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 1-7 were originally pending in this application, of which claims 1-7 were amended and claims 8-9 were added in the preliminary amendments filed concurrently with the original filing of the application. Thus, claims 1-9 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits (FAOM).
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 Objections
Claims objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-9 recite “the vehicle-mounted function unit” but should instead recite --the at least one vehicle-mounted function unit--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasukawa (US 2015/0149651 A1) in view of Miyake (US 2019/0278582 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yasukawa discloses a management device for use in a network that includes at least one function unit constituted of a circuitry (see at least Figs. 1, 2a, [0023, 0027] – protocol adaptor system 100 for a network), the management device comprising: a detection unit constituted of a circuitry and configured to detect addition of a function unit to the network (see at least Figs. 1, 2a, [0025-0026, 0028] – detect that a new device 140 has been connected); a determination unit constituted of a circuitry and configured to determine whether or not the function unit satisfies a requirement for the function unit and a new function unit being the function unit whose addition has been detected by the detection unit to communicate, based on requirement information transmitted from the new function unit and indicating the requirement (see at least Figs. 1, 2a, [0025-0026, 0028] – report that the new device 140 is unsupported by the specific protocol unit 130, and that a new fragment is needed to enable communication with the newly connected device 140); and an update request unit constituted of a circuitry and configured to transmit update request information requesting updating of the function unit to an external device other than the function unit, if the determination unit determines that the function unit does not satisfy the requirement (Examiner note: the term “if” throughout the claims is interpreted to be equivalent to the term “when”, and is not being interpreted as optional - see at least Figs. 1, 2a, [0026, 0028, 0039] - if it is determined by that a new fragment is required, determine which fragment is needed, retrieve the fragment, and install the fragment in the specific protocol unit 130 to enable communication between the new device 140 and the generic application 150… the remote management unit 260 instructs the gateway management unit 265 to download and store the fragments locally in the local schema unit so the fragments may be locally available when needed for enablement of communication between a new device and a generic application 150).
Yasukawa does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the network is a vehicle-mounted network and wherein the at least one function unit is at least one vehicle-mounted function unit.
Miyake, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the network is a vehicle-mounted network and wherein the at least one function unit is at least one vehicle-mounted function unit (see at least [0038] – vehicle control system 100… on-board devices A to D that can communicate with each other).
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 Yasukawa with a reasonable expectation of success. One motivation of doing so is that Yasukawa teaches that the gateway unit of the protocol adapter system can be applied to various examples including but not limited to a vehicle arranged terminal (Yasukawa – [0029]), thereby indicating that this system can be applied to a variety of applications, and can be implemented for a vehicle network and vehicle devices. Thus, applying Yasukawa’s system in a vehicle would yield predictable results. Another motivation of doing so is to ensure consistent versions of software are installed on all on-board devices to reduce the possibility of unexpected situations (Miyake – [0021]). Furthermore, if the communication abilities of a new ECU in a vehicle do not match those of the other ECUs in the vehicle, all of the ECUs cannot properly communicate which is generally unsafe and dangerous in vehicle applications.
Regarding claim 2, Yasukawa discloses further comprising: an acquisition unit constituted of a circuitry and configured to acquire, from the function unit, function unit information regarding the function unit for determining the requirement if the requirement information is received from the new function unit, wherein the determination unit determines whether or not the function unit satisfies the requirement based on the requirement information and the function unit information (see at least Fig. 4, [0028, 0045-0046] – a search request is transmitted by the specific protocol unit, and responses may be received from known and new devices… determine which fragment is needed for enablement of communication with the new unknown device… the determination of which fragment that is required may be performed by the local schema unit 200 and may be based upon information about the protocol, device vendor, device id, etc.,).
Yasukawa does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one function unit is at least one vehicle-mounted function unit.
Miyake, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: an acquisition unit constituted of a circuitry and configured to acquire, from the function unit, function unit information regarding the function unit for determining the requirement if the requirement information is received from the function unit, wherein the determination unit determines whether or not the function unit satisfies the requirement based on the requirement information and the function unit information (see at least Figs. 2, 4, 7, 10, [0045, 0059] – Whenever the version acquisition unit 12 acquires the versions of the software from the other on-board devices B to D, the determination unit 13 determines whether or not the versions of the software of all the on-board devices A to D that constitute the vehicle control system 100 are consistent. The determination unit 13 makes the determination by comparing the versions of the software stored in the software storage unit 10 of the representative on-board device A and the versions of the software that the version acquisition unit 12 acquires from the other on-board devices B to D with the consistency information stored in the consistency information storage unit 11. When determining that the versions of the software of all the on-board devices A to D that constitute the vehicle control system 100 are consistent based on the consistency table stored in the consistency information storage unit 11, the determination unit 13 permits execution of the specified vehicle control that is implemented by a combination of the functions of the on-board devices A to D… The determination unit 31 determines whether or not the versions of the software of all the on-board devices A to D that constitute the vehicle control system 100 are consistent. The determination unit 31 makes the determination by comparing the versions of the software of the on-board devices A to D included in the version information received from the representative on-board device A with the consistency table stored in the consistency information storage unit 30.).
The motivation to combine Yasukawa and Miyake is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above. Additionally, using requirement information from the function unit to determine whether the function unit satisfies the requirement would ensure that all ECUs have the most recent version of software. This improves safety and reduces the likelihood of malfunctions or vulnerabilities. Maintaining the most recent software is applicable and well known in a wide variety of applications, and implementing this practice would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 3, Yasukawa discloses further comprising: an acquisition unit constituted of a circuitry and configured to acquire, from the external device, function unit information regarding the function unit for determining the requirement, wherein the determination unit determines whether or not the function unit satisfies the requirement based on the requirement information and the function unit information (see at least Fig. 4, [0028, 0045-0046] – a search request is transmitted by the specific protocol unit, and responses may be received from known and new devices… determine which fragment is needed for enablement of communication with the new unknown device… the determination of which fragment that is required may be performed by the local schema unit 200 and may be based upon information about the protocol, device vendor, device id, etc.,).
Yasukawa does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one function unit is at least one vehicle-mounted function unit.
Miyake, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: an acquisition unit constituted of a circuitry and configured to acquire, from the external device, function unit information regarding the vehicle-mounted function unit for determining the requirement, wherein the determination unit determines whether or not the vehicle-mounted function unit satisfies the requirement based on the requirement information and the function unit information (see at least Figs. 2, 4, 7, 10, [0045, 0059] – Whenever the version acquisition unit 12 acquires the versions of the software from the other on-board devices B to D, the determination unit 13 determines whether or not the versions of the software of all the on-board devices A to D that constitute the vehicle control system 100 are consistent. The determination unit 13 makes the determination by comparing the versions of the software stored in the software storage unit 10 of the representative on-board device A and the versions of the software that the version acquisition unit 12 acquires from the other on-board devices B to D with the consistency information stored in the consistency information storage unit 11. When determining that the versions of the software of all the on-board devices A to D that constitute the vehicle control system 100 are consistent based on the consistency table stored in the consistency information storage unit 11, the determination unit 13 permits execution of the specified vehicle control that is implemented by a combination of the functions of the on-board devices A to D… The determination unit 31 determines whether or not the versions of the software of all the on-board devices A to D that constitute the vehicle control system 100 are consistent. The determination unit 31 makes the determination by comparing the versions of the software of the on-board devices A to D included in the version information received from the representative on-board device A with the consistency table stored in the consistency information storage unit 30.).
The motivation to combine Yasukawa and Miyake is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above. Additionally, using function unit information regarding the vehicle-mounted function unit to determine whether the vehicle-mounted function unit satisfies the requirement would ensure that all ECUs have the most recent version of software. This improves safety and reduces the likelihood of malfunctions or vulnerabilities. Maintaining the most recent software is applicable and well known in a wide variety of applications, and implementing this practice would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 4, Yasukawa does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the requirement is that a version of software embedded in the vehicle-mounted function unit is the same as a version of software embedded in the new function unit, or that the version of the software embedded in the vehicle-mounted function unit is newer than the version of the software embedded in the new function unit.
Miyake, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the requirement is that a version of software embedded in the vehicle-mounted function unit is the same as a version of software embedded in the new function unit, or that the version of the software embedded in the vehicle-mounted function unit is newer than the version of the software embedded in the new function unit (see at least Figs. 2, 4, 7, 10, [0045, 0059] – Whenever the version acquisition unit 12 acquires the versions of the software from the other on-board devices B to D, the determination unit 13 determines whether or not the versions of the software of all the on-board devices A to D that constitute the vehicle control system 100 are consistent. The determination unit 13 makes the determination by comparing the versions of the software stored in the software storage unit 10 of the representative on-board device A and the versions of the software that the version acquisition unit 12 acquires from the other on-board devices B to D with the consistency information stored in the consistency information storage unit 11. When determining that the versions of the software of all the on-board devices A to D that constitute the vehicle control system 100 are consistent based on the consistency table stored in the consistency information storage unit 11, the determination unit 13 permits execution of the specified vehicle control that is implemented by a combination of the functions of the on-board devices A to D… The determination unit 31 determines whether or not the versions of the software of all the on-board devices A to D that constitute the vehicle control system 100 are consistent. The determination unit 31 makes the determination by comparing the versions of the software of the on-board devices A to D included in the version information received from the representative on-board device A with the consistency table stored in the consistency information storage unit 30.).
The motivation to combine Yasukawa and Miyake is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above. Additionally, ensuring that all ECUs have the most recent version of software improves safety and reduces the likelihood of malfunctions or vulnerabilities. Maintaining the most recent software is applicable and well known in a wide variety of applications, and implementing this practice would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 5, Yasukawa discloses a function unit constituted of a circuitry and for use in a network that includes at least one function unit (see at least Figs. 1, 2a, [0023, 0025-0026, 0028] – new device 140… network… other devices 140), the function unit comprising: a processing unit constituted of a circuitry and configured to transmit, to a management device in the network, requirement information indicating a requirement for communicating with the function unit, in response to the function unit being added to the network (see at least Figs. 1, 2a, [0025-0026, 0028, 0030-0031] – new device 140 has been connected… new and/or known devices 140 may be responding to the request according to used protocol… the generic protocol unit 110 may be arranged to determine if the newly connected device 140 is supported by the specific protocol unit 130 and that a new fragment is required for the specific protocol unit 130… the determination may be based upon information about the protocol, device vendor, device id, etc.,).
Yasukawa does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the network is a vehicle-mounted network and wherein the at least one function unit is at least one vehicle-mounted function unit.
Miyake, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the network is a vehicle-mounted network and wherein the at least one function unit is at least one vehicle-mounted function unit (see at least [0038] – vehicle control system 100… on-board devices A to D that can communicate with each other).
The motivation to combine Yasukawa 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 claims 8-9, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claims 8-9 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 1; therefore, claims 8-9 are also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, and not relied upon, considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure or directed to the state of art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892. The relevant prior art that was cited but not applied includes: Miller (US 2018/0048473 A1) and Moriya (US 2019/0232892 A1).
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.
/C.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights