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 1-20 have been examined.
P = paragraph e.g. P[0001] = paragraph[0001]
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 1 recites “An apparatus of controlling over the air (OTA) update of a vehicle”. This is improper grammar, and the claim should read as “An apparatus of controlling an over the air (OTA) update of a vehicle”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 14 recites “wherein the the controller is configured to”. The two consecutive instances of “the” is improper. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 15 recites “an first available range”. This is improper grammar, and the claim should read as “a first available range”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 15 recites “an second available range”. This is improper grammar, and the claim should read as “a second available range”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 1 recites “A method for controlling over the air (OTA) update of a vehicle”. This is improper grammar, and the claim should read as “A method for controlling an over the air (OTA) update of a vehicle”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 15 recites “an first available range”. This is improper grammar, and the claim should read as “a first available range”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 15 recites “an second available range”. This is improper grammar, and the claim should read as “a second available range”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per Claim 6, the claim recites “wherein the controller is configured to determine the average current consumption during the OTA update based on the current consumption measured by the sensor”.
It is unclear how Claim 6 further limits Claim 1, as it is unclear if the “current consumption measured by the sensor” is or is not a “current consumption” that is measured during the “OTA update”. Specifically, Claim 1 recites “a sensor configured for measuring a current consumption of a battery provided in the vehicle”, but does not positively recite any measuring step occurring using the “sensor”, and does not recite any use of the sensor in the “determine an optimal current consumption based on the reference current consumption and an average current consumption during the OTA update performed by the controller” limitation, making it unclear when any measurement using the “sensor” takes place with respect to both Claim 1 and Claim 6, which makes it unclear how Claim 6 further limits Claim 1.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
As per Claim 16, the claim recites “determining the average current consumption during the OTA update based on the current consumption measured by the sensor”.
It is unclear how Claim 16 further limits Claim 11, as it is unclear if the “current consumption measured by the sensor” is or is not a “current consumption” that is measured during the “OTA update”. Specifically, Claim 11 recites “measuring, by a sensor, a current consumption of a battery provided in the vehicle”, but does not recite any use of the sensor in the “determining, by the controller, an optimal current consumption based on the reference current consumption and an average current consumption during the OTA update performed by the controller” limitation, making it unclear how Claim 16 further limits Claim 11.
Therefore, the claim is unclear.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. See below.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
An apparatus of controlling over the air (OTA) update of a vehicle, the apparatus comprising:
a sensor configured for measuring a current consumption of a battery provided in the vehicle; and
a controller configured to:
determine a reference current consumption of the battery based on a type of the vehicle;
determine whether the OTA update is possible based on the reference current consumption and an expected OTA update time;
determine an optimal current consumption based on the reference current consumption and an average current consumption during the OTA update performed by the controller; and
store the optimal current consumption as the reference current consumption, wherein the the controller is configured to:
limit the average current consumption within an first available range; and
limit the optimal current consumption within an second available range.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, regarding the “determine a reference current consumption of the battery based on a type of the vehicle” limitation, a user may mentally determine a reference current consumption of the battery based on a type of the vehicle. Regarding the “determine whether the OTA update is possible based on the reference current consumption and an expected OTA update time” limitation, a user may mentally determine whether the OTA update is possible based on the reference current consumption and an expected OTA update time. Regarding the “determine an optimal current consumption based on the reference current consumption and an average current consumption during the OTA update performed by the controller” limitation, a user may mentally determine an optimal current consumption based on the reference current consumption and an average current consumption during the OTA update performed by the controller. Regarding the “store the optimal current consumption as the reference current consumption” limitation, a user may mentally store the optimal current consumption as the reference current consumption. Regarding the “limit the average current consumption within an first available range” limitation, a user may mentally limit the average current consumption within an first available range. Regarding the “limit the optimal current consumption within an second available range” limitation, a user may mentally limit the optimal current consumption within an second available range. The Examiner notes that the claim does not recite any control of any device or structure to perform any limiting, and each “limit” step encompasses a determination. The Examiner also notes that the claim does not positively recite that the “average current consumption” is actually measured, meaning the “average current consumption” encompasses a predetermined value which may be mentally referenced by a user.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An apparatus of controlling over the air (OTA) update of a vehicle, the apparatus comprising:
a sensor configured for measuring a current consumption of a battery provided in the vehicle; and
a controller configured to:
determine a reference current consumption of the battery based on a type of the vehicle;
determine whether the OTA update is possible based on the reference current consumption and an expected OTA update time;
determine an optimal current consumption based on the reference current consumption and an average current consumption during the OTA update performed by the controller; and
store the optimal current consumption as the reference current consumption, wherein the the controller is configured to:
limit the average current consumption within an first available range; and
limit the optimal current consumption within an second available range.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation “An apparatus of controlling over the air (OTA) update of a vehicle, the apparatus comprising”, the “apparatus” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception. Regarding the additional limitation “a sensor configured for measuring a current consumption of a battery provided in the vehicle”, the “sensor” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic component used to apply the exception, where the “measuring” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Regarding the additional limitation “a controller configured to:”, the “controller” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception. Regarding the additional limitation “wherein the the controller is configured to:”, the “controller” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the “apparatus” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception, the “sensor” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component apply the exception, where “measuring” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, and the “controller” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-10 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims 2-10 are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-10 are similarly rejected as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-10 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
See below regarding the dependent claims.
As per Claim 2, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. A user may mentally determine that the OTA update is possible when the user mentally concludes that a value obtained by subtracting a capacity consumption of the battery due to the OTA update from a residual capacity of the battery exceeds a reference value. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 3, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. The claim describes a reference value, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 4, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. The limitation “wherein the controller is configured to collect residual capacity information of the battery through a vehicle network” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 5, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. A user may mentally determine the capacity consumption of the battery by multiplying the reference current consumption by the expected OTA update time. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 6, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. A user may mentally determine the average current consumption during the OTA update based on the current consumption measured by the sensor. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 7, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. A user may mentally determine the optimal current consumption based on the claimed “[Mathematical Equation 1]”, where the Examiner notes that the equation itself is merely a mathematical concept which is also an abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 8, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. The claim describes a value, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 9, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. A user may mentally determine a minimum value of the first available range as the average current consumption when the average current consumption is lower than or equal to the minimum value of the first available range, and determine a maximum value of the first available range as the average current consumption when the average current consumption is higher than or equal to the maximum value of the first available range. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 10, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. A user may mentally determine a minimum value of the second available range as the optimal current consumption when the optimal current consumption is lower than or equal to the minimum value of the second available range, and determine a maximum value of the second available range as the optimal current consumption when the optimal current consumption is higher than or equal to the maximum value of the second available range. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 11 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 11 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 11 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below). Claim 11 recites:
A method for controlling over the air (OTA) update of a vehicle, the method comprising:
determining, by a controller, a reference current consumption corresponding to a type of the vehicle;
determining, by the controller, whether the OTA update is possible based on the reference current consumption and an OTA update time;
measuring, by a sensor, a current consumption of a battery provided in the vehicle;
determining, by the controller, an optimal current consumption based on the reference current consumption and an average current consumption during the OTA update performed by the controller; and
storing, by the controller, the optimal current consumption as the reference current consumption,
wherein the determining of the optimal current consumption includes:
limiting the average current consumption within an first available range; and
limiting the optimal current consumption within an second available range.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, regarding the “determining” “a reference current consumption corresponding to a type of the vehicle” limitation, a user may mentally determine a reference current consumption corresponding to a type of the vehicle. Regarding the “determining” “whether the OTA update is possible based on the reference current consumption and an OTA update time” limitation, a user may mentally determine whether the OTA update is possible based on the reference current consumption and an OTA update time. Regarding the “determining” “an optimal current consumption based on the reference current consumption and an average current consumption during the OTA update performed by the controller” limitation, a user may mentally determine an optimal current consumption based on the reference current consumption and an average current consumption during the OTA update performed by the controller. Regarding the “storing” “the optimal current consumption as the reference current consumption” limitation, a user may mentally store the optimal current consumption as the reference current consumption. Regarding the “wherein the determining of the optimal current consumption includes: limiting the average current consumption within an first available range” limitation, a user may mentally limit the average current consumption within an first available range. Regarding the “limiting the optimal current consumption within an second available range” limitation, a user may mentally limit the optimal current consumption within an second available range. The Examiner notes that the claim does not recite any control of any device or structure to perform any limiting, and each “limiting” step encompasses a determination. The Examiner also notes that the claim does not positively recite that the “average current consumption” is actually measured, meaning the “average current consumption” encompasses a predetermined value which may be mentally referenced by a user.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method for controlling over the air (OTA) update of a vehicle, the method comprising:
determining, by a controller, a reference current consumption corresponding to a type of the vehicle;
determining, by the controller, whether the OTA update is possible based on the reference current consumption and an OTA update time;
measuring, by a sensor, a current consumption of a battery provided in the vehicle;
determining, by the controller, an optimal current consumption based on the reference current consumption and an average current consumption during the OTA update performed by the controller; and
storing, by the controller, the optimal current consumption as the reference current consumption,
wherein the determining of the optimal current consumption includes:
limiting the average current consumption within an first available range; and
limiting the optimal current consumption within an second available range.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation “by a controller”, the “controller” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception. Regarding the additional limitation “by the controller” of “determining, by the controller, whether the OTA update is possible based on the reference current consumption and an OTA update time”, the “controller” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception. Regarding the additional limitation “measuring, by a sensor, a current consumption of a battery provided in the vehicle”, the “sensor” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic component used to apply the exception, where the “measuring” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Regarding the additional limitation “by the controller” of “determining, by the controller, an optimal current consumption”, the “controller” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception. Regarding the additional limitation “by the controller” of “storing, by the controller”, the “controller” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception, where the “storing” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, independent claim 11 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, regarding the limitation “by a controller”, the “controller” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception, the limitation “by the controller” of “determining, by the controller, whether the OTA update is possible based on the reference current consumption and an OTA update time” amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception, the “sensor” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic component used to apply the exception, where the “measuring” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, the limitation “by the controller” of “determining, by the controller, an optimal current consumption” amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception, the limitation “by the controller” of “storing, by the controller”, the “controller” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a generic computer component used to apply the exception, where the “storing” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 12-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims 12-20 are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 12-20 are similarly rejected as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Therefore, claim(s) 11-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
See below regarding the dependent claims.
As per Claim 12, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 11. A user may mentally determine that the OTA update is possible when the controller concludes that a value obtained by subtracting a capacity consumption of the battery due to the OTA update from a residual capacity of the battery exceeds a reference value. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 13, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 11. The claim describes a reference value, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 14, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 11. The limitation “collecting residual capacity information of the battery through a vehicle network” amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 15, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 11. A user may mentally determine the capacity consumption of the battery by multiplying the reference current consumption by the expected OTA update time. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 16, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 11. A user may mentally determine the average current consumption during the OTA update based on the current consumption measured by the sensor. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 17, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 11. A user may mentally determine the optimal current consumption based on the claimed “[Mathematical Equation 1]”, where the Examiner notes that the equation itself is merely a mathematical concept which is also an abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 18, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 11. The claim describes a value, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 19, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 11. A user may mentally determine a minimum value of the first available range as the average current consumption when the average current consumption is lower than or equal to the minimum value of the first available range, and determine a maximum value of the first available range as the average current consumption when the average current consumption is higher than or equal to the maximum value of the first available range. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 20, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 11. A user may mentally determine a minimum value of the second available range as the optimal current consumption when the optimal current consumption is lower than or equal to the minimum value of the second available range, and determine a maximum value of the second available range as the optimal current consumption when the optimal current consumption is higher than or equal to the maximum value of the second available range. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowable over the prior art, but are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as seen above, with Claims 6 and 16 additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
The closest prior art is Kim et al. (2020/0394031), Izumi (2020/0215930) and Suzuki et al. (9,904,531).
Kim et al. teaches measuring a current consumption of a vehicle battery and teaches the equivalent of determining that an OTA update is “possible” (Kim et al.; “…the controller 210 continuously manages the charging of the battery 24 so that the charge amount of the battery 24 is maintained above the target current amount while the vehicle 100 is driving (312)”, see P[0063]), where performing control to manage the charging is equivalent to the claimed “determine whether the OTA update is possible”, as clearly the management would not be performed if the charge amount was sufficient which would make the update “possible”. Kim et al. also teaches “determine an optimal current consumption based on…current consumption during the OTA update” (Kim et al.; “…predicted current consumption values for parts that are expected when the software update of the part are updated in advance”, see P[0051] “…the controller 210 estimates (calculates) the current amount required for the OTA type software update, and sets the estimated current amount as the target current amount (304)”, see P[0058] and “…the controller 210 controls the charging of the battery 24 so that the battery 24 is charged more than the current amount required for OTA type software update”, see P[0060]).
Kim et al. does not teach the “reference current consumption” or “an average current consumption”, and does not teach “store the optimal current consumption as the reference current consumption”.
Izumi teaches determining if a battery state of charge is sufficient to perform and complete an update process using an average value of current consumption during the update process (Izumi; see P[0122]-P[0123]), and Suzuki et al. teaches determining a time when an installation process for update files will be performed and determining if a residual capacity “at that point in time is sufficient for performing the installation processing” (Suzuki et al.; see col.14, particularly lines 24-35), which teaches determining if an update is possible at “an expected OTA update time”. Suzuki et al. also teaches that the residual capacity is based on a basic electric energy that is consumed by the vehicle, for example, in the start of the engine (Suzuki et al.; “When the residual capacity of the battery is equal to or larger than a predetermined threshold, the transmitting unit 34 may transmit the update files. Note that the predetermined threshold may be, for example, a value obtained by adding the basic electric energy to electric energy consumed in download processing”, see col.10, particularly lines 14-32), where the combination of prior art is fully explained in the previous Office Action.
The prior art taken either alone or in combination with other prior art fails to teach or render obvious the claimed “determine an optimal current consumption based on the reference current consumption and an average current consumption during the OTA update performed by the controller; and store the optimal current consumption as the reference current consumption”.
Kim et al. does teach predicting current consumption values, where a predicted current consumption could be considered an “reference” current consumption, however, Kim et al. does not use this prediction together with an average current consumption to determine an optimal current consumption.
Izumi does teach measuring current consumption during an update process (Izumi; “…acquire current consumption at the SOC acquisition time point in the target ECU during the update process…”, see P[0122]), however, it has been determined that this does not make up for the deficiency of Kim et al., as Izumi is not directed to determining an “optimal current consumption” as claimed, but instead is directed to determining if a battery SOC is sufficient to complete an update process (Izumi; see P[0125]). There is no clear motivation in Izumi to modify Kim et al. with the teachings of Izumi to teach the amended limitations.
Suzuki et al. also does not teach using any average current consumption to determine an optimal current consumption as claimed, and instead teaches determining if a battery capacity will be sufficient when an expected OTA update time is reached.
Furthermore, none of the prior art teaches storing an “optimal current consumption” as a “reference current consumption” as claimed.
Furthermore, no clear motivation could be found in the prior art to modify the prior art to teach all limitations of the claim.
Therefore, the claims are allowable over the prior art, but are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as seen above, with Claims 6 and 16 additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISAAC G SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-9593. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8AM-5PM.
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, ANISS CHAD can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/ISAAC G SMITH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights