DETAILED ACTION
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
The following claim(s) is/are pending in this office action: 1-8
The following claim(s) is/are amended: 1, 7
The following claim(s) is/are cancelled: -
The following claim(s) is/are new: -
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected. This rejection is FINAL.
Previous Rejections Withdrawn
The objection to claim(s) 1-7 is/are withdrawn based on the amendment.
The 35 USC 112(b) rejection to claim(s) 1-7 is/are withdrawn based on the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the amendment filed 8/10/2026, have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. The reasons set forth below.
Applicant’s Invention as Claimed
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 1-4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isozaki (US Pub. 2017/0278320) in view of Kondo (US Pub. 2005/0122208).
With respect to Claim 1, Isozaki teaches a function management system, comprising: one or more computers configured to generate a message for enabling or disabling a function of an electrical controlling unit forming an in-vehicle network mounted to a vehicle (A message for enabling or disabling a function will be taught later. Figs. 1-2, paras. 36-38, 48-53; In-vehicle gateway device has processors that communicate with ECUs in the vehicle via buses, which is messaging via an in-vehicle network of a vehicle.)
process the message by using identification information assigned to each function of the electrical controlling unit to generate a processed message; (para. 134-135; system stores firmware information of each ECU. Paras. 145-147; system determines new firmware for an ECU is available and routes it to the appropriate ECU.)
But Isozaki does not explicitly teach a message for enabling or disabling a function.
Kondo, however, does teach a message for enabling or disabling a function of an electrical controlling unit (Examiner asserts Isozaki may teach on its own, see para. 126; updating firmware to add functions, improve performance or remediate flaws. Adding a function is enabling a function. Improving or remediating a function is disabling of a function in its current form. Regardless, see Kondo, paras. 20-33; user calls in a car theft. A base station sends a command to the car engine ECU to disable the engine start function. The command also sets an ID associated with a key that re-enables the engine start function.)
according to a user's input; (paras. 20-33; User inputs key with ID that causes re-enablement of engine.)
and change a function status enabling or disabling execution of the function according to the processed message, (para. 27; disabling and re-enabling of engine start. See also Isozaki, paras. 126-17, 134-135; updating of ECU.)
wherein the one or more computers are configured to: read the function status after receiving the message; compare a request by the message with the function status and determines whether to change the function status; and generate a command to be transmitted according to the determination. (First see Isozaki, paras. 156-158; in-vehicle gateway performs verification of update package prior to transmitting to ECU for firmware change, which is determination and command. Then see Kondo, paras. 27-29; after receiving the disable message, the vehicle determines if the engine has come to a stop and disables the engine. Paras. 30-32; vehicle compares key ID to ID from message to determine if engine should be re-enabled. Both are comparisons to determine whether to change function status.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the system of Isozaki with the enabling or disabling functions in order to improve security by remotely disabling the engine. (Kondo, para. 3)
With respect to Claim 2, modified Isozaki teaches the function management system according to claim 1, and Isozaki also teaches further comprising an MAC decrypter that decrypts the message to which a message authentication code has been applied by using an MAC key. (paras. 86-88, 152-158; encryption using MAC and decryption of data.)
With respect to Claim 3, modified Isozaki teaches the function management system according to claim 1, and Isozaki also teaches further comprising an encrypter that encrypts the command by using a common key. (para. 85; encryption with common-key AES)
With respect to Claim 4, modified Isozaki teaches the function management system according to claim 1, and Kondo also teaches wherein the one or more computers change the function status of the electrical controlling unit after checking that the vehicle has been stopped or parked. (para. 29; disabling of engine after car stops)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
With respect to Claim 7, modified Isozaki teaches the function management system according to claim 1, and Isozaki also teaches wherein the vehicle is a straddle-type vehicle. (para. 36; motorcycle.)
With respect to Claim 8, it is substantially similar to Claim 1 and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Isozaki (US Pub. 2017/0278320) in view of Kondo (US Pub. 2005/0122208), and further in view of Tateishi (US Pub. 2020/0183674).
With respect to Claim 5, modified Isozaki teaches the function management system according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the function is implemented by a plurality of the electrical controlling units, and the function status in each of the electrical controlling units is changed.
Tateishi, however, does teach wherein the function is implemented by a plurality of the electrical controlling units, and the function status in each of the electrical controlling units is changed. (paras. 48-51; multiple ECUs to be updated and each ECU is commanded, such as a command to stop communicating with other ECUs.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the system of modified Isozaki with the changing of multiple function statuses in order to perform updates on multiple ECUs at once.
With respect to Claim 6, modified Isozaki teaches the function management system according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the function is implemented by a plurality of the electrical controlling units, and an individual command for each of the electrical controlling units is generated.
Tateishi, however, does teach wherein the function is implemented by a plurality of the electrical controlling units, and an individual command for each of the electrical controlling units is generated. (paras. 48-51; multiple ECUs to be updated and each ECU is commanded, such as a command to stop communicating with other ECUs. Para. 55; update may be performed in sequence or in parallel, which is an individual command for each unit.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the system of modified Isozaki with the individual commands in order to selectively update ECUs to make sure each one correctly updates.
Remarks
Applicant argues at Remarks, pg. 4 that the claim amendments fix the claim objections. Examiner agrees and withdraws the objections.
Applicant argues at Remarks, pg. 4 that the claim amendments fix the 112b in view of f rejection. Examiner finds that the amendments take the claims out of means-plus and therefore the 112b in view of f is withdrawn.
Applicant argues at Remarks, pg. 5 that the claims are nonobvious because the “compare a request by the message with the function status and determines whether to change the function status” limitation is not taught. Applicant argues that “the claimed comparison is between a function status change request and the current function status of the electrical controlling unit.”
The claim requires comparing a request by the message with the function status. Spec, para. 30 describes the function status by stating “Specifically, the reading section reads a function status, such as whether the function stored in the electrical controlling unit is enabled or disabled, or whether the function status is prohibited from being changed.” Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of function status includes data describing whether a function is disabled or whether change is prohibited. Spec, para. 31 then describes the disputed feature of the determination section. Para. 31 states that the “determination section compares a function status change request in the message transmitted from the management section with the current function status read by the reading section and determines whether the function status is to be changed according to the message.” Thus one embodiment of the claim is comparing the message to data that describes whether a function that is enabled or disabled, and another embodiment of the claim is comparing the message to data describing whether the function is prohibited from being changed.
Kondo teaches a command to disable engine running. The vehicle performs a check as to the operation status of the vehicle, such as whether the vehicle is currently moving or if the engine is operating. This is a comparison between a received message and the operating status of the engine, since the vehicle will not apply the disable engine command when the vehicle is moving but will apply it when the engine is off. Isozaki discloses a vehicle receiving a firmware update package to be installed, and performing checks before installing the firmware. Therefore the message is a request to apply the firmware update. Thus, the combination teaches comparing a requesting message with a function status, since an obvious combination would be to add the status check of the engine in Kondo to the firmware update request in Isozaki.
To the extent that Applicant considers Isozaki individually and argues that the check in Isozaki is not enough, by itself, to teach a comparison to whether a function is enabled/disabled, Examiner agrees. To the extent that Applicant argues that “Kondo discloses comparing a key ID to an ID, not a function status and a function status change request” Examiner (1) notes that Examiner also cited the engine running/movement check described ante and Applicant does not dispute it, nor considers it in combination with Isozaki; and (2) disagrees that the key ID does not teach on its own.
The cited Kondo section discloses that the stored ID code is part of the immobilizer function which includes start prohibition, i.e. a disabling status of the engine start function. A message is received by the vehicle which either implicitly or explicitly carries a request to enable the engine, since the function of sending the ID is to direct the car to release the engine lockout, i.e. The message containing the ID is a request to enable the function of engine start. Therefore Kondo teaches comparison of a requesting message to a function status within the broadest reasonable meaning of the terms because “a function status” includes data describing change prohibition (Spec, para. 30) and Kondo explicitly (Kondo, paras. 30-32) compares a quality of a requesting message (the received ID) with data describing change prohibition (the stored ID used for releasing the disabling status of the engine). Thus the Key ID forms a second basis for teaching the claim limitation.
For the reasons above, Examiner maintains the 103 rejection to all claims.
All claims remain rejected.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS P CELANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1205. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on 571-272-7304. 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.
/NICHOLAS P CELANI/Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights