DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/6/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1 and 3-12 remain pending in this application.
Claim Interpretation
As to claim 8, Applicant should please note that "The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B; See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) (precedential) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. In Schulhauser, both method claims and system claims recited the same contingent step. When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to bc performed" (quotation omitted). Schulhauser at 10. When analyzing the claimed system as a whole, the PTAB determined that "[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a system claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur." Schulhauser at 14. Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent for the determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been met);" however to render the claimed system obvious, the prior art must teach the structure that performs the function of the contingent step along with the other recited claim limitations. Schulhauser at 9, 14" - see MPEP 2114.04 (II). Therefore, the steps of " in response to the non-volatile memory included in the electronic control unit to be updated being a first type of memory, executing the approval request process before update data is installed in a storage area of the non-volatile memory; and in response to the non-volatile memory included in the electronic control unit to be updated being a second type of memory, executing the approval request process after the update data is installed in the storage area, which is not a target to be read, of the non-volatile memory and before the storage area in which the update data is installed is activated as a target to be read" as recited in claim 8 are still contingent limitations, given their broadest reasonable interpretation, and are not required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurai et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2020/050378 A1, Sakurai hereinafter) in view of Nakaguma et el. (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0354363 A1, Nakaguma hereinafter, both art already of record, see IDS filed on 10/9/2024).
As to claim 8, Sakurai teaches An update control method of controlling software update of an electronic control unit (see Fig.1 and associated text, e.g. [0047] - the CGW 13 controls updating (that is, data rewrites and activation) of the application programs of the at least one target ECU 19 based on the specification data 50 (and the specification data table 52, executed by a computer (e.g. CGW 13) that includes a processor (e.g. microprocessor 24, see Fig.4 and associated text), a memory (e.g. RAM 24c) and a storage device (e.g. ROM 24b), the update control method comprising:
controlling, when a software update process of the electronic control unit is executed, a timing for the software update process according to a type of non-volatile memory included in the electronic control unit to be updated (See e.g. [0080] - the rewrite timing specifying unit 56c analyzes the specification data 50 and specifies the memory structure corresponding to the target ECU 19. Then, from the memory structure, the rewrite timing specifying unit 56c specifies whether the timing of program rewrite for the target ECU 19 is restricted to only when the vehicle is parked or to when the vehicle is either parked or in operation. Specifically, the rewrite timing specifying unit 56c specifies the memory structure of the target ECU 19 from the memory structure information 8 included in the specification data 50 corresponding to the target ECU 8. In the present embodiment, the program rewrite to the flash memory 28d is restricted to when the vehicle is parked when the memory structure information 8 indicates the target ECU 19 has the single type memory or the single suspended type memory. On the other hand, the program rewrite to the flash memory 28d is allowed regardless of whether the vehicle is parked or in operation when the memory structure information 8 indicates the target ECU 19 has the dual type memory. Therefore, if the memory structure information 8 included in the specification data 50 indicates the single type memory or the single suspend type memory, the rewrite timing specifying unit 56c determines that the program rewrite for the target ECU 19 is restricted to when the vehicle is parked. In contrast, if the memory structure information 8 included in the specification data 50 indicates the dual type memory, the rewrite timing specifying unit 56c determines that the program rewrite for the target ECU 19 is performed when the vehicle is either parked or in operation).
Sakurai does not specifically teach executing an approval request process for requesting an approval for a software update, in response to the non-volatile memory included in the electronic control unit to be updated being a first type of memory, executing the approval request process before update data is installed in a storage area of the non-volatile memory or in response to the non-volatile memory included in the electronic control unit to be updated being a second type of memory, executing the approval request process after the update data is installed in the storage area, which is not a target to be read, of the non-volatile memory and before the storage area in which the update data is installed is activated as a target to be read.
In an analogous art of updating software, however, Nakaguma teaches executing an approval request process for requesting an approval for a software update (see Figs. 11, 12 and associated text, e.g. [0087]- the server control unit 61 transmits a software update permission request message for confirming to the user whether software update can be executed to the first control unit 71 (S306); The first control unit 71 causes the HMI 34 to display a message requiring permission to update the software (S354). The HMI 34 displays the requested message, receives a response from the user, and returns the response to the first control unit 71 (S355). The first control unit 71 transmits information indicating whether permission is permitted to the server control unit 61 (S307)) in response to the non-volatile memory included in the electronic control unit to be updated being a first type of memory, executing the approval request process before update data is installed in a storage area of the non-volatile memory [and in response to the non-volatile memory included in the electronic control unit to be updated being a second type of memory, executing the approval request process after the update data is installed in the storage area, which is not a target to be read, of the non-volatile memory and before the storage area in which the update data is installed is activated as a target to be read] (see e.g. [0088] - Next, the server control unit 61 acquires the update timing 1191 from the storage 183 (S360) and transmits an update timing notification to the first control unit 71 together with the message instructing the execution of the software update (S314) and [0090] - the second control unit 91 transmits an update start command to the update unit 81 (S317) and causes the update unit 81 to execute the software update processing (S390); Applicant should please note that because the limitations of “in response to the non-volatile memory included in the electronic control unit to be updated being a second type of memory, executing the approval request process after the update data is installed in the storage area, which is not a target to be read, of the non-volatile memory and before the storage area in which the update data is installed is activated as a target to be read” are contingent limitations, the limitation of “in response to the non-volatile memory included in the electronic control unit to be updated being a first type of memory, executing the approval request process before update data is installed in a storage area of the non-volatile memory” as taught by Nakaguma, meets the requirements of the claim).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Sakurai to incorporate/implement the limitations as taught by Nakaguma in order to provide a more efficient method/system of remotely updating software of a vehicle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3-7, and 9-12 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior arts as cited does not teach or suggest, either solely or in combination, the claimed limitations.
Nachimuthu et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0243637 A1) discloses an interface is provided to update a firmware of a persistent memory module at runtime without restarting an operating system on the platform.
Miyamoto (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0081708 A1) discloses a processing device and a software execution control method which prevent unauthorized and potentially malicious software from being executed.
However, the combination of Nachimuthu and Miyamoto as well as any other prior art previously cited on the record, does not specifically disclose “when the non-volatile memory included in the electronic control unit to be updated is a first type of memory, execute the approval request process before update data is installed in a storage area of the non-volatile memory and when the non-volatile memory included in the electronic control unit to be updated is a second type of memory, execute the approval request process after the update data is installed in the storage area, which is not a target to be read, of the non-volatile memory and before the storage area in which the update data is installed is activated as a target to be read., as recited in the independent claims, in combination with the other elements recited, which is not found in the prior art of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENECA SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1651. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:30PM EST.
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, Hyung S Sough can be reached on 571-272-6799. 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.
/CHENECA SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2192
/S. Sough/SPE, Art Unit 2192