DETAILED ACTION
Claims 14 - 25 are currently pending.
Claims 14 – 25 are new.
Claims 1 – 13 are cancelled.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/11/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 22 contains the term “lready” on the third line of the claim. The examiner recommends changing the term to “already”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: The letter “ s “ on the second line of claim 23 should be changed to the word “ is ”. Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 14-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gupta et al (US 2024/0272892).
As per claims 14, 24 and 25:
Taking claim 14 as exemplary: Gupta discloses a method for monitoring an application for providing at least one safety-critical function for a vehicle (Gupta: Paragraph [0053] – [0054], the node providing a software update to fix software that affects vehicle safety), comprising the following steps: providing at least one monitoring function of the application, wherein the at least one monitoring function generates a defined signal based on at least one runtime characteristic of the application in order to specify the at least one runtime characteristic via the defined signal, wherein the runtime characteristic describes at least a course of one or more runtime events (Gupta: Paragraph [0053] interpreting the application on the node 120 as the claimed application, paragraph [0061] – [0062] interpreting the application of node 120 receiving the software update request 162 as performing the claimed monitoring function of the application, and the defined signal as the initial portion of the software update); reading out the generated defined signal using a monitoring component (Paragraph [0062], interpreting the vehicle processor receiving the software update as the claimed monitoring component reading the defined signal); and monitoring the application based on an analysis of the read-out generated defined signal via the monitoring component (Gupta: Paragraph [0062] – [0063], the vehicle processor receives the update and determines whether there is an issue with the update).
As per claim 15:
Gupta discloses the defined signal is a standardized message which includes a current item of information about the at least one runtime characteristic, wherein the one or more runtime events are recorded by the at least one monitoring function and being reproduced by the at least one runtime characteristic via the defined signal, the one or more runtime events being specific to a current functionality of the application (Gupta: Paragraph [0060] – [0061], software update).
As per claim 16:
Gupta discloses the method further comprises the following step: carrying out an additional analysis of the at least one runtime characteristic via the monitoring function in order to additionally generate the defined signal taking into account the additional analysis (Gupta: Paragraph [0064] – [0065] and Figure 1B step 174 and 178, interpreting the determining remaining portion of the software update as equivalent to the claimed additional analysis by the monitoring function and sending signal 116 to request transfer of the remaining portion as the additionally generated defined signal).
As per claim 17:
Gupta discloses the method further comprises the following step: carrying out at least one measure based on a result of the analysis of the read- out generated defined signal, the at least one measure including terminating at least one process of the application, and/or terminating the application, and/or adapting at least one access restriction of the application to the vehicle, and/or closing at least one port of the vehicle, and/or adapting at least one filter rule with regard to a data exchange of the application (Gupta: Paragraph [0062], interpreting sending the signal 112 notification of software update issue as equivalent to the claimed terminating at least one process of the application).
As per claim 18:
Gupta discloses the monitoring function is executed at a defined periodicity (Gupta: Paragraph [0053], the software updates are performed at least quarterly).
As per claim 19:
Gupta discloses the at least one runtime characteristic is an execution time of at least one function of the application and/or an execution time of the entire application (Gupta: Paragraph [0053] and [0060] and figure 1B step 154, interpreting the software update available as a runtime characteristic).
As per claim 20:
Gupta discloses the at least one runtime characteristic is an access pattern of the application to at least one system resource of the vehicle, and wherein the method further comprises the following steps: defining a specification for the access pattern; comparing the access pattern of the application with the defined specification for the access pattern, the defined signal being generated taking into account a result of the comparison (Gupta: Paragraph [0053], quarterly software updates).
As per claim 21:
Gupta discloses the method further comprises the following step: checking the application and the monitoring component based on a bidirectional interaction between the application and the monitoring component with a defined message structure (Gupta: Paragraph [0061] – [0063] and figure 1B, bidirectional interaction between vehicle processor and first node).
As per claim 22:
Gupta discloses the method further comprises the following steps: checking whether the application already has the at least one monitoring function and/or at least one alternative monitoring function, the application being adapted based on the at least one already present monitoring function and/or the at least one alternative monitoring function when a monitoring function is present (Gupta: Paragraph [0055] – [0056], receiving update issue from vehicle processor, node 120 monitoring for that signal).
As per claim 23:
Gupta discloses the vehicle is a software-defined vehicle and the application is a vehicle-specific application, and wherein the monitoring component is being part of the vehicle or part of an external data processing device (Gupta: Paragraph [0084]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lu et al (US 2024/0272922) teaches techniques for simulating schedulers associated with autonomous vehicle software. SMID et al (US 2025/0039015) teaches zonal control architecture for software defined vehicles. Ma et al (US 2024/0045657) teaches the monitoring of ports and software for vehicles. Lam et al (US 2021/0284030) teaches software application management, including control signals relating to safety critical functions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY K HUSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3430. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 - 3:30 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, Idriss Alrobaye can be reached at (571) 270-1023. 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.
/ZACHARY K HUSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2181