CTFR 18/921,293 CTFR 87653 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Amendment This action is responsive to applicant's amendment and remarks received on 03/17/2026. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-36 AIA 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 3 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. Claim 3 recites "comprising a first device that is not rewritable, and a second device that is rewritable, wherein the identifier is output from the second device to the first device." All of these limitations now appear verbatim in amended independent claim 1. Claim 3 therefore fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-5 is/ are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li ( CN 107967130 A) in view of Kushwaha (US 20200218531 A1) and Britt (US 6230319 B1). Reg arding claim 1, Li discloses an information processing device comprising: a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory, wherein the processor ( Li’s vehicle-system device is implemented by executing program instructions stored on a computer-readable medium/storage (Li (63), (77), (80)) ) is configured to: acquire a reference result of reference to a table in which a list of sounds ( Li teaches “Query an audio policy management table…query the audio policy management table according to the ID of the…RequestAudioFocus,” and an APP “uses an argument id of requestAudioFocus to check an audio policy management table,” i.e., performing a table lookup that yields a lookup/query result. (Li (45), (49)). ) defined by identifiers ( Li expressly uses the ID / argument id / parameter id of requestAudioFocus for the table query (Li (45), (49)); ; and further teaches that “each audio is given a different id according to the policy” (Li (42)) ) determined according to priority levels ( Li teaches that upon successful query/focus acquisition, “the audio channel…is pushed onto the top of the focus stack,” and audio channels are selected according to “position in the focus stack” (i.e., relative priority) (Li (46)–(50)). ) and sound types is recorded ( Li’s “policy table specifies” different channel categories including “music, video…navigation, and call (PHONE)” etc., evidencing sound types/categories represented in the table/policies. (Li (62)). Thus, Li teaches acquiring a table-lookup result from a table that relates sounds/audio channels (sound types/categories) to IDs and priority handling via focus stack ordering. ); and with respect to emitting instructions from one or more applications that cause a sound to be emitted ( Li teaches multiple APPs/audio channels requesting focus and the framework managing playback (pause/play/mix) and channel switching; if the sound is a different channel “the MCU is notified to switch over” and “play the sound to the corresponding channel.” (Li (45)) ), arbitrate a sound that is to be caused to be emitted, based on the priority levels ( Li teaches priority-based arbitration via the focus stack: if focus is granted, the requesting channel is pushed “onto the top of the focus stack,” and the system “select[s] an audio channel to play according to the position in the focus stack.” (Li (46)–(50)) ), and outputs an identifier corresponding to a sound resulting from the arbitration ( Li teaches that, after the selection/arbitration, the MCU is notified to switch and play “to the corresponding channel” (Li (45)); and Li provides an express example of the channel identifier that is communicated to the MCU as the result of the selection/arbitration, i.e., “the MCU needs to switch the audio channel to the phone channel” (Li (51)). ), wherein the output identifier is abstracted for a sound type determined in advance ( Li teaches that the output identifier is determined by a predetermined audio policy. Li (42) teaches that "each audio is given a different id according to the policy, so that the framework only needs to have one focus stack to achieve different audio conversions." Li (62) enumerates the predetermined audio categories established in advance by the policy. The identifier communicated to the MCU is at this sound-type level — for example, "the phone channel" (Li (51)). ). However, Li does not expressly disclose the applications issuing emitting instructions are "configured to be capable of being added or updated from an exterior," and the information processing device "includes a first device that is not rewritable and a second device that is rewritable," and that the identifier is output "from the second device to the first device." Kushwaha teaches over-the-air (OTA) updating of vehicle software/ECUs, explaining that “an OTA update refers to the process of transferring updated software components to a vehicle using wireless connectivity,” and transferring an installation plan to update software on one or more vehicle ECUs; Kushwaha further explains that OTA updates “improve lifecycle management” and that an owner “does not need to take the vehicle to a dealership to update the ECUs.” (Kushwaha [0004]). Kushwaha also describes that an OTA update manager orchestrates OTA updates for vehicles via wireless signals over wireless networks such as a cellular network and/or a WLAN (Wi-Fi). (Kushwaha [0029]–[0030]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li’s vehicle audio-focus/channel switching system such that the applications/software components implementing the audio behaviors (including those issuing focus/sound-emission requests and/or corresponding policy logic) are capable of being added and/or updated from an exterior via OTA, as taught by Kushwaha, because Kushwaha teaches OTA updating as a known vehicle software lifecycle technique for wirelessly delivering and installing updated software components and avoiding dealership/service visits, thereby improving maintainability and deployment of updated functionality in vehicle systems. The combination of Li and Kushwaha does not expressly teach that the information processing device "includes a first device that is not rewritable and a second device that is rewritable," nor that the identifier is output "from the second device to the first device." Li teaches a framework-to-MCU output flow but does not characterize either tier as rewritable or non-rewritable, and Kushwaha is directed to OTA delivery rather than to the underlying hardware partition. Britt teaches a processing system architecture that includes both a non-programmable mask ROM and a programmable flash memory (Britt col 6 ln 18-33, col 7 ln 25-63). Britt expressly teaches partitioning functionality between these memories such that "code/data that is unlikely to require modification" is stored in the non-programmable mask ROM, while "code/data likely to be upgraded or reconfigured" is stored in the programmable flash memory (Britt col 6 ln 18-33, col 10 ln 65 – col 11 ln 25). The non-programmable mask ROM corresponds to the claimed first device that is not rewritable; the programmable flash memory corresponds to the claimed second device that is rewritable. When Britt's partitioned architecture is applied to the combination of Li and Kushwaha, Li's framework-side processing (which hosts the OTA-updatable application code per Kushwaha) resides on the rewritable second device (flash), and Li's MCU resides on the non-rewritable first device (mask ROM). The framework-to-MCU output of the arbitrated identifier taught by Li (42) and (51) thereby corresponds to the claimed output "from the second device to the first device." The recited portion " thereby enabling the first device to recognize an emitting instruction from the one or more applications added or updated in the second device without updating the first device" is a statement of intended result that follows inherently from the recited structure once the combination is in place. See MPEP 2111.04. Because the identifier received by the first device is drawn from the predetermined sound-type set defined by the policy on the second device (Li (42), (51)), an application added or updated on the second device via Kushwaha's OTA mechanism that requests focus using one of the policy-defined audio IDs produces a notification to the first device of the same form as a notification produced by a preexisting application using the same audio ID. The first device therefore recognizes the emitting instruction without itself being updated, as an inherent consequence of the structural combination. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the Li/Kushwaha combination in a partitioned hardware architecture having a non-programmable mask ROM and a programmable flash memory, as taught by Britt. Britt expressly identifies the rationale: partitioning between non-programmable memory (for portions "not likely to change") and programmable memory (for portions "likely to be upgraded or reconfigured") permits remote upgrades of changeable code while preserving the integrity of stable core functions (Britt col 6 ln 18-33, col 7 ln 25-63, and col 10 ln 65 – col 11 ln 25). Kushwaha's OTA-updatable application code maps naturally onto Britt's programmable flash memory, while Li's underlying audio arbitration and channel-switching logic — which is invariant across OTA updates of the applications — maps onto Britt's non-programmable mask ROM. The combination is no more than the application of a known architectural partitioning technique to a system ready for improvement to yield the predictable result of a mixed-criticality vehicle audio system that supports OTA updates of application-layer code without compromising the stability of the underlying arbitration controller. Regarding claim 2, Li in view Kushwaha and Britt discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to arbitrate a sound that is to be caused to be emitted, based on the priority levels, with respect to an emitting instruction corresponding to the output identifier, and outputs an identifier corresponding to a sound resulting from the arbitration ( Li teaches that one of multiple audio channels applies for focus, that an audio policy management table is queried based on the ID of the requested RequestAudioFocus, and that upon successful focus acquisition the requesting audio channel is pushed to the top of a focus stack while previously playing channels are arranged below and controlled (e.g., reduce volume/mix/pause), and an audio channel is selected for playing according to its position in the focus stack (i.e., priority-based arbitration) (Li (6)–(9), (13), (15)–(20), (45)–(51), (63)-(69)). Kushwaha teaches applications/software components that are capable of being added or updated from an exterior by disclosing automatic Over-The-Air (OTA) updates in which updated software components are transferred to a vehicle using wireless connectivity and a plan for installing the updated software components on one or more ECUs is transferred, and the ECUs install the updated software components based on the plan. Kushwaha further teaches storing “updated software components” and “authorized software configurations,” establishing an OTA connection, identifying ECU software state, selecting a set of updated software components for installation, and generating an update plan for installing the set of updated software components (Kushwaha [0004], [0006], [0010], [00012], [0041]–[0043]) ) and an emitting instruction from an application that is configured to not be capable of being added or updated ( Britt teaches a processing system including both mask ROM and flash memory, where mask ROM is non-programmable (thus not updatable) while the flash memory is programmable and used to store software that can be upgraded by downloading replacement software/data over a network and writing it into flash (Britt col 6 ln 18 – 33, col 7 ln 25 – 63, and col 10 ln 65 – col 11 ln 25). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to implement Li’s audio-policy-table/ identifier-based focus arbitration in a vehicle system where (i) some sound-generating applications/software components are externally updatable (as in Kushwaha’s OTA-updated vehicle software components) and (ii) other sound-generating applications/software components are intentionally non-updatable (as in Britt’s non-programmable mask ROM-resident software), because doing so predictably yields a mixed-criticality architecture that preserves stability/integrity for fixed system functions while still permitting feature/maintenance updates from outside the vehicle, without changing Li’s core arbitration mechanism. Accordingly, the combined teachings meet claim 2’s requirement that the processor arbitrates, based on priority levels, with respect to (1) an emitting instruction corresponding to the output identifier (Li’s id-driven focus request and table/stack-based selection) and (2) an emitting instruction from an application configured to not be capable of being added or updated (Britt’s non-programmable mask-ROM-resident software), and outputs an identifier corresponding to the sound resulting from arbitration (Li’s selection by focus stack position / id-based policy ). Regarding claim 3, claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Li in view of Kushwaha and Britt for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. The limitations of claim 3 correspond directly to limitations now appearing in amended independent claim 1 and are addressed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Note also the 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection of claim 3 set forth above. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Li (CN 107967130 A) in view of Kushwaha (US 20200218531 A1) and Britt (US 6230319 B1) for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. Claim 4 recites a method configured to perform the same operations/functions recited in apparatus claim 1. The limitations of claim 4 correspond directly to the operations/functions of claim 1 in method form, and the scope and content of the recited features are substantially the same as those addressed in the rejection of claim 1. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Li (CN 107967130 A) in view of Kushwaha (US 20200218531 A1) and Britt (US 6230319 B1) for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 1. Claim 5 recites a non-transitory recording medium storing a program executable by a computer (see, e.g., Li (77), (80)) that, when executed, performs the same operations/functions recited in apparatus claim 1. The limitations of claim 5 correspond to the operations/functions of claim 1 in executable-code form, and the scope and content of these features are substantially the same as those addressed in the rejection of claim 1 . Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 0 3/17/2026 h ave been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Argument A: Applicant argues that "Li fails to disclose a first device that is not rewritable and a second device that is rewritable," and that "Kushwaha and Britt fail to cure the deficiencies of Li." Examiner's response to Argument A: The office action did not rely on Li for this limitation; it relied on Britt for the partitioned architecture comprising a non-rewritable mask ROM and a rewritable flash memory (Britt col 6 ln 18-33; col 7 ln 25-63; col 10 ln 65 – col 11 ln 25). Britt expressly teaches partitioning functionality between non-programmable mask ROM (for portions "not likely to change") and programmable flash memory (for portions "likely to be upgraded or reconfigured"). Britt further teaches that an identifier (a download request/flag) is provided from the rewritable flash to the non-rewritable mask ROM start-up routine (Britt col 8 ln 20-65). Applicant's response does not address the specific Britt mapping, does not address the rationale for combining Britt with Li and Kushwaha, and does not allege any teaching away. A conclusory assertion that the references "fail to cure the deficiencies" is insufficient to rebut a prima facie case where the deficiencies are expressly mapped to a secondary reference. See MPEP 2145(IV) (one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejection is based on a combination). However, because amended claim 1 now includes the first/second device architecture (previously only in dependent claim 3), the rejection of claim 1 (and corresponding claims 4 and 5) is modified to add Britt as a tertiary reference. This is a new ground of rejection necessitated by amendment. The same rationale for combining Li, Kushwaha, and Britt that supported the original rejection of claim 3 supports the modified rejection of claim 1. Argument B: Applicant argues that none of Li, Kushwaha, or Britt teaches that "the output identifier is abstracted for a sound type determined in advance, thereby enabling the first device to recognize an emitting instruction from the one or more applications added or updated in the second device without updating the first device." Examiner's response to Argument B: Li (42) teaches that "each audio is given a different id according to the policy" — IDs are assigned per audio type pursuant to a policy determined in advance. Li (62) enumerates the predetermined audio types (music, video, navigation, PHONE, TTS prompts, system background prompts, etc.). After arbitration, the framework "informs the MCU to complete the related audio output channel switching" (Li (42)), with the express example that "the MCU needs to switch the audio channel to the phone channel" (Li (51)). The MCU thus receives a sound-type identifier drawn from a policy-defined, determined-in-advance set, satisfying the claimed abstraction. The recited "thereby enabling the first device to recognize an emitting instruction from the one or more applications added or updated in the second device without updating the first device" is a statement of intended result that follows inherently from the structural combination. MPEP 2111.04. Because the MCU in Li receives policy-defined sound-type identifiers, any application added via Kushwaha's OTA mechanism that calls requestAudioFocus with one of those identifiers produces a notification to the MCU that is indistinguishable from one produced by a pre-existing application. No update to the non-rewritable side is required for recognition, and applicant identifies no structural feature of the claim that produces this result other than the abstraction itself, which Li (42) teaches. Therefore, applicant's arguments are deemed not persuasive, and the rejection is maintained. Conclusion 07-39 AIA THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RAJSHEED O BLACK-CHILDRESS whose telephone number is (571)270-7838. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 10am to 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. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at (571) 272-3114. 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. /RAJSHEED O BLACK-CHILDRESS/Examiner, Art Unit 2685 /QUAN ZHEN WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2685 Application/Control Number: 18/921,293 Page 2 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 18/921,293 Page 3 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 18/921,293 Page 4 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 18/921,293 Page 5 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 18/921,293 Page 6 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 18/921,293 Page 7 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 18/921,293 Page 8 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 18/921,293 Page 9 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 18/921,293 Page 10 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 18/921,293 Page 11 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 18/921,293 Page 12 Art Unit: 2685
Prosecution Insights