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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 7, 9-10, 13, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chang (US 20220137948 A1)
Regarding Claim 1, Chang teaches:
A method comprising: determining that a failure has occurred in an over- the-air (OTA) technology update process during a first procedure phase; (Chang, [0076] Responsive to detecting a failure to apply the OTA firmware update 395…)
determining, based on the first procedure phase, a first failure type from a plurality of OTA failure types; (Chang, [0076] Subsequently, OTA update module 373 may identify a device state condition that cause the failure to apply the OTA firmware 395... For example, if OTA update module 373 determines that the failure to apply the update was caused by a lack of available memory resources [0077] For example, if OTA update module 373 determines that the failure was caused by the absence of a critical hardware component associated with the update...Similarly, if OTA update module 373 determines that the OTA firmware update 395 does not satisfy an authentication process)
determining, based on the first failure type, at least one processing strategy; (Chang, [0076] Subsequently, OTA update module 373 may identify a device state condition that cause the failure to apply the OTA firmware 395 and take additional action based on the identified condition.)
and re-pushing, based on the at least one processing strategy, the OTA technology update process. (Chang, [0076] In some implementations, OTA update module 373 may reapply the OTA firmware update 395 responsive to determining that the identified device state condition that caused the failure has ceased. For example, if OTA update module 373 determines that the failure to apply the update was caused by a lack of available memory resources (e.g., not enough memory to complete the firmware update), OTA update module 373 may attempt to retry applying the update when additional memory resources become available. [0083] In some implementations, the WAN accessible service may subsequently resend the update to embedded system 315 at a later time.)
Regarding Claim 3, Chang teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising sending indication information indicating the first failure type. (Chang, [0077] For example, if OTA update module 373 determines that the failure was caused by the absence of a critical hardware component associated with the update, then OTA update module 373 may abort reapplying the update and notify the WAN accessible service accordingly. [0083] Alternatively, Device state monitor 372 may send the notification indicating the update failure without first deleting the OTA firmware update 395 from memory 365.)
Regarding Claim 4, Chang teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first procedure phase comprises one or more of an update condition check phase, an OTA mode entering phase, a flushing phase, a software activation phase, an OTA mode exiting phase, or an update completion processing phase. (Chang, [0038] Should the update complete successfully, OTA update manager 151 may delete the saved state and send a notification to WAN accessible service 130 to indicate that the update was completed successfully.)
Regarding Claim 7,
The apparatus of claim 7 performs the same method steps as the method of claim 1, and claim 7 is therefore rejected using the same rationale set forth above in the rejection of claim 1
Chang further teaches:
a memory configured to store instructions; (Chang, Fig. 3, 330)
at least one processor coupled to the memory (Chang, Fig. 3, 325, [0062] Host processing device 325 may be a microcontroller or a digital signal processor (DSP) in one embodiment.)
Regarding Claims 9-10,
The apparatus of claims 9-10 performs the same method steps as the method of claims 3-4, and claims 9-10 are therefore rejected using the same rationale set forth above in the rejection of claims 3-4
Regarding Claim 13,
The computer program product of claim 13 performs the same method steps as the method of claim 1, and claim 13 is therefore rejected using the same rationale set forth above in the rejection of claim 1
Chang further teaches:
non-transitory computer readable storage medium (Chang, [0036] OTA update manager 151 may then retrieve the digital image from the received location and store it in a storage area of the device 145. The storage area may be persistent storage, flash storage, device memory, or the like.)
Regarding Claims 15-16,
The computer program product of claims 15-16 performs the same method steps as the method of claims 3-4, and claims 15-16 are therefore rejected using the same rationale set forth above in the rejection of claims 3-4
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 20220137948 A1), in view of TERAOKA (US 20200225930 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Chang does not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 1, further comprising outputting, to a user, the failure and the at least one processing strategy.
However, TERAOKA teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising outputting, to a user, the failure and the at least one processing strategy. (TERAOKA, Fig. 17C, G10c, [0168] The recovery control unit 10004 causes the display device of the HMI 12 to output screen display G10c illustrated in FIG. 17(c) on the basis of the display content 50213c. The screen display G10c notifies the user that the update of the software has been aborted and that the vehicle 1 is in the function limited state due to the recovery process, and thus the vehicle 1 is disabled, and the screen display G10c indicates that the aborted update is being immediately recovered.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Chang with content display as taught by TERAOKA, because the recovery process to be executed can be varied depending on whether or not a critical abnormality occurs in the ECU, and appropriate information can be communicated to the user. (TERAOKA, [[0261])
Regarding Claim 5, Chang in view of TERAOKA teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first procedure phase comprises a flushing phase, (TERAOKA, [0114]…even when the update is aborted during erasure of the Flash or write to the Flash...)
and wherein the method further comprises further determining the first failure type further based on a type of a faulty component. (TERAOKA, [0252] In addition to the information about the update state D1 in the first embodiment, the update state D1a in the third embodiment includes a cause of abortion D106 as illustrated in FIG. 29(c). The cause of abortion D106 is a field in which a cause of abortion of update is stored, for example, “Power Shutdown,” “Communication Disconnection,” “FROM Failure,” or the like is stored.)
Regarding Claims 8 and 11,
The apparatus of claims 8 and 11 performs the same method steps as the method of claims 2 and 5, and claims 8 and 11 are therefore rejected using the same rationale set forth above in the rejection of claims 2 and 5
Regarding Claims 14 and 17,
The computer program product of claims 14 and 17 performs the same method steps as the method of claims 2 and 5, and claims 14 and 17 are therefore rejected using the same rationale set forth above in the rejection of claims 2 and 5
Claim(s) 6, 12, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 20220137948 A1), in view of TERAOKA (US 20200225930 A1) and YAMASAKI (US 20250193078 A1)
Regarding Claim 6, Chang in view of TERAOKA teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising obtaining, based on a second procedure phase corresponding to an electronic control unit (ECU) flushing failure and a cause of the ECU flushing failure, an error code; (TERAOKA, [0114]…even when the update is aborted during erasure of the Flash or write to the Flash...)
But does not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 1, further comprising obtaining, based on a second procedure phase corresponding to an electronic control unit (ECU) flushing failure and a cause of the ECU flushing failure, an error code;
However, YAMASAKI teaches:
(YAMASAKI, [0076] When the ECU 10 sends to the OTA server 20 the indication that a communication error has occurred, the ECU 10 also sends a reason code)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine failure detection during erasure phase from Chang in view of TERAOKA with reason code which indicates the error as taught by YAMASAKI, because reason code is information about the cause of the occurrence of the communication error. (YAMASAKI, [0076])
Regarding Claim 12, Chang in view of TERAOKA and YAMASAKI teaches:
The apparatus of claim 7, wherein, when executed by the at least one processor, the instructions further cause the apparatus to: obtain based on a second procedure phase corresponding to an electronic control unit (ECU) flushing failure and a cause of the ECU flushing failure, an error code, (TERAOKA, [0114]…even when the update is aborted during erasure of the Flash or write to the Flash...) (YAMASAKI, [0076] When the ECU 10 sends to the OTA server 20 the indication that a communication error has occurred, the ECU 10 also sends a reason code)
and further determine the first failure type further based on the error code. (YAMASAKI, [0076] The reason code information is information indicating the kind of communication error that has occurred and the ECU in which it occurred.)
Regarding Claim 18,
The computer program product of claim 18 performs the same method steps as the method of claim 6, and claim 18 is therefore rejected using the same rationale set forth above in the rejection of claim 6
Regarding Claim 19,
The computer program product of claim 19 performs the same method steps as the method of claim 12, and claim 19 is therefore rejected using the same rationale set forth above in the rejection of claim 12
Regarding Claim 20,
The method of claim 20 performs the same method steps as the method of claim 12, and claim 20 is therefore rejected using the same rationale set forth above in the rejection of claim 12
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
HU (CN 115220963 A): teaches recovery method related with OTA upgrading on vehicle. But the recovery task was limited to rollback only (Abstract). Also teaches sending the OTA update abnormal recovery prompt, to remind the user of the current vehicle state (Contents of the invention)
LIU (US 20210011705 A1): teaches restoration of the OTA upgrade caused by time out, the error conditions are limited to network address change. [0021]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XINYUAN YU whose telephone number is (571)272-7140. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:30.
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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at 571-272-3655. 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.
/XINYUAN YU/Examiner, Art Unit 2113 /BRYCE P BONZO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights