DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial Office action based on the application filed on November 1, 2024.
Claims 1-5 are pending.
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 .
Internet Communications
Without a written authorization for Internet communications by the Applicant in place, the USPTO cannot communicate with the Applicant via email and will not respond via email to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 122, such as claimed subject matter in an interview agenda or proposed claim amendments for an Examiner’s Amendment.
Therefore, in the interest of facilitating compact prosecution, the Examiner kindly asks the Applicant to authorize Internet communications with the USPTO by using Form PTO/SB/439 (available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms). The form may be submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system (Patent Center) using the document description “Internet Communications Authorized” to facilitate processing. The written authorization for Internet communications must be submitted on a separate paper to be entitled to acceptance in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.4(c). The separate paper will facilitate processing and avoid confusion. The written authorization for Internet communications may not be submitted via an email. See MPEP § 502.03(II).
Claim Interpretation
During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” See MPEP § 2111. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, the drawings, and the prior art. See MPEP § 2111.01(I).
Applicant is entitled to be their own lexicographer and may rebut the presumption that claim terms are to be given their ordinary and customary meaning by clearly setting forth a definition of the term that is different from its ordinary and customary meaning(s) in the specification at the relevant time. Where an explicit definition is provided by the Applicant for a term, that definition will control interpretation of the term as it is used in the claim. See MPEP § 2111.01(IV)(A). Any such lexicographic definition for a term will be expressly noted by the Examiner in the prior art rejections of the claims.
Claim Interpretation Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) 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) 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) 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) because the claim limitations use 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 is: “a controller configured to […]” in Claims 1-3.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If the Applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), the Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Claim Mapping
For clarity of the prosecution history record, the Examiner has provided annotations in the prior art rejections of the claims to aid the Applicant in understanding the Examiner’s interpretations of the claimed invention and the prior art, such as emphasizing notable and relevant portions of the prior art citations, using item-to-item matching to the prior art citations, pairing exact claim language to particular language used in the prior art citations, and/or clearly explaining the Examiner’s interpretation as to how a prior art citation maps to the claim language, especially when there is no one-to-one matching of terms. Furthermore, the annotations are provided in the prior art rejections of the claims at the Examiner’s discretion where the Examiner deemed to be appropriate and necessary.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR § 1.55.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: DISPLAYING INFORMATION ON A SOFTWARE UPDATE OF AN IN-VEHICLE DEVICE MOUNTED ON A VEHICLE.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 recite “the installation.” It should read -- the installation of the update software on the in-vehicle device --.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claims 1, 4, and 5 recite “during execution.” It should read -- during the execution --.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claims 2 and 3 recite “wherein the controller is configured to.” It should read -- wherein the controller is further configured to --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 1, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0019424 (hereinafter “Nagamitsu”) in view of US 2015/0113520 (hereinafter “Kotani”), US 2024/0104218 (hereinafter “Yoshikawa”), and US 2023/0035303 (hereinafter “Shizuka”).
EXAMINER’S REMARKS
In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).
The claimed invention is generally directed to displaying information on a software update of an in-vehicle device mounted on a vehicle (specification, paragraph [0002]). As for the “same field of endeavor” test, Nagamitsu is generally directed to controlling update of software of an electronic control unit (specification, paragraph [0002]). And Kotani is generally directed to updating software via a network (specification, paragraph [0002]). And Yoshikawa is generally directed to updating software of devices involved in a security function of a vehicle (specification, paragraph [0006]). And Shizuka is generally directed to updating software that operate a vehicle-mounted equipment (Abstract). Thus, Nagamitsu, Kotani, Yoshikawa, and Shizuka are all analogous art to the claimed invention (even if they address different problems).
As per Claim 1, Nagamitsu discloses:
A control device comprising a controller (Figure 1: 11) configured to control a display unit (Figure 1: 14) configured to display information on a software update of an in-vehicle device mounted on a vehicle (paragraph [0003], “A plurality of electronic control units (ECUs) used for controlling an operation of a vehicle is mounted on the vehicle.”), wherein:
the controller is configured to, solely in a case of a first update […], before installation of update software on the in-vehicle device is started, cause the display unit to display an approval reception image showing that an approval operation performed by a user of the vehicle for executing the installation is received (paragraph [0057], “[…] the control unit 40 executes an approval request process for requesting an approval for the software update from the user or the administrator before the execution of the installation [before installation of update software on the in-vehicle device is started] (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0058], “As the output device, for example, a display device 14 provided in the in-vehicle network 2, a voice output device that executes a notification using voice can be used. For example, in the approval request process, when the display device 14 is used as the output device, the control unit 40 causes the display device 14 to display an approval request screen used for requesting the approval for the software update, and causes the display device 14 to display a notification prompting a specific input operation, such as pressing an approval button when the user or the administrator approves the software update. Further, in the approval request process, the control unit 40 causes the display device 14 to display text, an icon, or the like notifying the user or the administrator that there is the software update data of the electronic control unit, and causes the display device 14 to display restrictions or the like during the execution of the software update process (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0059], “The control unit 40 executes the approval request process at a timing according to the memory type of electronic control unit to be updated, and, upon receiving the input indicating that the user or the administrator has approved the software update, executes the above-described control processes for the installation and the activation, and updates the software of the electronic control unit to be updated (emphasis added).”).
Nagamitsu does not explicitly disclose:
[…] two kinds of software updates including the first update and a second update.
However, Kotani discloses:
[…] two kinds of software updates including the first update and a second update (paragraph [0084], “Such conditions include, for example, the one in which hash values are matched between the record of the status information 70 and the record of the white list Z (60) for all first type software, when there are two types of update target software, namely, first type software that affects travel by an automobile and second type software that does not directly affect the travel by the automobile (emphasis added).”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Nagamitsu and Kotani are both analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Kotani into the teaching of Nagamitsu to include “[…] two kinds of software updates including the first update and a second update.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to install multiple software updates for on-vehicle devices or ECUs of a vehicle.
The combination of Nagamitsu and Kotani does not explicitly disclose:
the first update is a software update accompanied by a temporary stop of a function of the in-vehicle device during execution of the installation […].
However, Yoshikawa discloses:
the first update is a software update accompanied by a temporary stop of a function of the in-vehicle device during execution of the installation […] (paragraph [0005], “At the time of updating software of on-vehicle devices or ECUs, there may be a case of temporarily stopping or restarting functions of the on-vehicle devices or the ECUs being targets for the updating of the software (emphasis added).”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Yoshikawa is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Yoshikawa into the combined teachings of Nagamitsu and Kotani to include “the first update is a software update accompanied by a temporary stop of a function of the in-vehicle device during execution of the installation […].” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to suspend functions of on-vehicle devices or ECUs of a vehicle that are targets for updating so that software of the on-vehicle devices or the ECUs of the vehicle can be updated.
The combination of Nagamitsu, Kotani, and Yoshikawa does not explicitly disclose:
[…] the second update is a software update accompanied by no temporary stop of the function of the in-vehicle device during the execution of the installation.
However, Shizuka discloses:
[…] the second update is a software update accompanied by no temporary stop of the function of the in-vehicle device during the execution of the installation (paragraph [0032], “Next, in step S103, the ECUs 12 store (install) the updating software (second software) in the second storage unit 122 (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0048], “In the software updating device 110, each of the ECUs 12 (controller 10) has the first storage unit 121 that stores the first software and the second storage unit 122 that stores the second software. Therefore, it is possible to acquire the updating software (second software) and to store the updating software in the second storage unit 122 in a state in which the first software stored in the first storage unit 121 is applied to the equipment. It is therefore possible to acquire and store the updating software without stopping the equipment controlled by the ECUs 12 that are to be updated, and convenience during software update work is improved (emphasis added).”).
EXAMINER’S REMARKS
Shizuka discloses acquiring and storing (installing) the updating software without stopping the equipment controlled by the ECUs that are to be updated. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that stopping the equipment controlled by the ECUs includes stopping the functions of the equipment controlled by the ECUs.
As pointed out hereinabove, Shizuka is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Shizuka into the combined teachings of Nagamitsu, Kotani, and Yoshikawa to include “[…] the second update is a software update accompanied by no temporary stop of the function of the in-vehicle device during the execution of the installation.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to continue executing functions of on-vehicle devices or ECUs of a vehicle during updating of software of the on-vehicle devices or the ECUs of the vehicle.
Claim 4 is a control method claim corresponding to the control device claim hereinabove (Claim 1). Therefore, Claim 4 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Claim 5 is a non-transitory storage medium claim corresponding to the control device claim hereinabove (Claim 1). Therefore, Claim 5 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nagamitsu in view of Kotani, Yoshikawa, and Shizuka as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2009/0062985 (hereinafter “Ohashi”).
EXAMINER’S REMARKS
In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).
The claimed invention is generally directed to displaying information on a software update of an in-vehicle device mounted on a vehicle (specification, paragraph [0002]). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Ohashi is generally directed to recovering the operation of the vehicle height adjustment device (specification, paragraph [0003]). Thus, Ohashi is an analogous art to the claimed invention (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
As per Claim 2, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Nagamitsu, Kotani, Yoshikawa, and Shizuka discloses “in a case where the software update is the first update” and “during the execution of the installation,” but the combination of Nagamitsu, Kotani, Yoshikawa, and Shizuka does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the controller is configured to, in a case where the software update is the first update, cause the display unit to display at least one of information indicating that the function of the in-vehicle device is temporarily stopped during the execution of the installation and information indicating a content of the function of the in-vehicle device that is temporarily stopped during the execution of the installation.
However, Ohashi discloses:
wherein the controller is configured to […] cause the display unit to display at least one of information indicating that the function of the in-vehicle device is temporarily stopped […] and information indicating a content of the function of the in-vehicle device that is temporarily stopped […] (paragraph [0063], “A warning processing portion 62 is connected to the control stop portion 46. When the control stop portion 46 temporarily suspends execution of the vehicle height control or when the temporary suspension of the vehicle height control is canceled, the warning processing portion 62 displays on the display unit 34 a message that indicates the temporary suspension of the vehicle height control or the cancellation of the vehicle height control, thereby alerting the driver.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Ohashi is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Ohashi into the combined teachings of Nagamitsu, Kotani, Yoshikawa, and Shizuka to include “wherein the controller is configured to, in a case where the software update is the first update, cause the display unit to display at least one of information indicating that the function of the in-vehicle device is temporarily stopped during the execution of the installation and information indicating a content of the function of the in-vehicle device that is temporarily stopped during the execution of the installation.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to alert a driver of a vehicle that functions of on-vehicle devices or ECUs of a vehicle are suspended during updating of software of the on-vehicle devices or the ECUs of the vehicle.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nagamitsu in view of Kotani, Yoshikawa, and Shizuka as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2010/0138080 (hereinafter “Nazione”).
EXAMINER’S REMARKS
In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).
The claimed invention is generally directed to displaying information on a software update of an in-vehicle device mounted on a vehicle (specification, paragraph [0002]). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Nazione is generally directed to remote management of vehicle modules (specification, paragraph [0001]). Thus, Nazione is an analogous art to the claimed invention (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
As per Claim 3, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Nagamitsu further discloses:
wherein the controller is configured to, after downloading the update software is completed, cause the display unit to display the approval reception image […] (paragraph [0056], “The control unit 40 transfers one or more pieces of downloaded update data to the electronic control unit to be updated, and causes the electronic control unit to be updated to install the update data.”; paragraph [0058], “As the output device, for example, a display device 14 provided in the in-vehicle network 2, a voice output device that executes a notification using voice can be used. For example, in the approval request process, when the display device 14 is used as the output device, the control unit 40 causes the display device 14 to display an approval request screen used for requesting the approval for the software update, and causes the display device 14 to display a notification prompting a specific input operation, such as pressing an approval button when the user or the administrator approves the software update.”; paragraph [0059], “The control unit 40 executes the approval request process at a timing according to the memory type of electronic control unit to be updated, and, upon receiving the input indicating that the user or the administrator has approved the software update, executes the above-described control processes for the installation and the activation, and updates the software of the electronic control unit to be updated.”).
The combination of Nagamitsu, Kotani, Yoshikawa, and Shizuka does not explicitly disclose:
[…] at a time decided based on at least one of a traveling status of the vehicle and a position of the vehicle.
However, Nazione discloses:
[…] at a time decided based on at least one of a traveling status of the vehicle and a position of the vehicle (paragraph [0037], “If it is determined in step 210 that the position of the vehicle is an approved location for remote vehicle module management, then the remote management request is implemented (step 212). For example, in one preferred embodiment, one or more software upgrades or updates of one or more of the vehicle modules 106 of FIG. 1 are executed by the processor 124 of FIG. 1.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Nazione is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Nazione into the combined teachings of Nagamitsu, Kotani, Yoshikawa, and Shizuka to include “[…] at a time decided based on at least one of a traveling status of the vehicle and a position of the vehicle.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to update software of on-vehicle devices or ECUs of a vehicle when a position of the vehicle is in an approved location (Nazione, paragraph [0037]).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure. They are as follows:
US 2017/0255461 (hereinafter “Shimotani”) discloses executing a native application pre-installed in the apparatus and a second OS for executing a distribution application acquired from an external apparatuses.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
US 2020/0272451 (hereinafter “Inoue”) discloses a software updating method that are capable of more favorably performing the update of the software.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> • × • <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
US 2022/0156056 (hereinafter “Shimomura”) discloses executing program update processing of an on-board apparatus after at least confirming that no person is present around a vehicle, and restricting the program update processing when a person is present around the vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Qing Chen whose telephone number is 571-270-1071. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/ interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Wei Mui, can be reached at 571-272-3708. 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 more 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.
/Qing Chen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191
Prosecution Insights