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 .
Claims 1-19 are pending in this office action.
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:
Claims
Place holders
functions
1
communication interface
communicate
.
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.
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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5-12 and 14-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al US20240378042A1 in view of Yang et al US20250342032A1.
With respect to claim 1, Chen discloses: a partition synchronization method in redundant update for updating a new version part:
[0353] “Still in the example in which the data in the second static partition is updated based on the second update file, after Merge succeeds, the partition synchronization operation performed on the static partition is specifically synchronizing the data in the second static partition to the first static partition”;
the partition synchronization method comprising generating first synchronization information and recording the first synchronization information along with a first new version part in one area of the first partition:
[0116] “Next, after downloading the update package from the OTA server, the electronic device performs step (3) in FIG. 7.1: Write data in a second update file that is in the update package and that corresponds to the dtbo sub-partition of the static partition into a dtbo_b sub-partition of a second static partition”. [0118] partition of the second static partition, a version of the dtbo_b sub-partition changes from dtbo_b (1.0) shown in FIG. 7.1 to dtbo_b (2.0) shown in FIG. 7.2.
and removing a difference from the first new version part using the first synchronization information and recording the difference-removed first new version part in one area of the second partition as a second new version part:
[0142] Then, after completing the Merge operation, the electronic device further performs step (11) in FIG. 7.6: Synchronize data in the dtbo_b sub-partition to a dtbo_a sub-partition, in other words, perform a partition synchronization operation on the static partition. Specifically, 30 data in a static partition that is updated in a current-time operating system update process is synchronized to an un-updated static partition.
[0143] For example, when a file in the dtbo_b sub-partition of the second static partition is updated from a 1.0 version to a 2.0 version in current-time operating system updating, after completing the Merge operation, the electronic device copies the file in the dtbo_b sub-partition to the dtbo_a sub-partition of the first static partition, to synchronize the two sub-partitions.
But not explicitly:
an execution controller operated redundantly with a first partition and a second partition.
Yang discloses:
an execution controller operated redundantly with a first partition and a second partition:
[0109] “to improve upgrade performance and reliability, the ECU adopts a dual-partition design so that version rollback can be quickly performed if software upgrade fails. For example, an upgrade procedure may be as follows: When a software version v2 stored in a primary partition A runs normally, a software version v1 stored in a secondary partition B is in a standby state. After receiving an upgrade task, the update agent 112 upgrades the software version in the secondary partition B to v3, and running of the software version v2 in the primary partition A is not affected”;
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Yang into teachings of Chen to provide a primary storage area and a secondary storage area of the first control unit are respectively bound to corresponding image areas, and a binding relationship between the image area and the storage area does not need to be modified, thereby improving processing efficiency of the software system. Furthermore to switch a first controller to the primary storage area, so that the first control unit continues to run the software version backed up in the first image partition, thereby avoiding version rollback of the first control unit.[Yang 0039].
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and furthermore Chen discloses:
wherein the one area of the first partition corresponds to the one area of the second partition.
[0354] For the operation of synchronizing the data in the second static partition to the first static partition, in some implementations, for example, the kernel may read data in each sub-partition of the second static partition and then overwrite the data in each sub-partition of the second static partition into a corresponding sub-partition of the first static partition.
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated and furthermore Chen discloses:
wherein the first partition includes a plurality of areas, the one area of the first partition including at least one of the plurality of areas of the first partition, and wherein the second partition includes a plurality of areas, the one area of the second partition including at least one of the plurality of areas of the second partition:
[0359] Specifically, the second sub-partition is a sub-partition of the second static partition, the third sub-partition is a sub-partition of the first static partition, and the third sub-partition corresponds to the second sub-partition.
[0360] For example, still referring to FIG. 7.1 to FIG. 7.6, if the second sub-partition of the second static partition is X-loader_b, the third sub-partition that is of the first static partition and that corresponds to the second sub-partition is X-loader_a.
Examiner interpretation:
First and second static partition include sub-portions:X-loader_a/b, Vendor_a/b and dtbo_a/b respectively.
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated and furthermore Chen discloses:
generating the new version part including a new version part for the first partition and a new version part for the second partition; and providing the new version part for the first partition as the first new version part:
[0143] For example, when a file in the dtbo_b sub-partition of the second static partition is updated from a 1.0 version to a 2.0 version in current-time operating system updating, after completing the Merge operation, the electronic device copies the file in the dtbo_b sub-partition to the dtbo_a sub-partition of the first static partition, to synchronize the two sub-partitions.
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated and furthermore Chen discloses:
generating the first synchronization information, which is a partition cross-difference due to a change from the first partition to the second partition, and providing the first synchronization information along with the first new version part:
[0142] Then, after completing the Merge operation, the electronic device further performs step (11) in FIG. 7.6: Synchronize data in the dtbo_b sub-partition to a dtbo_a sub-partition, in other words, perform a partition synchronization operation on the static partition. Specifically, 30 data in a static partition that is updated in a current-time operating system update process is synchronized to an un-updated static partition.
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and furthermore Chen discloses:
Generating second synchronization information from a difference between the first new version part and the second new version part and recording the second synchronization information along with the second new version part in the one area of the second partition:
[0362] Then, when the hash value of the data in the second sub-partition is inconsistent with the hash value of the data in the third sub-partition, the data in the second sub-partition is overwritten into the third sub-partition.
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated and furthermore Chen discloses:
wherein the second synchronization information is a partition cross-difference due to a change from the second partition to the first partition:
[0356] Correspondingly, if the data in the second sub-partition is the same as (consistent with) the data in the third sub-partition, no copying is performed for the sub-partition and other sub-partitions continue to be compared; otherwise, the data in the second sub-partition is copied and then overwritten into the third sub-partition.
As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and furthermore Chen discloses:
wherein the execution controller includes a microcontroller unit (MCU) of a non-memory management unit (MMU) type:
[0167] For example, the steps of post-install may be, for example, obtaining metadata partition status data and switching the static partition”.
Yang discloses: US 20250342032 A1
wherein the execution controller includes a microcontroller unit (MCU) of a non-memory management unit (MMU) type:
[0039] According to the software upgrade system provided in this implementation, when the data exception occurs in the first storage area, the first control unit switches the first image partition to the primary storage area, so that the first control unit continues to run the software version backed up in the first image partition, thereby avoiding version rollback of the first control unit.
As per claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and furthermore Chen discloses:
removing a difference from an old version part of another area of the second partition using synchronization information and recording the difference-removed old version part in another area of the first partition to synchronize the another area of the second partition and the another area of the first partition:
[0357] For example, for the foregoing solution of first checking whether the data in the second sub-partition of the second static partition is the same as the data in the third sub-partition of the first static partition, and then determining, based on a check result, whether to perform partition synchronization, during specific implementation, processing may be as follows:
[0362] Then, when the hash value of the data in the second sub-partition is inconsistent with the hash value of the data in the third sub-partition, the data in the second sub-partition is overwritten into the third sub-partition.
As per claim 11, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated and furthermore Chen discloses:
wherein the synchronization information is a partition cross-difference due to a change from the second partition to the first partition.
[0142] Then, after completing the Merge operation, the electronic device further performs step (11) in FIG. 7.6: Synchronize data in the dtbo_b sub-partition to a dtbo_a sub-partition, in other words, perform a partition synchronization operation on the static partition. Specifically, 30 data in a static partition that is updated in a current-time operating system update process is synchronized to an un-updated static partition.
As per claim 12, Chen discloses a computing device implementing a partition synchronization method in redundant update for updating a new version part:
[0353] “Still in the example in which the data in the second static partition is updated based on the second update file, after Merge succeeds, the partition synchronization operation performed on the static partition is specifically synchronizing the data in the second static partition to the first static partition”;
a communication interface configured to communicate with an external device.
This element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as the module 220 of the electronic device described in [0117] that allow the processor of the computing device to access the network.
Chen discloses a communication link to initiate and receive requests with an OTA server, with steps described in [0195], using processor 110 of fig. 1 and (antenna1 or antenna 2)
the computing device comprising: one or more processors; a memory configured to load a computer program executed by the one or more processors; and a storage device storing the computer program, wherein the computer program includes instructions for performing:
[0064] For example, specifically, in the technical solutions provided in the embodiments of this application, boot of the electronic device 100 and updating of an operating system mainly depend on related instructions pre-stored in the internal memory 121, and the processor 110 executes the instructions stored in the internal memory 121, to enable the electronic device 100 to perform the operating system update method provided in the embodiments of this application.
generating first synchronization information and recording the first synchronization information along with a first new version part in one area of the first partition.
[0116] “Next, after downloading the update package from the OTA server, the electronic device performs step (3) in FIG. 7.1: Write data in a second update file that is in the update package and that corresponds to the dtbo sub-partition of the static partition into a dtbo_b sub-partition of a second static partition”. [0118] partition of the second static partition, a version of the dtbo_b sub-partition changes from dtbo_b (1.0) shown in FIG. 7.1 to dtbo_b (2.0) shown in FIG. 7.2.
and removing a difference from the first new version part using the first synchronization information and recording the difference-removed first new version part in one area of the second partition as a second new version part.
[0142] Then, after completing the Merge operation, the electronic device further performs step (11) in FIG. 7.6: Synchronize data in the dtbo_b sub-partition to a dtbo_a sub-partition, in other words, perform a partition synchronization operation on the static partition. Specifically, 30 data in a static partition that is updated in a current-time operating system update process is synchronized to an un-updated static partition.
[0143] For example, when a file in the dtbo_b sub-partition of the second static partition is updated from a 1.0 version to a 2.0 version in current-time operating system updating, after completing the Merge operation, the electronic device copies the file in the dtbo_b sub-partition to the dtbo_a sub-partition of the first static partition, to synchronize the two sub-partitions.
But not explicitly:
an execution controller operated redundantly with a first partition and a second partition
Yang discloses:
an execution controller operated redundantly with a first partition and a second partition:
[0109] “to improve upgrade performance and reliability, the ECU adopts a dual-partition design so that version rollback can be quickly performed if software upgrade fails. For example, an upgrade procedure may be as follows: When a software version v2 stored in a primary partition A runs normally, a software version v1 stored in a secondary partition B is in a standby state. After receiving an upgrade task, the update agent 112 upgrades the software version in the secondary partition B to v3, and running of the software version v2 in the primary partition A is not affected”;
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Yang into teachings of Chen to provide a primary storage area and a secondary storage area of the first control unit are respectively bound to corresponding image areas, and a binding relationship between the image area and the storage area does not need to be modified, thereby improving processing efficiency of the software system. Furthermore, to switch a first controller to the primary storage area, so that the first control unit continues to run the software version backed up in the first image partition, thereby avoiding version rollback of the first control unit. [Yang 0039].
Claims 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 are the computing device claims corresponding to method claims (2 and 3), 5, (8 and 7), 10, 8, 9 and rejected under the same rational set forth in connection with the rejection of claims (2 and 3), 5, (8 and 7), 10, 8, 9 above.
Claims 4, 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al US20240378042A1 in view of Yang et al US20250342032A1 and Dang et al US 20260023855 A1
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and furthermore Chen discloses:
wherein the first partition is an inactive partition, and the second partition is an active partition.
Dang discloses:
wherein the first partition is an inactive partition, and the second partition is an active partition.
[0113] “As an example, during an over-the-air (OTA) update, an active partition (referred as partition A) can be running, and a new software image can be applied to the inactive partition (referred as partition B). After a successful validation of the new image, a bootstrap can set partition B as the next active partition (see, e.g., the parameters block 624). In such an approach, at the next system restarts, partition B will become the new active partition and partition A will become the inactive one.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Dang into teachings of Chen and Yang to use a first partition as an active partition and a second partition as a passive partition, and changing a bootloader configuration from the first partition to the second partition in response to receipt of a system update, and thus ensures simple and efficient operation of the field system.[Dang 0035].
Claim 13 is the computing device claim corresponding to method claim 3 and rejected under the same rational set forth in connection with the rejection of claim 3 above.
Pertinent arts:
US10534797B2:
reducing the number of data transfers between nodes when updating a partition in a data store. This can be achieved by updating the partitions in the data stores prior to synchronizing the partitions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAHIM BOURZIK whose telephone number is (571)270-7155. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8-4:30).
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, Wei Y Mui can be reached at 571-270-2738. 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.
/BRAHIM BOURZIK/ Examiner, Art Unit 2191
/Ted T. Vo/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191
Prosecution Insights