DETAILED ACTION
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 . Claims 1-9 were previously pending. Claims 1, 3, and 5-7 have been amended. Claims 2, 4, and 8-9 have been cancelled. Claims 10-12 have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1, 3, 5-7, and 10-12 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the
references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as
the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is
reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the
language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant's definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 3, 5-7, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda (US 2020/0344116 A1) in view of Miyake (US 2019/0278588 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Maeda discloses a management device for use in a vehicle-mounted network that includes at least one vehicle-mounted function unit constituted of a circuitry (see at least Fig. 1, [0060] - the on-board network system 10 is configured to include ECUs 100 a to 100 d connected to various equipment on-board the vehicle, buses 200 a and 200 b, a gateway 300, as well as a network 400 and a server 500 outside the vehicle), the management device comprising: a detection unit constituted of a circuitry and configured to detect addition of a function unit to the vehicle-mounted network (see at least Figs. 24-25, [0198] – it is sensed that a new ECU has been added to the on-board network); an acquisition unit constituted of a circuitry and configured to acquire, from the at least one vehicle-mounted function unit, function unit information regarding the at least one vehicle-mounted function unit for determining a requirement if requirement information is received from a new function unit being the function unit whose addition has been detected by the detection unit, the function unit information including version information regarding software embedded in the at least one vehicle-mounted function unit, and the requirement information including version information regarding software embedded in the new function unit (see at least Figs. 24-25, [0128-0133, 0198-0199] - the sequences may also be executed when it is sensed that a new ECU has been added to the on-board network… gateway 300 in the vehicle transmits a frame for ECU information acquisition to the buses 200 a and 200 b, and thereby requests ECU information from all ECUs (such as the ECUs 100 a and 100 b) connected to the on-board network… receive ECU information made up of the ECU-ID and the FW version corresponding to the firmware); a determination unit constituted of a circuitry and configured to determine whether or not the at least one vehicle-mounted function unit satisfies the requirement for the at least one vehicle-mounted function unit and the new function unit to communicate, based on the requirement information based on the function unit information, the requirement being that a version of the software embedded in the at least one vehicle-mounted function unit is the same as, or newer than, a version of the software embedded in the new function unit (see at least Figs. 24-25, [0198-0204] - he FW update processing unit 370 a compares the verified ECU configuration information included in the FW update information to the system configuration information stored by the ECU information storing unit 372… the FW update processing unit 370 a of the gateway 300 a determines whether or not an appropriate operation verification has been conducted, according to whether or not the comparison result between the type of each of the multiple ECUs provided on-board the vehicle and the types of each of the multiple ECUs used in the operation verification indicated by the verified ECU configuration information satisfies a certain condition (for example, whether or not the comparison result is an exact match)); and an update request unit constituted of a circuitry and configured to transmit update request information requesting updating of the at least one vehicle-mounted function unit to an external device other than the at least one vehicle-mounted function unit, if the determination unit determines that the at least one vehicle-mounted function unit does not satisfy the requirement (see at least Figs. 24-25, [0094, 0204-0207] - in the case of determining that an appropriate operation verification has not been conducted, the gateway 300 a transmits system configuration information expressing the organization of all ECUs connected to the on-board network as a set of ECU information stored by the ECU information storing unit 372 to the server 500 a as an operation verification request (step S2312)).
Maeda does not appear to explicitly disclose the requirement information transmitted from the new function unit indicating the requirement.
Miyake, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: the requirement information transmitted from the new function unit indicating the requirement (see at least Figs. 1-2, [0042-0045] – Each of the in-vehicle devices B to D includes a software storing unit 20, compatibility information storing unit 21, and transmitter/receiver 22… The transmitter/receiver 22 sends the version of the software stored in the software storing unit 20, and the compatibility table of the current version and the compatibility table of the old version stored in the compatibility information storing unit 21, to the representative in-vehicle device A, at predetermined points in time.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Miyake into the invention of Maeda with a reasonable expectation of success. Maeda already teaches the requirement being a condition (for example that the configuration information is the same or a match. Miyake demonstrates that the requirement information for compatibility can be transmitted from each of the in-vehicle devices. The motivation of doing so is that the proper compatibility information is specified from the compatibility information of the current versions and the compatibility information of the old versions, which are held by the respective in-vehicle devices, thereby making it possible to specify more proper compatibility information with high accuracy (Miyake – [0010]).
Regarding claim 3, Maeda discloses wherein the acquisition unit is further configured to acquire, from the external device, the function unit information regarding the at least one vehicle-mounted function unit for determining the requirement (see at least Figs. 24-25, [0207-0209] - After receiving the FW update information transmitted by the server 500 a in step S2314, the gateway 300 a verifies the signature of the FW update information (FW update information signature) with the signature verifying unit 373 (step S2315). The processing in steps S2315 to S2318 is similar to the processing in steps S2308 to S2311.).
Regarding claim 5, Maeda discloses a function unit constituted of a circuitry and for use in a vehicle-mounted network that includes at least one vehicle-mounted function unit (see at least Fig. 1, [0060] - the on-board network system 10 is configured to include ECUs 100 a to 100 d), the function unit comprising: a processing unit constituted of a circuitry and configured to transmit, to a management device in the vehicle-mounted network, requirement information for communicating with the at least one vehicle-mounted function unit, in response to the function unit being added to the vehicle-mounted network, wherein the requirement information includes version information regarding software embedded in the function unit (see at least Figs. 24-25, [0128-0133, 0198-0199] - the sequences may also be executed when it is sensed that a new ECU has been added to the on-board network… gateway 300 in the vehicle transmits a frame for ECU information acquisition to the buses 200 a and 200 b, and thereby requests ECU information from all ECUs (such as the ECUs 100 a and 100 b) connected to the on-board network… receive ECU information made up of the ECU-ID and the FW version corresponding to the firmware), and the requirement is that a version of software embedded in the at least one vehicle-mounted function unit is the same as, or newer than, the version of the software embedded in the function unit (see at least Figs. 24-25, [0198-0204] - he FW update processing unit 370 a compares the verified ECU configuration information included in the FW update information to the system configuration information stored by the ECU information storing unit 372… the FW update processing unit 370 a of the gateway 300 a determines whether or not an appropriate operation verification has been conducted, according to whether or not the comparison result between the type of each of the multiple ECUs provided on-board the vehicle and the types of each of the multiple ECUs used in the operation verification indicated by the verified ECU configuration information satisfies a certain condition (for example, whether or not the comparison result is an exact match)).
Maeda does not appear to explicitly disclose transmit, to a management device in the vehicle-mounted network, requirement information indicating a requirement.
Miyake, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: transmit, to a management device in the vehicle-mounted network, requirement information indicating a requirement (see at least Figs. 1-2, [0042-0045] – Each of the in-vehicle devices B to D includes a software storing unit 20, compatibility information storing unit 21, and transmitter/receiver 22… The transmitter/receiver 22 sends the version of the software stored in the software storing unit 20, and the compatibility table of the current version and the compatibility table of the old version stored in the compatibility information storing unit 21, to the representative in-vehicle device A, at predetermined points in time.).
The motivation to combine Maeda and Miyake is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 6-7, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claims 6-7 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 1; therefore, claims 6-7 are also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Maeda discloses wherein the update request information requests updating of the software embedded in the at least one vehicle-mounted function unit and includes information designating a version to which the software embedded in the at least one vehicle-mounted function unit is to be updated, the designated version being the same as, or newer than, the version of the software embedded in the new function unit (see at least Figs. 24-25, [0204-0206] - In the case of determining that an appropriate operation verification has not been conducted, the gateway 300 a transmits system configuration information expressing the organization of all ECUs connected to the on-board network as a set of ECU information stored by the ECU information storing unit 372 to the server 500 a as an operation verification request (step S2312). Information related to the firmware delivered as an update is attached to the operation verification request, for example. Correspondingly, the server 500 a receives the system configuration information and the like as an operation verification request. Step S2312 is an operation verification request transmitting step in which the gateway 300 a transmits system configuration information to the server 500 a that acts as an external device… The server 500 a receives the operation verification request, and the FW operation verifying unit 530 a conducts a FW operation verification process regarding an operation verification of the delivered firmware in an environment corresponding to the system configuration information (step S2313). Step S2312 and step S2313 are an operation verifying step, performed in the server 500 a, that receives system configuration information and conducts an operation verification of updated firmware using multiple ECUs of the same types as all of the types indicated by the system configuration information.).
Regarding claim 12, Maeda discloses a management device for use in a vehicle-mounted network that includes at least one vehicle-mounted function unit constituted of a circuitry (see at least Fig. 1, [0060] - the on-board network system 10 is configured to include ECUs 100 a to 100 d connected to various equipment on-board the vehicle, buses 200 a and 200 b, a gateway 300, as well as a network 400 and a server 500 outside the vehicle), the management device comprising: a detection unit constituted of a circuitry and configured to detect addition of a function unit to the vehicle-mounted network (see at least Figs. 24-25, [0198] – it is sensed that a new ECU has been added to the on-board network); an acquisition unit constituted of a circuitry and configured to acquire, from the at least one vehicle-mounted function unit, function unit information regarding the at least one vehicle-mounted function unit for determining a requirement if requirement information is received from a new function unit being the function unit whose addition has been detected by the detection unit (see at least Figs. 24-25, [0128-0133, 0198-0199] - the sequences may also be executed when it is sensed that a new ECU has been added to the on-board network… gateway 300 in the vehicle transmits a frame for ECU information acquisition to the buses 200 a and 200 b, and thereby requests ECU information from all ECUs (such as the ECUs 100 a and 100 b) connected to the on-board network… receive ECU information made up of the ECU-ID and the FW version corresponding to the firmware); the function unit information including at least one of (BRI requires only one of the following) information from which a topology of hardware devices in a new vehicle-mounted network that includes the new function unit can be recognized (see at least [0097] - The system configuration information in this example is a list of ECU information for each ECU. The ECU information is configured to include an ECU-ID, an ECU class that indicates the functional class of the ECU, the manufacturing company of the ECU, and a FW version, such as a version number, of the firmware implemented in the ECU. The ECU-ID is an identifier (identification information) such as a serial number unique to each ECU, for example. The ECU type is identifiable from the ECU-ID and the FW version. Multiple ECUs of the same type are multiple ECUs having the same function related to the operation of exchanging data via a bus, for example, whereas multiple ECUs of different types are multiple ECUs having mutually different functions related to such operation. The example in FIG. 6 indicates that, for the ECU 100 a connected to the engine 101, the ECU-ID is “0001”, the ECU class is a class used for engine control identified by “engine”, the manufacturing company is “A Corp.”, the FW version of the ECU-ID is 1.0, and the like. The initial values of the system configuration information may be set during manufacturing, or may be acquired by the gateway 300 from an external device such as the server 500 when a supply of power to the gateway 300 is started, for example. If an ECU connected to the bus 200 a or 200 b is replaced or changes state due to a firmware update or the like, or if an ECU is newly introduced into the vehicle and connected to the bus 200 a or the bus 200 b, system configuration information may be updated successively to indicate the most recent state of each ECU inside the vehicle, on the basis of the ECU information periodically gathered by the ECU information acquiring unit 390.), information from which constraints regarding placement of applications in hardware devices in the new vehicle-mounted network can be recognized, and information from which constraints on a communication method in the new vehicle-mounted network can be recognized (see at least [0095, 0101-0102] – These forwarding rules associate a forwarding source bus, a forwarding destination bus, and a forwarding target ID (message ID). In FIG. 5, “*” indicates that frames are forwarded regardless of the message ID. The example in FIG. 5 indicates that frames received from the bus 200 a are configured to be forwarded to the bus 200 b, regardless of the message ID. The example in FIG. 5 also indicates that, among the frames received from the bus 200 b, only the frames having a message ID of “3” are configured to be forwarded to the bus 200 a… The accepted ID determining unit 130 receives the value of the ID field indicated in a notification from the frame interpreting unit 120, and follows a message ID list stored by the accepted ID list storing unit 140 to determine whether or not to receive each field in the frame following the ID field. The accepted ID determining unit 130 reports the determination result to the frame interpreting unit 120. The accepted ID list storing unit 140 stores an accepted ID list, which is a list of message IDs that the ECU 100 a is to receive. This accepted ID list is similar to the example in FIG. 4 described earlier, for example.); a determination unit constituted of a circuitry and configured to determine whether or not the at least one vehicle-mounted function unit satisfies the requirement for the at least one vehicle-mounted function unit and the new function unit to communicate, based on the requirement information and indicating the requirement and based on the function unit information (see at least Figs. 24-25, [0198-0204] - he FW update processing unit 370 a compares the verified ECU configuration information included in the FW update information to the system configuration information stored by the ECU information storing unit 372… the FW update processing unit 370 a of the gateway 300 a determines whether or not an appropriate operation verification has been conducted, according to whether or not the comparison result between the type of each of the multiple ECUs provided on-board the vehicle and the types of each of the multiple ECUs used in the operation verification indicated by the verified ECU configuration information satisfies a certain condition (for example, whether or not the comparison result is an exact match)); and an update request unit constituted of a circuitry and configured to transmit update request information requesting updating of the at least one vehicle-mounted function unit to an external device other than the at least one vehicle-mounted function unit, if the determination unit determines that the at least one vehicle-mounted function unit does not satisfy the requirement (see at least Figs. 24-25, [0094, 0204-0207] - in the case of determining that an appropriate operation verification has not been conducted, the gateway 300 a transmits system configuration information expressing the organization of all ECUs connected to the on-board network as a set of ECU information stored by the ECU information storing unit 372 to the server 500 a as an operation verification request (step S2312)).
Maeda does not appear to explicitly disclose the requirement information transmitted from the new function unit indicating the requirement.
Miyake, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: the requirement information transmitted from the new function unit indicating the requirement (see at least Figs. 1-2, [0042-0045] – Each of the in-vehicle devices B to D includes a software storing unit 20, compatibility information storing unit 21, and transmitter/receiver 22… The transmitter/receiver 22 sends the version of the software stored in the software storing unit 20, and the compatibility table of the current version and the compatibility table of the old version stored in the compatibility information storing unit 21, to the representative in-vehicle device A, at predetermined points in time.).
The motivation to combine Maeda and Miyake is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda in view of Miyake and Lee (US 2024/0061670 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Maeda does not appear to explicitly disclose further comprising: a generation unit constituted of a circuitry and configured to generate, when an update completion notification is received from the at least one vehicle-mounted function unit, setting information for communication in a new vehicle-mounted network that includes the new function unit, based on the function unit information regarding the at least one vehicle-mounted function unit and function unit information regarding the new function unit; and a setting unit constituted of a circuitry and configured to change settings of the management device based on the generated setting information.
Lee, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: a generation unit constituted of a circuitry and configured to generate, when an update completion notification is received from the at least one vehicle-mounted function unit, setting information for communication in a new vehicle-mounted network that includes the new function unit, based on the function unit information regarding the at least one vehicle-mounted function unit and function unit information regarding the new function unit; and a setting unit constituted of a circuitry and configured to change settings of the management device based on the generated setting information (see at least Figs. 2, 4, [0081-0084, 0104-0108], claims 1 and 7 – after the update of the software is completed, the RXSWIN management module 231 may update and store an RXSWIN value associated with the updated software in the RXSWIN information stored in the gateway and/or the ECU of the vehicle 230… the gateway is configured to collect a plurality of pieces of software identification management information received from a plurality of electronic control units included in the vehicle control apparatus and generate and update the master list).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Lee into the invention of Maeda with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is to provide a master list of the software identification management information that is updated, which allows for querying a single master list when needed (Lee – [0010, 0014]).
Response to Arguments
In light of the amendments to the claims, the claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/CAITLIN R MCCLEARY/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
