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 .
This is a non-final office action in response to applicant’s communication filed on 1/6/2025.
Claims 1-23 are pending and being considered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/6/2025, 2/10/2026, has been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, initialed and dated copy of Applicant’s IDS form 1449 filed as stated above is attached to the instant Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 8, 17, 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 lines 1-2 , “in response to determining that …” may read “in response to the determining that …”. Line 3, “… is a member of the campaign” should read “… is a member of the update campaign”.
Similarly, claim 17, claim 23.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-8, 10-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being anticipated by corresponding claims of US Patent No. 12,192,324 B2 (hereinafter “’324”).
Claims 1 of ‘324 discloses all of the limitations recited in Claim 1 (similarly claims 10, 18) of the instant application, as seen in the table below. Dependent claims are also rejected as seen in the table below.
Claim Comparison
Instant Application 19/010,396
US Patent 12,192,324 B2
Claim 1 (similarly claim 10, claim 18). A server comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer-executable instructions that cause the processor to perform operations comprising:
obtaining a filter data structure comprising a plurality of hash values, each hash value corresponding to a computerized device of a plurality of computerized devices in an update campaign;
determining whether a requesting computerized device is in the update campaign using a hash function of the filter data structure and identifying information that identifies the requesting computerized device;
in response to determining that the computerized device is in the update campaign, providing a device update to the computerized device; and
in response to determining that the computerized device does not belong to the update campaign, providing, to the computerized device, an indication that there is no device update for the computerized device.
Claim 1 (claim 18). A server comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer-executable instructions that cause the processor to perform operations comprising:
obtaining, a filter data structure comprising a plurality of hash values, each hash value corresponding to a computer device of a plurality of computer devices in an update campaign;
determining that a requesting computerized device is in the update campaign using one or more of the hash functions of the filter data structure and identifying information identifying the requesting computerized device;
in response to determining that the requesting computerized device is to receive a device update, sending a request to confirm that the computerized device is a member of the campaign;
in response to confirming that the computerized device is a member of the campaign, providing the device update to the computerized device; and
in response to determining that the computerized device does not belong to the campaign, providing, to the computerized device, an indication that there is no device update for the computerized device.
Claim 2, 11, 19
Claim 2
Claim 3, 12
Claim 3
Claim 4, 13, 20
Claim 4
Claim 5, 14, 21
Claim 5
Claim 6, 15
Claim 6
Claim 7, 16, 22
Claim 8
Claim 8, 17, 23
Claim 1
Claims 1, 10, 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being anticipated by corresponding claims of US Patent No. 10,666,427 B2 (hereinafter “’427”).
Claims 13 and 14 of ‘427 discloses all of the limitations recited in Claim 1 (similarly claims 10, 18) of the instant application, as seen in the table below.
Claim Comparison
Instant Application 19/010,396
US Patent 10,666,427 B1
Claim 1 (similarly claim 10, claim 18). A server comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer-executable instructions that cause the processor to perform operations comprising:
obtaining a filter data structure comprising a plurality of hash values, each hash value corresponding to a computerized device of a plurality of computerized devices in an update campaign;
determining whether a requesting computerized device is in the update campaign using a hash function of the filter data structure and identifying information that identifies the requesting computerized device;
in response to determining that the computerized device is in the update campaign, providing a device update to the computerized device; and
in response to determining that the computerized device does not belong to the update campaign, providing, to the computerized device, an indication that there is no device update for the computerized device.
Claim 13. A network edge device comprising computer-executable instructions that cause a processor to perform operations comprising:
obtaining, from a campaign management service, a bloom filter data structure comprising a plurality of hash values, wherein a number of hash functions generate the plurality of hash values for the bloom filter data structure, and wherein the number of hash functions are determined based on a false positive rate threshold;
determining that a computerized device is to receive a device update from the campaign management service based on a hash value associated with the computerized device matching a hash value of the bloom filter data structure; transmitting a device update request corresponding to the computerized device to the campaign management service;
obtaining the device update associated with the device update request from the campaign management service after the campaign management service confirms that the computerized device is a member of the campaign, wherein the device update comprises a digital asset comprising one or more of: software, firmware, or a digital certificate, wherein the digital asset modifies operation of the computerized device; and providing the device update to the computerized device, whereby the computerized device installs the device update.
Claim 14. The network edge of claim 13, wherein the operations further comprise: determining, using the bloom filter data structure, that the computerized device does not belong to the campaign; and providing, to the computerized device and without communicating with the campaign management service, an indication that there is no device update for the computerized device.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs, columns and line numbers 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 that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in 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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 5-6, 9-10, 14-15, 18, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyama et al (US20190163466A1, hereinafter, “Kiyama”), in view of Guerra Delgado et al (US20190026303A1, hereinafter, “Guerra Delgado”).
Regarding claim 1, similarly claim 10, claim 18, Kiyama teaches:
A server comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer-executable instructions/a computer-implemented method for updating computerized devices/a non-transitory computer-readable media including instructions that, when executed by a processor (Kiyama, discloses system and method for in-vehicle software distribution in a campaign of software updates to target devices of vehicles, see [Abstract]. See Fig. 1 for CPU 110, CPU 211, and storage apparatus 120, 215), to perform operations comprising:
obtaining a [filter data structure] comprising a plurality of hash values, each hash value corresponding to a computerized device of a plurality of computerized devices in an update campaign (e.g., see Fig. 5, and [0093] FIG. 5 is a diagram showing a specific example of test campaign information… test campaign information is stored in the test campaign DB 124 (i.e., filter data structure in view of Guerra Delgado below). The test campaign information 1240 shown in FIG. 5 is data in a table format which is configured by comprising a test campaign ID 1241, a reference source main campaign ID 1242, a test vehicle VIN 1243 (i.e., computerized device), a target region 1244, an update file name 1245, an applied version 1246, a verification hash value 1247 (i.e., hash value), and an update date and time 1248);
determining whether a requesting computerized device is in the update campaign using a hash function of the filter data structure and identifying information that identifies the requesting computerized device (e.g., [0200] Furthermore, the ECU software update unit 214 sends the update outcome information acquired from the update target ECU and, in the event of a successful update, the hash value to the telematics center 10 (step S609). And [0202] The campaign management unit 112 then compares the extracted verification hash value 1247 with the hash value received from the vehicle 20 in step S622 (step S623). Further, the campaign management unit 112 sends the result of the hash value comparison in step S623 to the vehicle 20 (step S624));
in response to determining that the computerized device is in the update campaign, providing a device update to the computerized device (e.g., [0100] The verification hash value 1247 is information indicating the hash value acquired for the whole area of the storage apparatus after the vehicle 20 designated in the test campaign of the appropriate record (that is, the test vehicle specified by the test vehicle VIN 1243) has undergone an update target ECU software update. And [0203] Furthermore, in the vehicle 20 which has received the hash value comparison result from the telematics center 10, the campaign confirmation unit 212 implements control of the vehicle 20 according to the comparison result (step S610). To explain this in detail, when the two hash values are the same value, this means that the distribution campaign update software has been installed normally in the same way as at the time of test campaign verification…);
and in response to determining that the computerized device does not belong to the update campaign, providing, to the computerized device, an indication that there is no device update for the computerized device ([0203] On the other hand, when the two hash values are not the same value, this means that the distribution campaign update software has not been installed normally, and hence predetermined control which is decided beforehand for when installation fails is performed on the vehicle 20).
While Kiyama teaches the main concept of the claimed invention by comparing hash values of database, but does not specifically teach filter data structure, in the same field of endeavor Guerra Delgado teaches:
filter data structure (Guerra Delgado, discloses reading data from source to destination based on hash mapping, see [Abstract]. And [0030] At block 315, determines if the current hash received from source node 105 matches a local hash. For example, deduplication module 140 uses a bloom filter or another probabilistic data structure (i.e., filter data structure) to test whether the current received hash matches a local hash stored by destination node 106).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the teachings of Guerra Delgado in the in vehicle software distribution of Kiyama by using probabilistic data structure as filter data structure for deduplication module to detect a match between the current hash received from source node and a local hash. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to transfer data based on mapping hash values (Guerra Delgado, [Abstract]).
Regarding claim 5, similarly claim 14, claim 21, Kiyama-Guerra Delgado combination teaches the server of claim 1, the computer-implemented method of claim 10, the non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 18,
Kiyama further teaches: wherein the device update comprises a digital asset ([Abstract] An in-vehicle software distribution system 1 is configured comprising an in-vehicle software distribution server (telematics center 10) which manages updates to an identical function by means of a campaign for an in-vehicle system (an engine ECU 241, for example) of a plurality of vehicles 20 and distributes software (i.e., digital asset) of the campaign remotely to target vehicles, a terminal 30, and a software update apparatus 210 which is mounted in each of the plurality of vehicles 20).
Regarding claim 6, similarly claim 15, Kiyama-Guerra Delgado combination teaches the server of claim 5, the computer-implemented method of claim 14,
Kiyama further teaches: wherein the digital asset comprises one or more of software, firmware, or a digital certificate (see [Abstract], software as shown for claim 5).
Regarding claim 9, Kiyama-Guerra Delgado combination teaches the server of claim 1,
Kiyama further teaches: wherein the computerized device is installed in a vehicle (e.g., [0052] The vehicle 20 comprises the software update apparatus 210, communication unit 220, navigation terminal 230, and various ECUs (engine ECU 241, self-driving ECU 242, . . . ). The devices of the vehicle 20 are each connected by an in-vehicle network such as a CAN (Controller Area Network)).
Claims 2, 11, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyama-Guerra Delgado as applied above to claim 1, 10, 18 respective, further in view of Zaydman (US20180253438A1, hereinafter, “Zaydman”).
Regarding claim 2, similarly claim 11, claim 19, Kiyama-Guerra Delgado combination teaches the server of claim 1, the computer-implemented method of claim 10, the non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 18,
The combination of Kiyama-Guerra Delgado does not specifically teach, in the same field of endeavor Zaydman teaches:
wherein the filter data structure comprises a cuckoo filter data structure (Zaydman, discloses teleporting content over network using hash matches, see [Title]/[Abstract] The target node compares each source hash with target hashes of segments of files on the target node. When a comparison results in a match, the file copy can include a copy of the matching target segment or include a reference to the matching segment. For higher performance, fingerprints of the source hash and the target hashes can be compared, with hash comparisons being performed in the event of a fingerprint match. The target fingerprints can be arranged in a cuckoo filter or other probabilistic filter. And [0040] When a source hash file is received by target node 700, fingerprint generator 726 generates fingerprints from the hashes of the source hash file. A fingerprint locator 728 applies an algorithm (as disclosed by Fan et al., ibid) for determining the two buckets of common cuckoo filter 724 that might hold a match for each fingerprint).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the teachings of Zaydman in the in vehicle software distribution of Kiyama-Guerra Delgado by comparing source hash with target hash inn fingerprint match arranged in cuckoo filter. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to transfer files with reduced bandwidth (Zaydman, [Abstract], [0001]).
Claims 3, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyama-Guerra Delgado-Zaydman as applied above to claim 2, 11 respectively, further in view of Fan et al (“Cuckoo Filter: Practically Better Than Bloom”, In Proceedings of the 10th ACM International on Conference on emerging Networking Experiments and Technologies, pp. 75-88 (2014), hereinafter, “Fan”).
Regarding claim 3, similarly claim 12, Kiyama-Guerra Delgado-Zaydman combination teaches the server of claim 2, the computer-implemented method of claim 11,
The combination of Kiyama-Guerra Delgado-Zaydman does not specifically teach, in the same field of endeavor Fan teaches:
wherein the filter data structure is a semi-sorted cuckoo filter data structure (Fan, discloses data structure called cuckoo filter that can replace Bloom filters for approximate set member ship tests, see [Abstract]. Section 5.2: Semi-sorting Buckets to Save Space).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the teachings of Fan in the in vehicle software distribution of Kiyama-Guerra Delgado-Zaydman by using cuckoo filter. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to support adding and removing items dynamically while achieving even higher performance than Bloom filters while saving space (Fan, [Abstract]).
Claims 4, 13, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyama-Guerra Delgado as applied above to claim 1, 10, 18 respectively, further in view of Graf et al ("Xor filters: Faster and smaller than bloom and cuckoo filters." Journal of Experimental Algorithmics (JEA) 25 (2020), pp 1-16, hereinafter, “Graf”).
Regarding claim 4, similarly claim 13, claim 20, Kiyama-Guerra Delgado combination teaches the server of claim 1, the computer-implemented method of claim 10, the non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 18,
The combination of Kiyama-Guerra Delgado does not specifically teach, in the same field of endeavor Graf teaches:
wherein the filter data structure comprises an Xor filter data structure (Graf, discloses Xor filters which provides approximate membership and are faster than Bloom and cuckoo filters while using less memory, see [Abstract]. See Section 3: XOR FILTERS).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the teachings of Graf in the in vehicle software distribution of Kiyama-Guerra Delgado by using Xor filter data structure. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provides fast approximate set membership than Bloom and cuckoo filters while using less memory (Graf, [Abstract]).
Claims 7, 16, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyama-Guerra Delgado as applied above to claim 6, 15, 21 respectively, further in view of Meyer et al (US20200153641A1, hereinafter, “Meyer”).
Regarding claim 7, similarly claim 16, claim 22, Kiyama-Guerra Delgado combination teaches the server of claim 6, the computer-implemented method of claim 15, the non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 21,
The combination of Kiyama-Guerra Delgado does not specifically teach, in the similar field of endeavor Meyer teaches:
wherein the digital certificate comprises an enrollment certificate or a pseudonym certificate (Meyer, discloses system and method for providing quality of service for certificate management, see [Abstract]. And [0071] In some implementations, the certificate management service 280 may provide security certificates such as, for example, enrollment certificates and pseudonym certificates, to be used by the distributor appliance 108 of a manufacturer, which may function as described with respect to FIGS. 1A and 1B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the teachings of Meyer in the in vehicle software distribution of Kiyama-Guerra Delgado by providing security certificates. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for providing quality of service for certificate management to clients (Meyer, [Abstract]).
Claims 7, 16, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyama-Guerra Delgado as applied above to claim 6, 15, 21 respectively, further in view of Nunez (US20130326494A1, hereinafter, “Nunez”).
Regarding claim 8, similarly claim 17, claim 23, Kiyama-Guerra Delgado combination teaches the server of claim 1, the computer-implemented method of claim 10, the non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 18,
The combination of Kiyama-Guerra Delgado does not specifically teach, in the similar field of endeavor Nunez teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise: in response to determining that the computerized device is in the update campaign, sending a request to confirm that the computerized device is a member of the campaign (Nunez, discloses system and method for distributing software patches to network nodes in peer-to-peer network, see [Abstract]. And [0013] Patch management functionality, e.g., executed at server nodes, may include vulnerability assessment (detecting if a node has infected or out-of-date code), patch distribution (distributing patches to nodes in need of an update to update their code) (i.e., update campaign) and network security maintenance (running security checks to verify the identity of network members (i.e., confirm that the computerized device is a member of the campaign), the member's authorization to share data, and the security of distributed patches)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the teachings of Nunez in the in vehicle software distribution of Kiyama-Guerra Delgado by verifying the identity of network members. This would have been obvious because the person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for distributing update patches to members of network in peer-to-peer network (Nunez, [Abstract]).
Citation of References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references are cited but not been replied upon for this office action:
Jeffrey et al (US20140259005A1) discloses method for collecting updates for a plurality of objects over a cloud data network.
Ackerly (US20160283600A1) discloses method for generating probabilistically searchable messages.
Solapurkar (US9928178B1) discloses systems and methods for memory-efficient management of computer network resources.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL M LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1975.
The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8:30AM - 5:30PM.
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, Shewaye Gelagay can be reached on (571) 272-4219. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL M LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2436
Prosecution Insights