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 .
STATUS OF CLAIMS
This action is in response to the Applicant’s filing on 1/08/2025. Claims 1-3 are pending and are examined below.
PRIORITY
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim of foreign priority to JP2024-009343, filed on 1/25/2024.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claims fail to pass the Alice/Mayo test for determining patent eligibility.
The patent eligibility test is performed below for independent claim 1.
Step 1—Does the claim fall within a statutory category?
Claim 1: Yes, the claim recites a machine or manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong One—Is a judicial exception recited?
Claim 1 is provided below with the abstract idea indicated in bold and additional elements without bold.
1. A vehicle control system, comprising multiple electronic control units that store software for executing multiple functions related to driving of a vehicle, wherein
each of the electronic control units includes a circuit that transmits version information related to a version of software stored in that electronic control unit, and
the circuit of at least one of the electronic control units is configured to
receive the version information transmitted from other electronic control units,
when version information transmitted from other electronic control units is received, determine which of the multiple functions is executable, based on the version of the software stored within the electronic control unit itself and the version indicated by the received version information, and
permit execution of the function determined to be executable among the multiple functions, while prohibiting execution of the function determined not to be executable.
The above shows: yes, a judicial exception is recited. But for the additional elements, the claim limitation pertaining to determining which of multiple functions are executable and permitting/prohibiting execution of a function are processes which can practically be performed in the human mind with or without the use of a physical aid. Specifically, the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim encompasses performing judgments and evaluations over obtained data. In particular to the permitting/prohibiting execution limitations, the foregoing constitutes a mental process because such constitutes judgments arrived through evaluation. Critically, neither the claim nor the specification ties the execution steps to any tangible hardware or positive actuation of structure. The courts have held such forms of observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion to represent the abstract idea of a mental process. As a result, the bolded limitations represent a mental process. Hence, the claim recites an abstract idea. (See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(III).)
Step 2A, Prong Two—Is the abstract idea integrated into a practical application?
No. The claims as a whole merely use generic computer components—i.e., electronic control units and circuit—that are recited at a high level of generality such that they cannot be considered more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Therefore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B—Does the claim provide an inventive concept?
No. The additional elements of the claims amount to:
Insignificant pre-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering:
transmits version information related to a version of software stored in that electronic control unit
receive the version information transmitted from other electronic control units
Claims 2-3 depend from claim 1 but do not render the claimed invention patent eligible because they are directed to additional mental steps:
determine that the first function is executable,
determine that the first function is not executable,
determine that the second function is executable, and
determine that the second function is not executable;
or insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., gathering data):
receive the version information transmitted from other electronic control units.
Claims 1-3 do not pass the patent eligibility test. Accordingly, claims 1-3 are rejected under § 101.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyake et al. (US20190278587A1; “Miyake”).
As to independent claim 1, Miyake discloses: a vehicle control system, comprising multiple electronic control units that store software for executing multiple functions related to driving of a vehicle, wherein
each of the electronic control units includes a circuit that transmits version information related to a version of software stored in that electronic control unit (“The version acquisition unit 13 acquires the version of software of each of the other in-vehicle devices B to D through communication.” ¶ 30; see also ¶ 26 and FIG. 2.), and
the circuit of at least one of the electronic control units is configured to
receive the version information transmitted from other electronic control units (“The version acquisition unit 13 acquires the version of software of each of the other in-vehicle devices B to D through communication.” ¶ 30; see also ¶ 26 and FIG. 2.),
when version information transmitted from other electronic control units is received, determine which of the multiple functions is executable, based on the version of the software stored within the electronic control unit itself and the version indicated by the received version information (“The second consistency information storage 12 stores a second consistency table for examining consistency of a version of software of an in-vehicle device for each control function of the vehicle control system 100.” ¶ 29 and FIG. 3. “When the first determination unit 21 determines that consistency exists in the versions of software of all the in-vehicle devices A to D composing the vehicle control system 100, the performance control unit 23 permits performance of the vehicle control of the vehicle control system 100 which vehicle control can be performed using all the in-vehicle devices A to D.” ¶ 35.), and
permit execution of the function determined to be executable among the multiple functions, while prohibiting execution of the function determined not to be executable (“When the first determination unit 21 determines that consistency exists in the versions of software of all the in-vehicle devices A to D composing the vehicle control system 100, the performance control unit 23 permits performance of the vehicle control of the vehicle control system 100 which vehicle control can be performed using all the in-vehicle devices A to D …. When the second determination unit 22 determines that there does not exist[] a second consistency table consistent with versions of software of one or some of the in-vehicle devices composing the vehicle control system, the performance control unit 23 prohibits performance of all the control functions of the vehicle control system 100.” ¶ 35.).
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Miyake in view of Rockwell et al. (US20160170775A1; “Rockwell”).
As to claim 2, Miyake discloses: in order to execute a first function among the multiple functions, a first electronic control unit and a second electronic control unit among the electronic control units are required, but a third electronic control unit is not required (“There is defined in the table for the control function_1 that the control function_1 is performed by a combination of the in-vehicle devices A and B, and that versions of software of the in-vehicle devices A and B needed for performing the control function_1 are respectively defined as ‘12345’ and ‘23456’ …. The second consistency tables are used as second consistency information with which the second determination unit 22 mentioned later determines whether or not there is a control function that can be provided using one or some of the in-vehicle devices A to D.” ¶ 29 and FIG. 3. Note: Here, control function_1 requires first and second electronic control units A and B, but does not require a third electronic control unit C or D.), and
the circuit of a first electronic control unit is configured to
receive the version information transmitted from other electronic control units (“The version acquisition unit 13 acquires the version of software of each of the other in-vehicle devices B to D through communication.” ¶ 30; see also ¶ 26 and FIG. 2.), and
when the version information transmitted from the other electronic control units is received, determine that the first function is executable if the version of the software of the first electronic control unit and the version of the software of the second electronic control unit are compatible with each other, and determine that the first function is not executable if the versions of the software are not compatible with each other (“When the first determination unit 21 determines that consistency exists in the versions of software of all the in-vehicle devices A to D composing the vehicle control system 100, the performance control unit 23 permits performance of the vehicle control of the vehicle control system 100 which vehicle control can be performed using all the in-vehicle devices A to D …. When the second determination unit 22 determines that there does not exist[] a second consistency table consistent with versions of software of one or some of the in-vehicle devices composing the vehicle control system, the performance control unit 23 prohibits performance of all the control functions of the vehicle control system 100.” ¶ 35.).
Miyake fails to explicitly disclose: the circuit of the second electronic control unit is respectively configured to perform the claimed limitations.
Nevertheless, Rockwell teaches: a plurality of ECUs, including first and second ECUs, configured to receive version information transmitted from other ECUs, and determine compatibility between the ECUs based on the received version information (“When installing software updates 116 to the vehicle 102, the vehicle ECUs 104 may be configured to execute the MMCF logic 210 to determine which software updates 116 are compatible for installation to the vehicle 102. For example, responsive to the vehicle ECUs 104 receiving, over the vehicle bus 106, an indication from the software update management module 112 invoking the software update mode, the vehicle ECUs 104 may provide their current module ID 204 and module token 206 to the other vehicle ECUs 104 over the vehicle bus 106. In the case of a vehicle ECU 104 to which the software update 116 is to be installed, that vehicle ECU 104 may provide the module token 206 indicative of the version of the software update 116 to be installed or activated.” ¶ 33.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Miyake to include the feature of: a plurality of ECUs, including first and second ECUs, configured to receive version information transmitted from other ECUs, and determine compatibility between the ECUs based on the received version information, as taught by Rockwell, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful “to provide each vehicle module with an ability to provide governance over what software versions may be installed to the other modules,” thereby aiding in identifying “incompatibilities with the vehicle software” and taking corrective action. (See Rockwell, ¶ 13.) Indeed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been obvious to further configure Miyake’s ECU’s B-D in a similar fashion as ECU A as to obtain redundancy and the positive effects of Rockwell.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Miyake in view of Rockwell as applied to claim 2 – further in view of Abu-Shariha et al. (DE102016206489A1; “Abu”)
As to claim 3, Miyake discloses: the circuit of a first electronic control unit is configured to
receive the version information transmitted from other electronic control units (“The version acquisition unit 13 acquires the version of software of each of the other in-vehicle devices B to D through communication.” ¶ 30; see also ¶ 26 and FIG. 2.), and
when the version information transmitted from the other electronic control units is received, determine that a function is executable if the version of the software of a first electronic control unit and a version of the software of the second electronic control unit are compatible with each other, and determine that the first function is not executable if the versions of the software are not compatible with each other (“When the first determination unit 21 determines that consistency exists in the versions of software of all the in-vehicle devices A to D composing the vehicle control system 100, the performance control unit 23 permits performance of the vehicle control of the vehicle control system 100 which vehicle control can be performed using all the in-vehicle devices A to D …. When the second determination unit 22 determines that there does not exist[] a second consistency table consistent with versions of software of one or some of the in-vehicle devices composing the vehicle control system, the performance control unit 23 prohibits performance of all the control functions of the vehicle control system 100.” ¶ 35.).
Miyake fails to explicitly disclose: the circuits of the second electronic control unit and the third electronic unit are respectively configured to perform the claimed limitations.
Nevertheless, Rockwell teaches: a plurality of ECUs, including first, second and third ECUs, configured to receive version information transmitted from other ECUs, and determine compatibility between the ECUs based on the received version information (“When installing software updates 116 to the vehicle 102, the vehicle ECUs 104 may be configured to execute the MMCF logic 210 to determine which software updates 116 are compatible for installation to the vehicle 102. For example, responsive to the vehicle ECUs 104 receiving, over the vehicle bus 106, an indication from the software update management module 112 invoking the software update mode, the vehicle ECUs 104 may provide their current module ID 204 and module token 206 to the other vehicle ECUs 104 over the vehicle bus 106. In the case of a vehicle ECU 104 to which the software update 116 is to be installed, that vehicle ECU 104 may provide the module token 206 indicative of the version of the software update 116 to be installed or activated.” ¶ 33.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Miyake to include the feature of: a plurality of ECUs, including first, second and third ECUs, configured to receive version information transmitted from other ECUs, and determine compatibility between the ECUs based on the received version information, as taught by Rockwell, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful “to provide each vehicle module with an ability to provide governance over what software versions may be installed to the other modules,” thereby aiding in identifying “incompatibilities with the vehicle software” and taking corrective action. (See Rockwell, ¶ 13.) Indeed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been obvious to further configure Miyake’s ECU’s B-D in a similar fashion as ECU A as to obtain redundancy and the positive effects of Rockwell.
The combination of Miyake and Rockwell fails to explicitly disclose: in order to execute a second function among the multiple functions, the first electronic control unit, the second electronic control unit, and the third electronic control unit among the electronic control units are required.
Nevertheless, Abu teaches: in order to execute a function, a first electronic control unit, a second electronic control unit, and a third electronic control unit among the electronic control units are required (“The motor vehicle function of an adaptive cruise control system can be executed, for example, through the interaction of the engine control unit 112, brake control unit 113 and distance sensor control unit 114. This motor vehicle function represents a functionality for the execution of which the control units 112, 113 and 114 are jointly required or interact together.” ¶ 28. “The coordinating control unit 111 checks, on the one hand, whether all program codes required for programming have been transmitted from the server 140 and whether the software versions of the program codes for the individual control units 112, 113 and 114 match.” ¶ 33. “Therefore, if the coordinating control unit 111 determines in step 204 that the programming of at least one of the control units 112, 113, 114 has not been carried out successfully, the coordinating control unit 111 takes a measure to be able to safely control this fault case.” ¶ 40.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Miyake and Rockwell to include the feature of: in order to execute a function, a first electronic control unit, a second electronic control unit, and a third electronic control unit among the electronic control units are required, as taught by Abu, with a reasonable expectation of success because it is well-known in the art that certain vehicle functions require three or more ECUs to function; such is known to be critical information in the context of determining version compatibility between ECUs. (See above-cited portions of Abu.) Hence, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious in light of Abu to extend one of Miyake’s control functions to consider three ECUs to account for more complicated vehicle processes.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mario C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571) 272-5633. The Examiner can normally be reached M–F, 10:00–6:00 ET.
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, Fadey S. Jabr, can be reached on (571) 272-1516. 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.
/MARIO C GONZALEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights