DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the claim amendment and remarked filed 4/24/2026.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 11, 13, 16-17 and 19 are amended; and claims 12 and 15 are cancelled. Therefore, claims 1-11, 13-14 and 16-20 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 17-18 and 20 recite the limitation "the system" in them. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cho (USPN: 2016/0334239).
As per claim 1, Cho teaches a method comprising:
reading, in a vehicle, a first configuration file comprising a first configuration parameter that affects an execution of a process in the vehicle into a memory as a set of in-memory configuration parameters (i.e. reading the user authentication information and the current map version information);
determining, by the vehicle, whether any update configuration file is present by checking for a storage location having an identifier based on a name of the first configuration file, the update configuration file comprising an entry specifying a change for the first configuration file (i.e. by checking and comparing current map version at the automatic navigation system update device with the latest map version at the update server. Note: the version numbers are considered as the claimed configuration file names); and
based on determining that the update configuration file is present in the storage location (i.e. the change is valid), determining, by applying the update configuration file to the set of in-memory configuration parameters in the memory, final configuration parameters to be applied for the process when executed in the vehicle, the final configuration parameters being produced without changing the first configuration file (i.e. once it is determined that the map version newer than the current one (e.g. newer than V3), the differential data lists are generated without changing the current/V3 map version; see [0032]-[0034] and [0051]).
As per claim 2, Cho further teaches the storage location is in a memory and the storage location comprises the first configuration file and the update configuration file (i.e. the memory is inherently present on the update server; see [0033]).
As per claims 3 and 4, Cho further teaches the change specified by the update configuration file comprises an insertion of a second configuration parameter into the set of in-memory configuration parameters, the second configuration parameter not being present in the first configuration file (i.e. the differential data in differential data lists are not present in the current (V3) map version information; see [0033]-[0034]).
As per claim 5, Cho further teaches the insertion of the second configuration parameter comprises: appending the second configuration parameter after an entry in the set of in-memory configuration parameters based on the first configuration file; or prepending the second configuration parameter before an entry in the set of in-memory configuration parameters based on the first configuration file; or inserting the second configuration parameter between entries in the set of in-memory configuration parameters based on the first configuration file (i.e. updating the current version of map data using the differential data inherently includes appending and/or prepending and/or deleting appending/prepending/inserting new parameter(s) after/before/between the entry of the first configuration file; see [0028]-[0029] and [0037]).
As per claim 6, Cho further teaches the change specified by the update configuration file comprises a modification of a value of the first configuration parameter in the set of in-memory configuration parameters based on the first configuration file (i.e. updating the current version of map data using the differential data inherently includes modifying one or more value(s) of the first configuration parameter in the set of in-memory configuration parameters based on the first configuration file; see [0028]-[0029] and [0037]).
As per claim 8, Cho further teaches checking for the storage location comprises checking for a directory having a name based on a name of the first configuration file, and wherein the update configuration file if present is in the directory (i.e. based on the current version of the map data; see [0059])
As per claim 16, Cho teaches a vehicle system (as shown in Fig. 1) comprising: one or more processors (inherently present in the update server 200 as well as in the navigation system update device 100); and a non-transitory storage medium storing instructions executable by the one or more processors (inherent). For the rest of the claim limitations, see the rejection of claim 1 above.
As per claim 19, Cho teaches a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium comprising instructions (inherently present in the update server 200 as well as in the navigation system update device 100) that upon execution cause a vehicle system (shown in Fig. 1). For the rest of the claim limitations, see the rejection of claim 1 above.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view Debickes et al. (USPN: 2018/0167380), hereinafter, Debickes.
As per claim 7, although Cho does not specifically disclose, Debickes teaches the first configuration file and the update configuration file are received at the vehicle in a package (see [0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to receive both an initial configuration file and an update configuration file at the vehicle in a package, as claimed, in order to ensure version consistency between configuration data and updates; simplify deployment and installation procedures; reduce the risk of incompatible or missing configuration artifacts; and improve reliability of vehicle software updates, which is a known concern in automotive system.
Claims 8-11, 13-14, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Bryan et al. (Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), Request for Comments: 6902, JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Patch, April 2013), hereinafter, RFC 6902.
As per claim 8, to the extent it is considered that Cho does not teach checking for the storage location comprises checking for a directory having a name based on a name of the first configuration file, and wherein the update configuration file if present is in the directory, RFC 6902 which is well known in the art teaches storing and applying update configuration files as patch files (see at least section 1 and Abstract), which implies they must be located and retrieved from a storage location before application. It is also well known and common that many file lookup strategies use derived directory names based on configuration file names; i.e. looking for a directory named from configuration file base name plus a suffix.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to modify the method taught by Cho by checking for a directory based on the name of a configuration file (e.g. strip suffix and derive directory for updates), because file lookup frameworks already taught deriving storage locations from file names and extensions. That way a structure, where update files are stored and checked in a directory named based on the initial config file name, would be arrived.
As per claim 9, Cho teaches the claimed invention as described above but does not specifically disclose about deriving, by the vehicle, the name of the directory by replacing a suffix in the name of the first configuration file with a different suffix.
Although Cho does not explicitly recite the claimed step of deriving, the suffix replacement to derive related directory names is a straightforward string manipulation routine in file systems and config tools. Many configuration management systems derive file locations by stripping/trimming suffixes of the file names (see at least section 4.3 of RFC 6902). Therefore, in view of this conventional file lookup logic taught by RFC 6902, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to implement this deriving step in the method taught by Cho.
As per claim 10, Cho teaches the claimed invention as described above but does not specifically disclose about the first configuration parameter in the first configuration file comprises a key-value pair comprising a key representing the first configuration parameter and a first value assigned to the key, and the change for the first configuration file comprises a modification of a value assigned to key.
However, RFC 6902 which is well known in the art teaches key-value parameters and modifying values in an existing configuration file (see at least various examples given in Appendix). The ‘replace value’, which is a basic config file edit operation, in JSON patch corresponds directly to this limitation (see at least section 4.3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to implement the teachings of RFC 6902 in the method taught by Cho to modify/change/replace the key value so config parameter can be changed easily by simply changing the key value and changes can be easily tracked.
As per claim 11, Cho teaches the storage location comprises a plurality of update configuration files and furthermore about applying the plurality of update configuration files in a specified order according to characteristics of the plurality of update configuration files, wherein the characteristics comprise names of the plurality of update configuration files, to the set of in-memory configuration parameters in the memory to determine the final configuration parameters to be applied for the process when executed in the vehicle (see [0033]-[0034]).
For the sake of argument, if it is considered that Cho does not teach the ‘applying’ limitation of this claim, ordered application of patches is widely known in the art. RFC 6902 which is well known in the art defines an ordered list of operations and teaches about allowing sequences of patch operations. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to apply multiple update patches in a specified order in the method taught by Cho because patch frameworks inherently work by processing an ordered list of operations. Likewise, config frameworks load multiple files in a determined order.
As per claim 13, Cho teaches the claimed invention as described above and furthermore, Cho teaches the specified order is an alphabetical order according to the names of the plurality of update configuration files (i.e. differential data is generated and applied version-by-version (e.g. V3, V4, V5, V6…), which is also in alphabetical order as claimed; see [0033]-[0034]).
As per claim 14, although Cho does not explicitly recite the further limitation of claim 14, it is well-known practice in configuration management systems and in RFC 6902 to validate a configuration update file against schema information prior to applying the update configuration file in order to prevent malformed or incompatible updates.
As per claim 17, although Cho and RFC 6902 do not explicitly recite the further limitation of claim 17, however, it is common and would have been obvious to prevent application of an update configuration file upon detecting an invalid change, as this fundamental error handling practice in software systems to ensure system stability.
As per claims 18 and 20, Cho further teaches that the storage location comprises a directory, and the instructions upon execution cause the system to: determine whether any update configuration file is present by checking for the directory having the directory name (i.e. by checking and comparing current map version at the automatic navigation system update device with the latest map version at the update server. Note: the version numbers are considered as the claimed configuration file names).
Although Cho and RFC 6902 do not explicitly recite the claimed step of deriving, the suffix replacement to derive related directory names is a straightforward string manipulation routine in file systems and config tools. Many configuration management systems derive file locations by stripping/trimming suffixes of the file names (see at least section 4.3 of RFC 6902. Therefore, in view of this conventional file lookup logic, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to implement this deriving step in the vehicle system taught by Cho.
Remarks
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 112(a) and 112(b) rejections made in the last Office action have been fully considered and are persuasive. Those rejection have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 102 and 103 rejections have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection made in this Office action.
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 Hetul Patel whose telephone number is (571)272-4184. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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.
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.
/Hetul Patel/
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights