modules stored in computer memory and executed by a computer processor as described in par. 0054 of applicant’s published specification, or equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rocci et al (US 20210074083, hereinafter Rocci) in view of Searle et al (US 20160294605, hereinafter Searle)
Regarding Claim 1, Rocci teaches:
an information processing method in a management device (see at least "a method for on-board data request approval management for vehicle diagnostic requests" in par. 0004) , comprising the steps of:
creating, after a vehicle shipment and in response to a selection information received via a network from a terminal device operated by a first user, a setting information corresponding to a selected function (see at least "A requester device 124 may be used by engineers or other personnel to send diagnostic requests 120 to the vehicle data server 122, which may be reviewed and forwarded onto the vehicles 102. The vehicle 102 further includes a telematics control unit (TCU) 108 configured to receive diagnostic requests 120 from the vehicle data server 122 as well as to send diagnostic data 118 to the vehicle data server 122. The TCU 108 may utilize a diagnostic application 130 installed to the TCU 108 to process the diagnostic requests 120 that define data to be retrieved from the vehicle 102, as well as to capture and send diagnostic data 118 to the vehicle data server 122. The vehicle data server 122 may further maintain approval statuses 128 for the diagnostic requests 120, which may be used to define whether the vehicle 102 is authorized to send the diagnostic data 118 for retrieval." in par. 0013) ; and
transmitting, via the network, the created setting information to a vehicle in which the in-vehicle component is installed. (see at least "The diagnostic requests 120 include information defining diagnostic elements, codes, or other information to be captured from the vehicles 102. The diagnostic requests 120 may be sent to the vehicle 102, and the vehicle 102 may return the diagnostic data 118 in response. " in par. 0023 )
Rocci does not appear to explicitly teach all of the following, but Searle does teach:
A selected function to be executed by a second user using an in-vehicle component (see at least “A campaign may be initiated to determine why customers are choosing to turn off adaptive steering for the vehicle model. For example, it may be determined that adaptive steering is too sensitive making it difficult to operate the vehicle model. Accordingly, an update to the adaptive steering component (e.g., ECU) may be prepared. The update may be tested on a segment that includes manufacturer owned test vehicles used to test changes to the vehicle model. Once the update has been tested and finalized (e.g., adaptive steering operates better, installation package is configured properly) devices (e.g., vehicles) in a segment that includes vehicles of the vehicle model that include the adaptive steering option (e.g., including the device) may be notified to install the update. Log data from vehicles that have the updated adaptive steering component may be collected and analyzed to determine whether drivers are now using adaptive steering. Any additional issues may also be similarly determined and addressed.” In par. 0052 and "Installation confirmation output 349 may be provided to a user 310. For example, installation confirmation output may be provided in cases where a user approval should be obtained before installing an update (e.g., an update to an app downloaded by the user to the device from an app store). In another example, installation confirmation may be skipped if an update is mandatory and/or critical. In one implementation, a confirmation dialog may be displayed to the user (e.g., on the screen of the vehicle's infotainment system)... The user may provide installation confirmation input 353 to the device. For example, the user may confirm that the update should be installed (e.g., using a touchscreen or a button of the vehicle's infotainment system, using a voice command) or indicate that the update should be installed at a later time. " in par. 0060)
wherein in the step of creating the setting information, the setting information is created for performing, in respective vehicles, operation setting whose content differs for at least one of each vehicle model and each vehicle year; (see at least “The connected device may be associated with one or more segments (e.g., based on the vehicle's model and trim). A REDUP administrator (e.g., a product manager) may define which apps are available for which segments.” In par. 0083 and "In one embodiment, a segment setting may be specified based on a set of devices. For example, the set of devices may be a set of vehicles that are used by a manufacturer for testing purposes. In another example, the set of devices may be a set of vehicles that may have been manufactured using an older part number and may have to utilize a custom software fix. In yet another example, the set of devices may be a set of vehicles that are associated (e.g., located in, sold in) with a geographic location (e.g., a country, a state). A set of devices for the segment may be determined at 1413. For example, the set of devices may be specified as a list of vehicle VIN numbers (e.g., provided by the REDUP administrator). Specified devices may be associated with the segment at 1417.” in par. 0094 and production year in par. 3413)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by Rocci to incorporate the teachings of Searle wherein a software update to a function like adaptive steering is only pushed to the vehicles with certain make, model and production year requirements and a user is prompted to start the update at the vehicle’s infotainment device, in order to arrive at using the data collected by Rocci for targeted software updates. The motivation to incorporate the teachings of Searle would be to reduce the cost of software update management and reduce the cost of ownership with preventative updates (see par. 1881-1882).
Regarding Claim 3, Rocci as modified by Searle (references to Rocci) teaches:
the information processing method according to claim 1,
wherein the setting information is used in setting performed so that vehicle information regarding the vehicle is transmitted from the vehicle to the management device. (see at least "The diagnostic requests 120 include information defining diagnostic elements, codes, or other information to be captured from the vehicles 102. The diagnostic requests 120 may be sent to the vehicle 102, and the vehicle 102 may return the diagnostic data 118 in response. Diagnostic requests 120 may be used to define the diagnostic codes or other information that is to be included in the diagnostic data 118. " in par. 0023)
Regarding Claim 4, Rocci as modified by Searle (references to Rocci) teaches:
the information processing method according to claim 3,
wherein the vehicle information includes information regarding traveling of the vehicle. (see at least "The collected information retrieved from the controllers 104 over the vehicle buses 106 may be referred to as diagnostic data 118. The information retrieved by the TCU 108 may include, as some non-limiting examples, accelerator pedal position, steering wheel angle, vehicle speed, vehicle location (e.g., GPS coordinates, etc.), vehicle unique identifier (e.g., VIN), engine revolutions per minute (RPM), and vehicle HMI information, such as steering wheel button press information." in par. 0021)
Regarding Claim 5, Rocci as modified by Searle (references to Rocci) teaches:
the information processing method according to claim 3,
wherein the vehicle information includes information indicating a measurement result obtained in the vehicle. (see at least " The collected information retrieved from the controllers 104 over the vehicle buses 106 may be referred to as diagnostic data 118. The information retrieved by the TCU 108 may include, as some non-limiting examples, accelerator pedal position, steering wheel angle, vehicle speed, vehicle location (e.g., GPS coordinates, etc.), vehicle unique identifier (e.g., VIN), engine revolutions per minute (RPM), and vehicle HMI information, such as steering wheel button press information." in par. 0021)
Regarding Claim 6, Rocci as modified by Searle (references to Rocci) teaches:
the information processing method according to any one of claim 3,
wherein the setting information includes data position information used to specify the vehicle information in a frame transmitted or received in the vehicle. (see at least " The vehicle 102 executes the diagnostic request 120 on-board the vehicle 102 at operation 206. In an example, the vehicle 102 collects diagnostic data 118 using the timing, cadence, and/or triggers for each of the data elements as specified by the diagnostic request 120. In an example, the diagnostic application 130 directs the TCU 108 to collect DTC data and/or other vehicle information from the vehicle ECUs 104 connected to the one or more vehicle buses 106, to satisfy the requested data elements from the diagnostic request 120. In some examples, the vehicle 102 may include a plurality of vehicle buses 106, and the diagnostic application 130 may determine over which vehicle bus 106 each data element is to be retrieved." in par. 0033)
Regarding Claim 7, Rocci as modified by Searle (references to Rocci) teaches:
the information processing method according to claim 3,
wherein the setting information includes transmission timing information indicating a timing at which the vehicle information is to be transmitted to the management device. (see at least " The vehicle 102 executes the diagnostic request 120 on-board the vehicle 102 at operation 206. In an example, the vehicle 102 collects diagnostic data 118 using the timing, cadence, and/or triggers for each of the data elements as specified by the diagnostic request 120. In an example, the diagnostic application 130 directs the TCU 108 to collect DTC data and/or other vehicle information from the vehicle ECUs 104 connected to the one or more vehicle buses 106, to satisfy the requested data elements from the diagnostic request 120. In some examples, the vehicle 102 may include a plurality of vehicle buses 106, and the diagnostic application 130 may determine over which vehicle bus 106 each data element is to be retrieved." in par. 0033)
Regarding Claim 8, Rocci as modified by Searle (references to Rocci) teaches:
the information processing method according to claim 1,
wherein the management device stores correspondence information indicating a correspondence relationship between a plurality of functions and pieces of the setting information, and in the step of creating the setting information, the correspondence information is referred to, and the piece of setting information corresponding to the selected function is acquired. (see at least "The vehicle 102 executes the diagnostic request 120 on-board the vehicle 102 at operation 206. In an example, the vehicle 102 collects diagnostic data 118 using the timing, cadence, and/or triggers for each of the data elements as specified by the diagnostic request 120. In an example, the diagnostic application 130 directs the TCU 108 to collect DTC data and/or other vehicle information from the vehicle ECUs 104 connected to the one or more vehicle buses 106, to satisfy the requested data elements from the diagnostic request 120. In some examples, the vehicle 102 may include a plurality of vehicle buses 106, and the diagnostic application 130 may determine over which vehicle bus 106 each data element is to be retrieved." in par. 0033)
Regarding Claim 9, Rocci as modified by Searle teaches:
the information processing method according to claim 1, further comprising the step of:
Rocci does not appear to explicitly teach all of the following, but Searle does teach:
creating provision information to be used in executing the selected function, based on vehicle information regarding the vehicle, the vehicle information being received from the vehicle. (see at least “A campaign may be initiated to determine why customers are choosing to turn off adaptive steering for the vehicle model. For example, it may be determined that adaptive steering is too sensitive making it difficult to operate the vehicle model. Accordingly, an update to the adaptive steering component (e.g., ECU) may be prepared. The update may be tested on a segment that includes manufacturer owned test vehicles used to test changes to the vehicle model. Once the update has been tested and finalized (e.g., adaptive steering operates better, installation package is configured properly) devices (e.g., vehicles) in a segment that includes vehicles of the vehicle model that include the adaptive steering option (e.g., including the device) may be notified to install the update. Log data from vehicles that have the updated adaptive steering component may be collected and analyzed to determine whether drivers are now using adaptive steering. Any additional issues may also be similarly determined and addressed.” In par. 0052 and "Installation confirmation output 349 may be provided to a user 310. For example, installation confirmation output may be provided in cases where a user approval should be obtained before installing an update (e.g., an update to an app downloaded by the user to the device from an app store). In another example, installation confirmation may be skipped if an update is mandatory and/or critical. In one implementation, a confirmation dialog may be displayed to the user (e.g., on the screen of the vehicle's infotainment system)... The user may provide installation confirmation input 353 to the device. For example, the user may confirm that the update should be installed (e.g., using a touchscreen or a button of the vehicle's infotainment system, using a voice command) or indicate that the update should be installed at a later time. " in par. 0060)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by Rocci as modified by Searle to incorporate the teachings of Searle wherein a software update to a function like adaptive steering is only pushed to the vehicles with certain make, model and production year requirements and a user is prompted to start the update at the vehicle’s infotainment device, in order to arrive at using the data collected by Rocci for targeted software updates. The motivation to incorporate the teachings of Searle would be to reduce the cost of software update management and reduce the cost of ownership with preventative updates (see par. 1881-1882).
Regarding Claim 10, Rocci as modified by Searle (references to Rocci) teaches:
the information processing method according to claim 1,
wherein the management device is a cloud server. (see at least " In an example, the vehicle data server 122 may be configured to maintain the diagnostic data 118 received from the TCU 108 of the vehicles 102 by way of the network 112." in par. 0024 and “These functions may include to collect the diagnostic data 118 information from the controllers 104 (e.g., including DTC information) based on the diagnostic requests 120 received from the vehicle data server 122, store the information for transmission, and transmit the diagnostic data 118 to the vehicle data server 122 over the wide-area network 112.” In par. 0028)
Regarding Claim 11, Rocci as modified by Searle (references to Rocci) teaches:
a communication system (see at least " FIG. 1 illustrates an example system 100 implementing on-board data request approval management for vehicle diagnostic requests." in par. 0013) comprising:
a management device (see at least " The system 100 also includes a vehicle data server 122 configured to facilitate the retrieval of diagnostic data 118 from various vehicles 102." in par. 0013 ) and an in-vehicle device (see at least " The vehicle 102 further includes a telematics control unit (TCU) 108 configured to receive diagnostic requests 120 from the vehicle data server 122 as well as to send diagnostic data 118 to the vehicle data server 122." in par. 0013) configured to
implement the method of Claim 1 (see Claim 1 analysis for rejection of the method)
Regarding Claim 12, Rocci as modified by Searle (references to Rocci) teaches:
an information processing program product for use in a management device, the information processing program product comprising a non-transitory, machine-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by at least one programmable processor (see at least “A computer-readable storage medium (also referred to as a processor-readable medium or storage 116) includes any non-transitory (e.g., tangible) medium that participates in providing data (e.g., instructions) that may be read by a computer (e.g., by the processor(s)).” In par. 0019 and " Computing devices described herein, such as the TCU 108, vehicle data server 122, and requester device 124, generally include computer-executable instructions where the instructions may be executable by one or more computing devices such as those listed above. Computer-executable instructions, such as those of the diagnostic application 130 or diagnostic service 126, may be compiled or interpreted from computer programs created using a variety of programming languages and/or technologies" in par. 0043) , causes a computer to
implement the method of Claim 1 (see Claim 1 analysis for rejection of the method)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DYLAN M KATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-2776. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs. 8:00-6:00.
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, Abby Lin can be reached on (571) 270-3976. 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.
/DYLAN M KATZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights