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 .
Priority
The Examiner acknowledges that the current application is a continuation (CON) of the parent application 17829525, which has an effective filing date of 06/01/2022.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 should read “comprising sending a notification to a display associated with the vehicle when the vehicle enters the performance enhancement mode.” because the limitation “a vehicle” was introduced in claim 1, line 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 15 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims recite a “computer-readable storage medium” that is not limited to tangible embodiments. Particularly, the specification, par. [0033] recites, “computer readable storage medium may be a non-transitory computer readable medium or a non-transitory computer readable storage medium.”. The open-ended phrase "may be” with broadest reasonable interpretation implies that computer readable storage medium could be both transitory and non-transitory medium.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 – 3, 6, 8 – 10, 13, 15 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teraoka et al. (Publication No. US 20200225930 A1; hereinafter Teraoka) in view of Umemoto et al. (Translation of JP2020133233A; hereinafter Umemoto).
Regarding to claim 1, Teraoka teaches A method, comprising:
entering, by a vehicle, a mode of the vehicle based on a software update at a predefined time; ([Par. 0104], (“first, the update control unit 10001 of the gateway 10 transmits a session change request to the engine control ECU 13 (S401). The session change request includes identification information about a special mode for software rewrite. The update control unit 13001 of the engine control ECU 13 receives the session change request transmitted from the gateway 10 in step S402, then causes an internal state to transit to a mode specified in the session change request, and subsequently transmits an acceptance response to the gateway 10 (S402).”;)
modifying, by the vehicle, at least one feature of the vehicle based on the software update, wherein the modifying enters the vehicle in a performance enhancement mode; (([Par. 0104], (“first, the update control unit 10001 of the gateway 10 transmits a session change request to the engine control ECU 13 (S401). The session change request includes identification information about a special mode for software rewrite. The update control unit 13001 of the engine control ECU 13 receives the session change request transmitted from the gateway 10 in step S402, then causes an internal state to transit to a mode specified in the session change request, and subsequently transmits an acceptance response to the gateway 10 (S402).”;[Par. 0105], “The update control unit 10001 of the gateway 10 receives the acceptance response transmitted from the engine control ECU 13 in step S402, and then records start of an update applying process, in the update state D1 via the update state managing unit 10003 (S402R).”; [Par. 108], “The update control unit 13001 of the engine control ECU 13 receives the transfer completion notification transmitted from the gateway 10 in step S409, and then gives a data write instruction to the FROM control unit 13004 in step S411. In accordance with this instruction, the FROM control unit 13004 writes the new software or a part of the new software into the FROM 1313, the new software having been restored by the differential/compression restore unit 13002 and temporarily stored in the SRAM 1312 or the FROM 1313.” Wherein the “mode specified in the session change request” corresponds to the “performance enhancement mode”)
storing, by the vehicle, a record associated with the at least one feature, wherein the record is stored in a storage device on the vehicle; ([Par. 0108], “When succeeding in the write into the FROM 1313, the update control unit 13001 records the written block in the update state D1 via the update state managing unit 13003 as a completely processed block (S411R), and transmits the acceptance response to the gateway 10 (S412).”)
enabling, by the vehicle, the at least one feature, wherein the enabling enters the vehicle in a normal mode; ([Par. 0110], “The update control unit 10001 of the gateway 10 then transmits the session change request to the engine control ECU 13 (S413). The session change request includes identification information about a normal mode that is used to return to the normal mode. The update control unit 13001 of the engine control ECU 13 receives the session change request transmitted from the gateway 10 in stepS413, then causes the internal state to transit to the normal mode specified in the session change request, and subsequently transmits the acceptance response to the gateway 10 (S414).” This is interpreted as the vehicle is changed to normal mode after the update is successfully completed.)
Teraoka teaches entering the vehicle in a normal mode as described above, but does not explicitly disclose permitting, by the vehicle, access to personal information of a user of the vehicle, wherein the personal information is modifiable.
However, Umemoto teaches permitting, by the vehicle, access to personal information of a user of the vehicle, wherein the personal information is modifiable. ([Par. 0030], “There are multiple control modes, such as security mode and normal mode. In security mode, the output control unit 33 restricts the output of personal information, for example, by hiding it. In normal mode, the output control unit 33 allows output, such as display, of personal information without restricting its output.” It should be obvious for the user being able to modify the personal information when there is no restricting in personal information access.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify Teraoka to incorporate the teaching of Umemoto. The modification would have been obvious because allowing a user to modify personal information in a normal mode enables the user to update and maintain their personal information as desired while operating within authorized access privileges.
Regarding to claim 2, the combination of Teraoka and Umemoto teaches the method of claim 1.
Teraoka further teaches comprising sending a notification to a display associated with vehicle when the vehicle enters the performance enhancement mode. ([Par. 0143], “The recovery control unit 10004 causes the display device of the HMI 12 to output screen display G10a illustrated in FIG. 13(c) on the basis of the display content 50213a. The screen displayG10a corresponds to attention calling notifying the user that the update of the software has been aborted and that the vehicle 1 is in a function limited state due to the recovery process, and thus the updated functions are not enabled yet, the attention calling also indicating that the aborted update is automatically applied.”)
Regarding to claim 3, the combination of Teraoka and Umemoto teaches the method of claim 1.
Teraoka further teaches wherein the performance enhancement mode enables one more of user-customizable modifications to the vehicle, or performance-enhancing modifications to the vehicle. (([Par. 0104], (“first, the update control unit 10001 of the gateway 10 transmits a session change request to the engine control ECU 13 (S401). The session change request includes identification information about a special mode for software rewrite. The update control unit 13001 of the engine control ECU 13 receives the session change request transmitted from the gateway 10 in step S402, then causes an internal state to transit to a mode specified in the session change request, and subsequently transmits an acceptance response to the gateway 10 (S402).”;[Par. 0105], “The update control unit 10001 of the gateway 10 receives the acceptance response transmitted from the engine control ECU 13 in step S402, and then records start of an update applying process, in the update state D1 via the update state managing unit 10003 (S402R).”; [Par. 108], “The update control unit 13001 of the engine control ECU 13 receives the transfer completion notification transmitted from the gateway 10 in step S409, and then gives a data write instruction to the FROM control unit 13004 in step S411. In accordance with this instruction, the FROM control unit 13004 writes the new software or a part of the new software into the FROM 1313, the new software having been restored by the differential/compression restore unit 13002 and temporarily stored in the SRAM 1312 or the FROM 1313.” Wherein the “mode specified in the session change request” corresponds to the “performance enhancement mode” and the engine control unit is modified during the specified mode.)
Regarding to claim 6, the combination of Teraoka and Umemoto teaches the method of claim 1.
Teraoka further teaches comprising performing one or more of modifying, testing, calibrating, or validating one or more operations of the vehicle related to the performance enhancement mode. (([Par. 0104], (“first, the update control unit 10001 of the gateway 10 transmits a session change request to the engine control ECU 13 (S401). The session change request includes identification information about a special mode for software rewrite. The update control unit 13001 of the engine control ECU 13 receives the session change request transmitted from the gateway 10 in step S402, then causes an internal state to transit to a mode specified in the session change request, and subsequently transmits an acceptance response to the gateway 10 (S402).”;[Par. 0105], “The update control unit 10001 of the gateway 10 receives the acceptance response transmitted from the engine control ECU 13 in step S402, and then records start of an update applying process, in the update state D1 via the update state managing unit 10003 (S402R).”; [Par. 108], “The update control unit 13001 of the engine control ECU 13 receives the transfer completion notification transmitted from the gateway 10 in step S409, and then gives a data write instruction to the FROM control unit 13004 in step S411. In accordance with this instruction, the FROM control unit 13004 writes the new software or a part of the new software into the FROM 1313, the new software having been restored by the differential/compression restore unit 13002 and temporarily stored in the SRAM 1312 or the FROM 1313.” Wherein the “mode specified in the session change request” corresponds to the “performance enhancement mode” and the engine control unit is modified during the specified mode.)
Claims 8 recites the system with substantially similar scope as claim 1, thus being rejected for the same basis as claim 1 above.
Teraoka further teaches a system including a memory communicably coupled to a processor; ([Par. 0263], “Furthermore, each of the configurations, functions, processing units, processing means, and the like may be partly or wholly implemented in hardware by, for example, being designed as an integrated circuit. Furthermore, each of the configurations, functions, and the like may be realized in software that implements the function and that is interpreted and executed by a processor.”)
Claims 9 – 10, 13 recite the system with substantially similar scope as claims 2 - 3, 6 respectively thus being rejected for the same basis as claims 2 – 3, 6 respectively above.
Claims 15 recites the computer-readable storage medium with substantially similar scope as claim 1, thus being rejected for the same basis as claim 1 above.
Teraoka further teaches A computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when read by a processor, cause the processor to perform ([Par. 0263], “Furthermore, each of the configurations, functions, processing units, processing means, and the like may be partly or wholly implemented in hardware by, for example, being designed as an integrated circuit. Furthermore, each of the configurations, functions, and the like may be realized in software that implements the function and that is interpreted and executed by a processor.”)
Claims 16 - 17 recite the computer-readable storage medium with substantially similar scope as claims 2 – 3 respectively, thus being rejected for the same basis as claims 2 – 3 respectively above.
Claim(s) 4 – 5, 11 – 12, 18 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Teraoka and Umemoto in further view of Kyes et al. (Publication No. US 20210287458 A1; hereinafter Kyes).
Regarding to claim 4, the combination of Teraoka and Umemoto teaches the method of claim 1.
Teraoka teaches enabling a specified mode for updating a software as described in claim 1 above, but the combination of Teraoka and Umemoto does not explicitly teach comprising receiving telemetry data from the vehicle, wherein the telemetry data includes status information related to the vehicle.
However, Kyes teaches comprising receiving telemetry data from the vehicle, wherein the telemetry data includes status information related to the vehicle. ([Par. 0230], “The telematics hardware device 30 monitors and logs operational component data. This data includes operational values from various vehicle components. The operational component data also includes vehicle component data based upon measured component events such as a cranking event.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the combination of Teraoka and Umemoto to incorporate the teaching of Kyes. The modification would have been obvious because receiving status information of the vehicle enables monitoring of the operational condition of vehicle components, thereby facilitating the detection of potential issues and helping to prevent component failures.
Regarding to claim 5, the combination of Teraoka, Umemoto, and Kyes teaches the method of claim 1.
Kyes further teaches comprising analyzing the status information to perform one or more of a proactive failure analysis, a risk assessment, an engine life health report, or a degradation status report, for the vehicle. ([Par. 0230], “the logs of operational data provide an operational life cycle view of vehicles components from new, good, fair, poor and failure.”)
Claims 11 – 12 recite the system with substantially similar scope as claims 4 - 5 respectively thus being rejected for the same basis as claims 4 – 5 respectively above.
Claims 18 - 19 recites the computer-readable storage medium with substantially similar scope as claims 4 - 5 respectively thus being rejected for the same basis as claims 4 – 5 respectively above.
Claim(s) 7, 14, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Teraoka and Umemoto in further view of Nakatsukasa et al. (Publication No. US 20210349709 A1; hereinafter Nakatsukasa).
Regarding to claim 7, the combination of Teraoka and Umemoto teaches the method of claim 6.
The combination of Teraoka and Umemoto teaches the modify the operation of the vehicle as described in claim 6 above, but does not explicitly disclose comprising performing one or more of the modifying, the testing, the calibrating, or the validating while the vehicle is not running.
However, Nakatsukasa teaches comprising performing one or more of the modifying, the testing, the calibrating, or the validating while the vehicle is not running. ([Par. 0134], “The stop state detecting unit 22 confirms whether or not the stop state of the vehicle has been detected on the basis of whether or not a stop state notification c has been received from the stop determining ECU 4 (step ST1c).”; [Par. 0136], “If a stop state notification c has been received and thus the stop state of the vehicle has been detected (step ST1c; YES), the stop state detecting unit 22 outputs the stop state notification c to the dependency confirming unit 24.”; [Par. 0141], “If the updatability determining unit 27 determines that the update of the update target ECU can be executed (step ST5c; YES), the updatability determining unit 27 transmits update request to the update target ECU so as to execute the update (step ST6c). For example, the updatability determining unit 27 transmits update request j to the update target ECU and transmits the update data a temporarily stored in the update data storing unit 21 to the update target ECU using the in-vehicle communication unit 28.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the combination of Teraoka and Umemoto to incorporate the teaching of Nakatsukasa. The modification would have been obvious because updating a vehicle component while the vehicle is not moving helps ensure that the update process can be completed reliably without interfering with normal vehicle operation.
Claim 14 recites the system with substantially similar scope as claim 7 thus being rejected for the same basis as claim 7 respectively above.
Regarding to claim 20, the combination of Teraoka and Umemoto teaches the computer-readable storage medium of claim 15.
Teraoka further teaches comprising: performing one or more of modifying, testing, calibrating, or validating one or more operations of the vehicle related to the performance enhancement mode; (([Par. 0104], (“first, the update control unit 10001 of the gateway 10 transmits a session change request to the engine control ECU 13 (S401). The session change request includes identification information about a special mode for software rewrite. The update control unit 13001 of the engine control ECU 13 receives the session change request transmitted from the gateway 10 in step S402, then causes an internal state to transit to a mode specified in the session change request, and subsequently transmits an acceptance response to the gateway 10 (S402).”;[Par. 0105], “The update control unit 10001 of the gateway 10 receives the acceptance response transmitted from the engine control ECU 13 in step S402, and then records start of an update applying process, in the update state D1 via the update state managing unit 10003 (S402R).”; [Par. 108], “The update control unit 13001 of the engine control ECU 13 receives the transfer completion notification transmitted from the gateway 10 in step S409, and then gives a data write instruction to the FROM control unit 13004 in step S411. In accordance with this instruction, the FROM control unit 13004 writes the new software or a part of the new software into the FROM 1313, the new software having been restored by the differential/compression restore unit 13002 and temporarily stored in the SRAM 1312 or the FROM 1313.” Wherein the “mode specified in the session change request” corresponds to the “performance enhancement mode” and the engine control unit is modified during the specified mode.)
The combination of Teraoka and Umemoto teaches the modify the operation of the vehicle as described in claim 6 above, but does not explicitly disclose performing one or more of the modifying, the testing, the calibrating, or the validating while the vehicle is not running.
However, Nakatsukasa teaches performing one or more of the modifying, the testing, the calibrating, or the validating while the vehicle is not running. ([Par. 0134], “The stop state detecting unit 22 confirms whether or not the stop state of the vehicle has been detected on the basis of whether or not a stop state notification c has been received from the stop determining ECU 4 (step ST1c).”; [Par. 0136], “If a stop state notification c has been received and thus the stop state of the vehicle has been detected (step ST1c; YES), the stop state detecting unit 22 outputs the stop state notification c to the dependency confirming unit 24.”; [Par. 0141], “If the updatability determining unit 27 determines that the update of the update target ECU can be executed (step ST5c; YES), the updatability determining unit 27 transmits update request to the update target ECU so as to execute the update (step ST6c). For example, the updatability determining unit 27 transmits update request j to the update target ECU and transmits the update data a temporarily stored in the update data storing unit 21 to the update target ECU using the in-vehicle communication unit 28.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the combination of Teraoka and Umemoto to incorporate the teaching of Nakatsukasa. The modification would have been obvious because updating a vehicle component while the vehicle is not moving helps ensure that the update process can be completed reliably without interfering with normal vehicle operation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 11am - 7pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James J Lee can be reached at (571) 270-5965. 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.
/STEVEN VU NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights