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 .
This action is in response to the amendment filed 04/23/26. Claims 1-6, 8-16, and 18-20 have been amended and are pending in this action.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6, 8-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-6, 8-16 and 18-20 are directed to the abstract idea for providing streaming data to the vehicle shadow services. The claims does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under BRI, Claim 1 is essentially directed to a system that receives vehicle related data to a remote location through streaming. The streamed data is maintained and provided at best to two users and the data received by the two users have two different views and representations.
The steps of receiving data, providing data to two users are insignificant extra-solution activities, and the maintaining of data is also insignificant extra-solution activities. The two representations of data are mathematical relations and/or mathematical concepts. The additional elements are one or more computing devices that are generic computer components. Nothing in the claims conveys to a person that the steps of receiving/maintaining of data require any specific reconfiguration of a computer environment, improving the computing environment and/or improving a related technology. The computing devices are generally linked to the gathered data and the data received from vehicles do not require any specific configuration leading an improvement to computing environment.
Based upon the consideration of claim 1 and all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, it is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more. There are no additional limitations recited beyond the judicial exception itself that integrate the exception into a practical application. More particularly, the claim does not recite: (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field (see MPEP $2106.05(a)); (ii) a "particular machine" to apply or use the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(b)); (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state (see MPEP $2106.05(c)); or (iv) any other meaningful limitation (see MPEP §2106.05(e)). See also Guidance, 84 FED. Reg. at 55.
The claim is broadly written. Claim 1, as an exemplary claims is directed to a system for providing streaming data to the vehicle shadow services. The claim does not include limitations that are "significantly more" than the abstract idea because the claims do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The claim fails to recite specific limitations (or a combination of limitations) that are NOT well-understood, routine, and conventional. The steps of: generate a first vehicle shadow generate a second vehicle shadow ...; are conventional steps describe an abstract idea, they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and thus do not add significantly more to the claimed invention. In particular, the claim recites additional elements, receive streaming data provide the first vehicle shadow provide the second vehicle shadow However, Claim does not include any structure and/or a series of steps as to how the first/second vehicle shadow representation to a first/second user. The "one or more processors" recited in the amended claim(s), are generic computer components.
Note that the limitations are done by the generically recited computer components under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion). Thus, the limitation does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and thus do not add significantly more to the claimed invention.
Viewed as a whole, the additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to
transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
See also, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.C "Performing a mental process on a generic computer. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed on a generic computer as an abstract idea is Voter Verified, Inc. V. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385, 126 USPQ2d 1498, 1504 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification in explaining that the claimed steps of voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation are "human cognitive actions" that humans have performed for hundreds of years. The claims therefore recited an abstract idea, despite the fact that the claimed voting steps were performed on a computer. 887 F.3d at 1385, 126 USPQ2d at 1504. Another example is Versata, in which the patentee claimed a system and method for determining a price of a product offered to a purchasing organization that was implemented using general purpose computer hardware. 793 F.3d at 1312-13, 1331, 115 USPQ2d at 1685, 1699. The Federal Circuit acknowledged that the claims were performed on a generic computer, but still described the claims as "directed to the abstract idea of determining a price, using organizational and product group hierarchies, in the same way that the claims in Alice were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, and the claims in Bilski were
directed to the abstract idea of risk hedging." 793 F.3d at 1333; 115 USPQ2d at 1700-01.."
See MPEP 2111 for when and to what extent the specification can be read into claims.
For the above reasons, the Examiner maintains the rejections to claims under 35 U.S.C 101.
For this reason, Examiner has full latitude to interpret each claim in the broadest reasonable sense (in re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 105455, 44USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). Examiner references prior art using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning.
In view of at least the foregoing, the Examiner has considered Applicant's remarks. New ground
of rejection is provided based on the amendment. Applicant is invited to further amendment the claims to overcome the prior arts made of record.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites "A system ..." therefore, the claim is a machines. Claim 6 recites "A method ..."; the claim recites a series of steps and therefore is a process. Claim 16 recites "One or more non-transitory, computer-readable, storage media"; therefore, the claims is a manufacture.
Independent claims 1, 6 and 16
Claim 1 recites:
A system, comprising:
one or more computing devices, comprising one or more processors (generic computer
components), which are remote from a vehicle, configured to:
receive (insignificant extra-solution data gathering) streaming data from the vehicle;
maintain (a mental step that performs by using generic tool when the data to be generated is provided by a data gathering step) a first vehicle shadow representation of the vehicle, the first vehicle shadow representation comprising a sub-set of data included in the streaming data and related to a first view of the vehicle, wherein the first vehicle shadow
representation omits a portion of the streaming data which is not relevant to the first view;
provide (insignificant extra-solution data transmission) the first vehicle shadow representation
to a first user;
maintain (a mental step that performs by using generic tool when the data to be generated is provided by a data gathering step) a second vehicle shadow representation of the vehicle, the second vehicle shadow representation comprising an at least partially different subset
of the data included in the streaming data and related to a second view of the vehicle,
wherein the second vehicle shadow representation omits another portion of the streaming data
which is not relevant to the second view; and
provide (insignificant extra-solution data transmission) the second vehicle shadow representation to a second user.
Step 2A Prong One: The limitations of: generate a first vehicle shadow and generate a second
vehicle shadow are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting, one or more computing devices, one or more processors; nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind. Note that the limitations are done by the generically recited computer components under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Step 2A Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements: receive streaming data provide the first vehicle shadow provide the second vehicle shadow ; the limitations amount to gathering, transmission and presentation data (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation receive streaming data provide the first vehicle shadow provide the second vehicle shadow ; are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) collecting /gathering, transmission and presentation data, Versata Dev. Group Inc.
Claim 6 recites:
A method, comprising:
receiving (insignificant extra-solution data gathering), at a vehicle shadow service implemented using one or more computing devices remote from a vehicle, wherein the one or more
computing devices comprise one or more processors (generic tools), a first user selected configuration for a first vehicle shadow for the vehicle and a second user selected configuration for a second vehicle shadow for the vehicle, wherein the first user selected configuration is related to a first view of the vehicle and the second user selected configuration is related to a second view of the vehicle;
receiving (insignificant extra-solution data gathering), at the vehicle shadow service, streaming
data from the vehicle;
maintaining (a mental step that performs by using generic tool when the data to be generated
is provided by data gathering steps), via the vehicle shadow service, the first vehicle shadow for the vehicle, wherein the first vehicle shadow comprises a sub-set of data included in the streaming data in accordance with the first user selected configuration, wherein the first vehicle shadow omits a portion of the streaming data which is not relevant to the first view;
providing (insignificant extra-solution data transmission and presentation) the first vehicle
shadow having the first view of the vehicle to a fist user;
maintaining (a mental step that performs by using generic tool when the data to be generated
is provided by data gathering steps), via the vehicle shadow service, the second vehicle shadow for the vehicle, wherein the second vehicle shadow comprises an at least partially different sub-set of data included in the streaming data in accordance with the second user selected configuration, wherein the second vehicle shadow omits another portion of the streaming data which is not relevant to the second view; and
providing (insignificant extra-solution data transmission and presentation) the second vehicle
shadow having the second view of the vehicle to a second user.
Step 2A Prong One: The limitations of: generating the first vehicle shadow generating the
second vehicle shadow; are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting, one or more computing devices, one or more processors; nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind. Note that the limitations are done by the generically recited computer components under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Step 2A Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements: receiving a user selected. , receiving streaming data providing these limitations amount to gathering, transmission and presentation data (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations: receiving a user selected... receiving streaming data providing are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) collecting /gathering, transmission and presentation data, Versata Dev. Group Inc.
Claim 16 recites:
One or more non-transitory, computer-readable, storage media (generic computer components) storing program instructions that, when executed on or across one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
receive (insignificant extra-solution data gathering) streaming data from a vehicle, wherein the
one or more processors are remote from the vehicle;
maintain (a mental step that performs by using generic tool when the data to be generated is
provided by data gathering step) a first vehicle shadow for the vehicle, wherein the first vehicle shadow comprises a sub- set of data included in the streaming data in accordance with a first user selected configuration for the vehicle shadow related to a first view of the vehicle, wherein the first vehicle shadow omits a portion of the streaming data which is not relevant to the first view;
provide (insignificant extra-solution data transmission and presentation) the first vehicle
shadow having the first view of the vehicle to a first user;
maintain (a mental step that performs by using generic tool when the data to be generated is
provided by data gathering steps) a second vehicle shadow for the vehicle, wherein the second vehicle shadow comprises an at least partially different sub-set of data included in the streaming data in accordance with a second user selected configuration for the second vehicle shadow related to a second view of the vehicle, wherein the second vehicle shadow omits another portion of the streaming data which is not relevant to the second view; and
provide (insignificant extra-solution data transmission and presentation) the second vehicle
shadow having the second view of the vehicle to a second user.
Step 2A Prong One: The limitations of: generate a first vehicle shadow generate a second
vehicle shadow ...; are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting, one or more computing devices; nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind. Note that the limitations are done by the generically recited computer components under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Step 2A Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements: receive streaming data provide these limitations amount to gathering, transmission and presentation data (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations: receive streaming data provide ...; are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine , and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) collecting/gathering, transmission and presentation data, Versata Dev. Group Inc.
Since claims 1, 6 and 16 are directed to abstract ideas; thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-5, 7-15 and 17-20
The limitations as recited in claims 2-5, 7-15 and 17-20 are simply describe the concepts for
providing streaming data to the vehicle shadow services. The claims do not include additional
element(s) that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. The claims cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claims 2-5, 7-15 and 17-20 are directed to abstract ideas and are not patent eligible. Analysis of the dependent claims are shown below.
Dependent claim 2 recites the limitations, wherein the one or more computing devices are further configured to:
provide a user interface configured to receive:
a first user selection of a first set of sensor data from a first set of sensors of the vehicle
to be included in the first vehicle shadow representation representing the first view of the
vehicle; and a second user selection of a second set of sensor data from a second set of sensors of the vehicle to be included in the second vehicle shadow representation representing the second view of the vehicle, wherein the first and second sets of sensors comprise at least some
different sensors of the vehicle; and
maintain, based on the received first and second user selections a first data model for
the first vehicle shadow representation and a second data model for the second vehicle shadow
representation.
The limitations are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion)
Dependent claim 3 recites the limitations, wherein at least one of the first or second data models used for a given one of the first or second vehicle shadow representations comprises a tree-structure, wherein leaves of the tree-structure are mapped to data streams from sensors of the vehicle corresponding to the first or second sets of sensors for which sensor data is selected to be included in the first or second vehicle shadow; the limitations are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Dependent claim 4 recites the limitations, wherein at least one of the first or second data models used for a given one of the first or second vehicle shadow representations comprises a graph-structure, wherein nodes of the graph-structure are mapped to data streams from sensors of the vehicle corresponding to the first or second sets of sensors for which sensor data is selected to be included in the first or second vehicle shadow, and wherein edges between the nodes indicate relationships between the selected sensors; the limitations are a processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Dependent claim 5 recites the limitations, wherein the user interface is further configured to receive:
a user selection of one or more operational characteristics for the first or second vehicle
shadow; the limitation is a processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers
performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation,
judgment, and opinion), wherein supported operational characteristics available for selection comprise one or more of:
an access control list defining access privileges to one or more types of sensor data
included in the first or second vehicle shadow; the limitation is a processes that, under its
broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it
falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the
human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion)
replication rules for replicating the first or second vehicle shadow stored in a first data
jurisdiction to one or more other data jurisdictions; the limitation amounts to insignificant
extra-solution data analyzing (MPEP 2106.05(g));
encryption rules defining types of sensor data included in the first or second vehicle
shadow that are to be encrypted; the limitation amounts to insignificant extra- data analyzing
(MPEP 2106.05(g)); or query interface rules defining a query language to be used to query the first or second vehicle shadow; the limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution data analyzing (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Dependent claim 8 recites the limitation, providing a user interface for the vehicle shadow service, wherein the first user selected configuration for the vehicle shadow and the second user selected configuration for the second vehicle shadow are respectively submitted to the vehicle shadow service by the first user and the second user via the user interface of the vehicle shadow service; the limitation is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Dependent claim 9 recites the limitations, receiving, from the vehicle or a manufacturer of the vehicle, information indicating sensor types for sensors included in the vehicle; the limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g), wherein the user interface comprises a listing of the sensors of the vehicle that are available for selection into a given user selected configuration for a given vehicle shadow of the vehicle; the limitation is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Claims 10-12 are similar to claims 3-5. Therefore, claims 10-12 are rejected by the same reasons as discussed in claims 3-5.
Dependent claim 13 recites the limitations, receiving a query formatted according to a graph query language, wherein the query targets data included in the sub-set of data of the streaming data included in the first vehicle shadow or the second vehicle shadow; the limitation amounts to insignificant extra solution data analyzing (MPEP 2106.05(g)); and responding to the query based on data stored in the vehicle shadow; the limitation is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Dependent claim 14 recites the limitation, identifying data of the first vehicle shadow or the second vehicle shadow targeted by the query via traversing one or more branches of a tree-structure of the vehicle shadow; the limitation is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Dependent claim 15 recites the limitations, identifying data of the first vehicle shadow or the second vehicle shadow targeted by the query via traversing one or more nodes of a graph-structure of the vehicle shadow; the limitation is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Claims 16 and 18-20 are similar to claims 1-4. Therefore, claims 16 and 18-20 are rejected by the same reasons as discussed in claims 1-4.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG-PUB 20050132024 published June 16 2005 issued to Habaguchi.
With respect to claim 1,
Habaguchi teaches, a system, comprising: one or more computing devices, comprising one or more processors, which are remote from a vehicle (Fig 1, 10), configured to:
receive streaming data from the vehicle;
Habaguchi, [0011] – teaches streaming as a known method.
“[0011] …For example, the known methods use one-to-one communication systems to individually send data streams to particular vehicles in an attempt to send vehicle specific data to a particular vehicle.
[0064] Permitting the user to select which predetermined events cause a selective transmittal of information and permitting the user to determine when to send vehicle-related information affords the user flexibility and control over the information that is shared with the remote location. Thus, by using the present invention, users need not be concerned about privacy or other related issues regarding the transmittal of information to the remote location 10, 610.”
maintain a first vehicle shadow representation of the vehicle, the first vehicle shadow representation comprising a sub-set of data included in the streaming data and related to a first view of the vehicle, wherein the first vehicle shadow representation omits a portion of the streaming data which is not relevant to the first view;
Habaguchi, [0063] “user preferences of the user profile may be set to determine what types of vehicle-related information may be transmitted to the remote location” – user’s view of the vehicle data is equated with the “first vehicle shadow representation.”
provide the first vehicle shadow representation to a first user; (The user can be the first user).
maintain a second vehicle shadow representation of the vehicle, the second vehicle shadow representation comprising an at least partially different sub-set of the data
Habaguchi, [0019] Pursuant to a third aspect of the invention, …the user has flexibility and control in determining the type of information that is shared with the remote location, and users need not be concerned about privacy or other related issues regarding the transmittal of information to the remote location. The vehicle data shared with the remote location is the “second vehicle shadow representation.”
included in the streaming data and related to a second view of the vehicle, wherein the second vehicle shadow representation omits another portion of the streaming data which is not relevant to the second view; and provide the second vehicle shadow representation to a second user.
Habaguchi, [0057] At step 305, the user may update the user profile and change, for example, user preferences and/or user identification information. … the new user may update the old user preferences to reflect the new user's preferences as desired….. At step 310, the updated user profile, including new user preferences and identification information, is saved at the VID memory 30 or the remote memory 60, 660, wherever the user accessed the user profile for updating purposes.
Habaguchi, [0063] If the oil level drops below the oil level threshold, a warning light may appear and, based on other user preferences, a low oil level notification is selectively transmitted to the remote location. The user preferences of the user profile may be set to determine what types of vehicle-related information may be transmitted to the remote location 10 after a predetermined event occurs. Further, the user preferences may determine whether the information is sent. For example, the user preferences may be set so that the information is automatically sent to the remote location 10, 610 upon the occurrence of an event, so that the information is not sent even if the event occurs or so that the user is prompted to transmit the information when the event occurs. If the user is prompted (the “prompt” is an interface) to transmit the information, the user may either choose to transmit the information to the remote location or choose not to transmit the information.
Habaguchi, although teaches transmitting a subset of vehicle data, does not explicitly indicate that the subset of vehicle information to be transmitted is to the remote location.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to send a subset of data that excludes the information a user does not want to make public because Habaguchi suggests that user’s privacy be maintained at users discretion.
See Habaguchi, [0019]
[0019]… the vehicle selectively transmits vehicle-related information to the remote location when a predetermined event occurs, such as, a low oil level warning. … the user has flexibility and control in determining the type of information that is shared with the remote location, and users need not be concerned about privacy or other related issues regarding the transmittal of information to the remote location.
Claims 2 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG-PUB 20050132024 published June 16 2005 issued to Habaguchi , hereinafter “Habaguchi” in view of US PG-PUB 20180261020 published Sep 13, 2018 issued to Petousis.
With respect to claim 2 (and claim 18) wherein the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more computing devices are further configured to: provide a user interface configured to receive: a first user selection of a first set of sensor data from a first set of sensors of the vehicle to be included in the first vehicle shadow representation representing the first view of the vehicle; and a second user selection of a second set of sensor data from a second set of sensors of the vehicle to be included in the second vehicle shadow representation representing the second view of the vehicle, wherein the first and second sets of sensors comprise at least some different sensors of the vehicle; and maintain, based on the received first and second user selections a first data model for the first vehicle shadow representation and a second data model for the second vehicle shadow representation), Habaguchi does not explicitly indicate that the user selected data are data extract by sensors.
Petousis teaches processing of vehicle sensor data and transmitting the data to other entities.
See Petousis, [0004] Thus, there is a need in the autonomous vehicle field to create a new and useful method for processing vehicle sensor data. This invention provides such a new and useful method.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Petousis in Habaguchi because the combined system would be versatile because Petousis not only adds sensor data to the combined system but also enables the system to transmit the sensor data considering the latency and bandwidth.
See Petousis, [0016] – “ The method can confer several benefits. First, the method optimizes use of the limited communication resources available to the computing system by dynamically prioritizing the data to be sent in real- or near-real time. …. In a second variation, the data can be prioritized based on the current or anticipated quality of service (e.g., as measured by latency, bandwidth, etc.) of available communication channel(s). This allows for critical or other high-value data to have preferential real-time transmission (the “real-time transmission” is equated with the claimed “streaming,”) , precluding low-value data f Petousis, [0049] In a specific example, the scheduler can determine an optimum subset of vehicle sensor data to transmit in order to maximize the overall priority (e.g., importance) of the transmitted data, given vehicle sensor data with known size(s) and importance. Dynamic programming can be used in order to find the optimum subset…. consuming limited communication resources]
Claims 3, 10 and 19, 4, 11, 15, and 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG-PUB 20050132024 published June 16 2005 issued to Habaguchi , hereinafter “Habaguchi,” in view of US PG-PUB 20180261020 published Sep 13, 2018 issued to Petousis, and further in view of US PG-PUB 20200364953 published Nov 19, 2020 issued to Simoudis.
With respect to claims 3, 10 and 19, (wherein, the system of claim 2, wherein at least one of the first or second data models used for a given one of the first or second vehicle shadow representations comprises a tree-structure, wherein leaves of the tree-structure are mapped to data streams from sensors of the vehicle corresponding to the first or second sets of sensors for which sensor data is selected to be included in the first or second vehicle shadow), the Habaguchi-Petousis combination does not explicitly teach a tree-structure to store the collected sensor data.
Simoudis teaches storing the vehicle data in a graph database. See Simoudis, [0094].
Simoudis, [0094] “ …in some embodiments, the database may include a graph database that uses graph structures for semantic queries with nodes, edges and properties to represent and store data. ….the database may be implemented as a mix of data structures, objects, and relational structures. Databases may be consolidated and/or distributed in variations through standard data processing techniques. Portions of databases, e.g., tables, may be exported and/or imported and thus decentralized and/or integrated.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Simoudis in the Petousis in Habaguchi combination because Simoudis recognizes the need for a scalable vehicle data processing. See Simoudis, [0005].
“ [0005] Recognized herein is a need for methods and systems for managing autonomous or automated vehicle data in a manner that is safe, secure, cost-effective, scalable, and fosters open applications.”
With respect to claims 4, 11, and 20, (wherein the system of claim 2, wherein at least one of the first or second data models used for a given one of the first or second vehicle shadow representations comprises a graph-structure, wherein nodes of the graph-structure are mapped to data streams from sensors of the vehicle corresponding to the first or second sets of sensors for which sensor data is selected to be included in the first or second vehicle shadow, and wherein edges between the nodes indicate relationships between the selected sensors), the rationale set forth above in claim 3 is applied. Claims 4, 11, 15, and 20 are essentially the same as claims 3 except that they recite a graph structure instead of a tree structure. A person of ordinary skill would have considered the equivalency of a tree and a graph in the sense that a graph has nodes as the trees and edges as the links between the nodes of a tree. So, the adoption of a graph in the combination of Habguchi-Petousis-Simoudis would not require any design change for the adoption.
Claims 5, 12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG-PUB 20050132024 published June 16 2005 issued to Habaguchi , hereinafter “Habaguchi,” in view of US PG-PUB 20180261020 published Sep 13, 2018 issued to Petousis, and further in view of US PG-PUB 20200364953 published Nov 19, 2020 issued to Simoudis, and further in view of US PG-PUB 20210375076 published Dec 2, 2021 issued to Scotland.
With respect to claims 5, 12 and 14-15 (wherein the system of claim 2, wherein the user interface is further configured to receive: a user selection of one or more operational characteristics for the first or second vehicle shadow, wherein supported operational characteristics available for selection comprise one or more of: an access control list defining access privileges to one or more types of sensor data included in the first or second vehicle shadow; replication rules for replicating the first or second vehicle shadow stored in a first data jurisdiction to one or more other data jurisdictions; encryption rules defining types of sensor data included in the first or second vehicle shadow that are to be encrypted; or query interface rules defining a query language to be used to query the first or second vehicle shadow),
With respect to an access control list defining access, Simoudis teaches a tree and/or graph structure comprising multiple versions of models that can be adopted to improve performance.
see Simoudis, [0095] “In some embodiments, the data management system may construct the database for fast and efficient data retrieval, query and delivery. For example, the data management system may provide customized algorithms to extract, transform, and load (ETL) the data. In some embodiments, the data management system may construct the databases using proprietary database architecture or data structures to provide an efficient database model that is adapted to large scale databases, is easily scalable, is efficient in query and data retrieval, or has reduced memory requirements in comparison to using other data structures. For example, a model tree may be stored using a tree data structure with nodes presenting different versions of a model and node parameters representing a model's goal, performance characteristics and various others.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Simoudis in the Petousis in Habaguchi combination because Simoudis recognizes the need for improving performance characteristics of the combined system.
See also Simoudis, [0108] …The hierarchy of nodes in a given model tree may represent the versions of a particular predictive model and the relationships between the models. The characteristics of a predictive model may include, for example, a predictive model's goal/function, model performance characteristics and various others.
With respect to the “replication rules for replicating the first or second vehicle shadow stored in a first data jurisdiction to one or more other data jurisdictions,” Scotland teaches the fulfillment of emission compliance standards from governmental entities and providing users with access rights. The access rights relates to the replication issues and the governmental entities are “jurisdictions.” See Scotland , [0043]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Scotland in in the Habaguchi-Petousis-Simoudis combination because the incorporation of Scotland would make the combined system more versatile.
Scotland, [0043] The data repository 304 may comprise various databases such as for example, a vehicle database 306, a client rules database 308, a vehicle information database 310, and an emissions standards database 312. The vehicle data set database 306 may store vehicle data/metrics received from the data logger devices 102. The client rules database 308 may contain rules associated with the users 116 including configurable thresholds, alarm limits, access rights and the like. The vehicle information database 310 may include vehicle information about different types of vehicles, including nominal emission ranges, temperature ranges and other operating parameters. Emission standards database 312 may include emission compliance standards from one or more government entities. In one embodiment, the databases comprising the data repository 304 may be local to the analytics cloud platform 106. In another embodiment, at least a portion of the databases may reside external to the data repository 304 and accessed remotely.
Claims 6, and 8-15 are essentially the same as claims 1-5 except that are directed to a method rather than an apparatus and rejected under the same rationale as applied above.
Claims 16-20 are essentially the same as claims 1-5 except that are directed to a computer program product rather than an apparatus and rejected under the same rationale as applied above.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6, 8- 16, and 18-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicants’ reference to paragraph [0030] is noted. However, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSAIN T ALAM whose telephone number is (571)272-3978. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu, 8:00 - 4:30.
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.
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.
/HOSAIN T ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2132
Prosecution Insights