DETAILED ACTION
The Office Action is responsive to the communication filed on 1/22/2026.
Claims 1-24 are pending.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1-24, the applicant argues that the cited references do not teach or suggest the claim limitations with respect to independent claim 1 below. Independent claim 13 is substantially similar to independent claim 1. Dependent claims 2-12 and 14-24 depend, directly or indirectly, from independent claims 1 and 13, respectively. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The cited prior art describe the claim limitations as briefly outlined below and as described in the rejection of claims 1 and 13 below.
receive environmental sensor data from the second component of the set of heterogenous components, the environmental sensor data from the second component indicative of the operating parameter of the second component.
Applicant’s arguments are directed to Alger not teaching or suggesting the second component providing environmental sensor data indicative of the operating parameter. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Alger describes receiving air quality sensor data from the vehicle and the operating parameter is to maintain a highest possible air quality. Alger further describes updating data including the air quality indicators to update the climate control plan (i.e., feedback loop).
Alger: “the operation starts by obtaining information from vehicle mounted sensors (step 610)” paragraph 0098; see the updating 690 and obtaining information from vehicle sensors 610 as illustrated in figure 6 and as described in paragraph 0100; “The one or more vehicle mounted sensors 152 provide data to the ACCM 160 for purposes of determining interior and exterior air quality associated with the vehicle 150. That is, sensors 152 may comprise sensors that measure the air quality within the interior cabin of the vehicle 150 as well as sensors that measure various aspects of the air quality surrounding the vehicle in an external environment. These sensors may be of various types as noted above including image capture devices (e.g., cameras), contaminant detection sensors, particulate detection sensors, and the like.” Paragraph 0048
Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive since the cited prior art describe the limitations in these claims.
For at least these reasons, the rejection of the claims is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0318368 (Alger).
Claim 1:
The cited prior art describes a device for an environmental control loop, the device comprising: (Alger: “The present application relates generally to an improved data processing apparatus and method and more specifically to mechanisms for providing automatic vehicle climate control based on predicted air quality.” Paragraph 0001; “In other illustrative embodiments, a computer program product comprising a computer useable or readable medium having a computer readable program is provided.” Paragraph 0004; “In particular to the present invention, the wireless network 120 operates to provide a communication pathway for a vehicle 150 to obtain information from environment sensors 130, other vehicles' sensors 140, and information available from data processing systems coupled to network 102 in order to facilitate a determination as to current and predicted air quality of the environment in which the vehicle 150 is traveling or will be traveling.” Paragraph 0047)
a memory including instructions; and (Alger: see the main memory 208 as illustrated in figure 2; “In one illustrative embodiment, a method is provided, in a data processing system of a vehicle comprising a processor and a memory, for controlling air quality within an interior of a vehicle.” Paragraph 0003)
processing circuitry that, when in operation, is configured by the instructions to: (Alger: see the processing unit 206 as illustrated in figure 2; “In one illustrative embodiment, a method is provided, in a data processing system of a vehicle comprising a processor and a memory, for controlling air quality within an interior of a vehicle.” Paragraph 0003)
receive environmental sensor data from a first component in a set of heterogeneous components installed in an environment with a controller, the environmental sensor data indicative of a service level value sensed by the first component; (Alger: see the environment sensors 130 as illustrated in figure 1; see the obtain information from external information source 620 as illustrated in figure 6; “The information sources 430 may also relay information obtained from road-side environmental sensors 460 and 470 indicating the air quality conditions in regions of the route 480 after the area 440 where the quality of the air is determined to be bad.” Paragraph 0093)
measure a violation of a service level objective based on comparing the environmental sensor data to a threshold; (Alger: “Again, the quality of the air is evaluated based on a level of contaminants such that “good” quality air has an amount of contaminants less than a predetermined threshold while “bad” quality air has an amount of contaminants equal to or greater than the predetermined threshold or another specified threshold.” Paragraph 0020; “The score for the air quality may be compared against one or more threshold values to determine an appropriate control of the climate control system so as to maximize the air quality within the vehicle and maintain the air quality within the vehicle as high as possible.” Paragraph 0023)
transmit an adjustment to an operating parameter of a second component of the set of heterogeneous components, the adjustment operative to attenuate the violation of the service level objective when implemented by the second component; and (Alger: see the send control signals to climate control system 680 as illustrated in figure 6; “Based on this information, the ACCM system may determine appropriate control signals to cause the climate control system to switch between various modes of operation to maintain a highest possible air quality within the interior of the vehicle 410.” Paragraph 0093; “For example, prior to predicted entry into the area of bad air quality, the climate control system may increase intake of air from the exterior of the vehicle in order to flush out any lower quality air within the interior of the vehicle and then transition to a re-circulate mode of operation. In this way, the air quality within the vehicle is maximized prior to entry into the bad air quality area, even perhaps maximized above the normal operating baseline, and is maintained as high a quality as possible by switching operation to re-circulate just prior to entry into the area of bad quality air.” Paragraph 0024)
receive environmental sensor data from the second component of the set of heterogenous components, the environmental sensor data from the second component indicative of the operating parameter of the second component. (Alger: “the operation starts by obtaining information from vehicle mounted sensors (step 610)” paragraph 0098; see the updating 690 and obtaining information from vehicle sensors 610 as illustrated in figure 6 and as described in paragraph 0100; “The one or more vehicle mounted sensors 152 provide data to the ACCM 160 for purposes of determining interior and exterior air quality associated with the vehicle 150. That is, sensors 152 may comprise sensors that measure the air quality within the interior cabin of the vehicle 150 as well as sensors that measure various aspects of the air quality surrounding the vehicle in an external environment. These sensors may be of various types as noted above including image capture devices (e.g., cameras), contaminant detection sensors, particulate detection sensors, and the like.” Paragraph 0048)
Claim 13:
Claim 13 is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected based on the same reasons and rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-5 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0318368 (Alger) in view of
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0076891 (Stuart).
Claim 2:
Alger does not explicitly describe recording data points as described below. However, Stuart teaches the recording data points as described below.
The cited prior art describes the device of claim 1, wherein the first component includes a snapshot manager that records data points generated by the first component. (Stuart: see the meter 210 with memory 216 as illustrated in figure 2; “As the emitter 200 generates GHGs, the sensors 214 measure the fuel amount and transfers one or more fuel measurements to the processor 212, which in turn stores the fuel amounts into a tangible computer-readable memory 216.” Paragraph 0025)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Alger, namely, automatic vehicle climate control based on air quality, with the known techniques of Stuart, namely, incorporating sensor measurements into a blockchain, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. Accordingly, applying the teachings of Alger to control vehicle components based on sensor data with the teachings of Stuart to store sensor data in a blockchain would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved control system (i.e., the combination of the cited references provides for an automatic vehicle climate control based on air quality and storage of all of the data based on the teachings of automatic vehicle climate control based on air quality data in Alger and the teachings of storing sensor measurements in Stuart).
Claim 3:
Alger does not explicitly describe a distributed ledger and related processing as described below. However, Stuart teaches the distributed ledger and related processing as described below.
The cited prior art describes the device of claim 2, wherein the instructions configured the processing circuitry to:
receive data points recorded by the snapshot manager of the first component; (Stuart: “In some aspects where the meter 210 may be incapable of writing directly to the blockchain, the server processor 312 may receive packets from one or more of the meters 210 and the server processor 312 may determines which wallet corresponds to each of the meters 210.” Paragraph 0041)
generate an entry from the data points received from the first component; and (Stuart: “Once the fuel measurement data has been converted to CO2e emissions, the processor 312 may generate the carbon block. The carbon block comprises the CO2e emissions, GPS coordinates, and/or time.” Paragraph 0043; “The processor 312 may then execute instructions in order to create a carbon block to be assigned to the corresponding wallet and to be added to the blockchain.” Paragraph 0041)
add the entry to a distributed ledger. (Stuart: “The meter or oracle 210 may comprise a transceiver 222 for writing blocks to the distributed ledger 150 using a blockchain protocol that may be distributed to the one or more servers 300 and/or other oracles 210.” Paragraph 0025; “The carbon block may be written to the distributed ledger 150 and distributed to the one or more servers 300 using the blockchain protocol and distributed to a fellow miner or node.” Paragraph 0028; “The processor 312 may then execute instructions in order to create a carbon block to be assigned to the corresponding wallet and to be added to the blockchain.” Paragraph 0041)
Alger and Stuart are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 2.
Claim 4:
Alger does not explicitly describe a distributed ledger as described below. However, Stuart teaches the distributed ledger as described below.
The cited prior art describes the device of claim 3, wherein the distributed ledger is stored on a blockchain database. (Stuart: “The meter or oracle 210 may comprise a transceiver 222 for writing blocks to the distributed ledger 150 using a blockchain protocol that may be distributed to the one or more servers 300 and/or other oracles 210.” Paragraph 0025; “The carbon block may be written to the distributed ledger 150 and distributed to the one or more servers 300 using the blockchain protocol and distributed to a fellow miner or node.” Paragraph 0028)
Alger and Stuart are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 2.
Claim 5:
Alger does not explicitly describe recording data points as described below. However, Stuart teaches the recording data points as described below.
The cited prior art describes the device of claim 2, wherein the snapshot manager is configured to record data points generated by the second component. (Stuart: “In another aspect, the meter 210 may comprise additional sensors that may be read by the processor 212. Sensor data from the sensors may be included in a genesis block (e.g. starting block) and/or added to any of the other carbon blocks written to the distributed ledger 150. The meter 210 may function as an encoding device between an Internet of Things (IoT) or between a blockchain of things (BoT) comprising the blockchain protocol.” Paragraph 0030; “According to some aspects, the distributed ledger 150 may be stored on all participating nodes (e.g. any node registered in the blockchain). In other aspects, a portion of the distributed ledger 150 may be cached on the participating nodes and if the node (or meter 210) requires portions not cached, the meter 210 may request the missing portion from other peer nodes.” Paragraph 0040)
Alger and Stuart are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 2.
Claim 14:
Claim 14 is substantially similar to claim 2 and is rejected based on the same reasons and rationale.
14. The at least one non-transient machine readable medium of claim 13, wherein the first component includes a snapshot manager that records data points generated by the first component.
Claim 15:
Claim 15 is substantially similar to claim 3 and is rejected based on the same reasons and rationale.
15. The at least one non-transient machine readable medium of claim 14, wherein the operations comprise:
receiving data points recorded by the snapshot manager of the first component;
generating an entry from the data points received from the first component; and
adding the entry to a distributed ledger.
Claim 16:
Claim 16 is substantially similar to claim 4 and is rejected based on the same reasons and rationale.
16. The at least one non-transient machine readable medium of claim 15, wherein the distributed ledger is stored on a blockchain database.
Claim 17:
Claim 17 is substantially similar to claim 5 and is rejected based on the same reasons and rationale.
17. The at least one non-transient machine readable medium of claim 14, wherein the snapshot manager also records data points generated by the second component.
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0318368 (Alger) in view of
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0165152 (Hendrikx).
Claim 6:
Alger does not explicitly describe a geofence as described below. However, Hendrikx teaches the geofence as described below.
The cited prior art describes the device of claim 1,
wherein the set of heterogeneous components are within a geofence, and (Hendrikx: see the defined region 604 as illustrated in figures 1, 2; “The region 604 is a defined area of interest, which is embedded in a rectangular-shaped urban area 602 and may have been defined by a local authority on the basis of a necessity of keeping an air quality level above a predefined level.” Paragraph 0071)
wherein the set of heterogeneous components wirelessly connect to the controller upon entering the geofence. (Hendrikx: “After executing the evaluation steps 200 on the acquired data, the transmitter device 506 is operated in another step 302 of the method to wirelessly transmit signals representative of a location and a shape of the low or zero emission traffic zone to the hybrid vehicles 402 that are approaching or driving within the region 604 (FIG. 1). The transmitted signals are adapted in dependence of the result of the evaluation steps 200. The step 302 of wirelessly transmitting signals representative of a location and a shape of the established low or zero emission traffic zone is repeated in a periodic manner, for instance once in each second, to ensure timely provision of the information to all hybrid vehicles 402 that are approaching or driving within the region 604.” Paragraph 0089)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Alger, namely, automatic vehicle climate control based on air quality, with the known techniques of Hendrikx, namely, dynamic control of vehicle components, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. Accordingly, applying the teachings of Alger to control vehicle components based on sensor data with the teachings of Hendrikx to use a geofence to control a vehicle would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved control system (i.e., the combination of the cited references provides for an automatic vehicle climate control based on air quality and a geofence based on the teachings of automatic vehicle climate control based on air quality data in Alger and the teachings of controlling a vehicle based on a geofence in Hendrikx).
Claim 18:
Claim 18 is substantially similar to claim 6 and is rejected based on the same reasons and rationale.
18. The at least one non-transient machine readable medium of claim 13,
wherein the set of heterogeneous components are within a geofence, and
wherein the set of heterogeneous components wirelessly connect to the controller upon entering the geofence.
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0318368 (Alger) in view of
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0165152 (Hendrikx) and further in view of
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0076891 (Stuart) and
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0349733 (Nolan).
Claim 7:
Alger does not explicitly describe a geofence, transmitting a ledger, or consensus as described below. However, Hendrikx teaches the geofence, Stuart teaches transmitting the ledger, and Nolan teaches consensus as described below.
The cited prior art describes the device of claim 6, wherein wirelessly connecting a third component of the set of heterogeneous components to a network upon entering the geofence includes instructions that configure the process circuitry to:
transmit a distributed ledger to the third component; and (see the sending of data upon entering the geofence in Hendrikx and the sending of the distributed ledger in Stuart) (Hendrikx: “After executing the evaluation steps 200 on the acquired data, the transmitter device 506 is operated in another step 302 of the method to wirelessly transmit signals representative of a location and a shape of the low or zero emission traffic zone to the hybrid vehicles 402 that are approaching or driving within the region 604 (FIG. 1). The transmitted signals are adapted in dependence of the result of the evaluation steps 200. The step 302 of wirelessly transmitting signals representative of a location and a shape of the established low or zero emission traffic zone is repeated in a periodic manner, for instance once in each second, to ensure timely provision of the information to all hybrid vehicles 402 that are approaching or driving within the region 604.” Paragraph 0089) (Alger: see the environment sensors 130 as illustrated in figure 1; see the obtain information from external information source 620 as illustrated in figure 6; “The information sources 430 may also relay information obtained from road-side environmental sensors 460 and 470 indicating the air quality conditions in regions of the route 480 after the area 440 where the quality of the air is determined to be bad.” Paragraph 0093) (Stuart: “The meter or oracle 210 may comprise a transceiver 222 for writing blocks to the distributed ledger 150 using a blockchain protocol that may be distributed to the one or more servers 300 and/or other oracles 210.” Paragraph 0025)
add the third component to the network upon receiving consensus from other components of the set of heterogeneous components connected to the network. (see the connection upon entering the geofence in Hendrikx and the consensus for adding a new device in Nolan) (Hendrikx: “After executing the evaluation steps 200 on the acquired data, the transmitter device 506 is operated in another step 302 of the method to wirelessly transmit signals representative of a location and a shape of the low or zero emission traffic zone to the hybrid vehicles 402 that are approaching or driving within the region 604 (FIG. 1). The transmitted signals are adapted in dependence of the result of the evaluation steps 200. The step 302 of wirelessly transmitting signals representative of a location and a shape of the established low or zero emission traffic zone is repeated in a periodic manner, for instance once in each second, to ensure timely provision of the information to all hybrid vehicles 402 that are approaching or driving within the region 604.” Paragraph 0089) (Nolan: “The namespace may be hardcoded into a storage or adjustable by a user. If a node 1504 in the consensus network 1502 indicates a message requesting implementation of a central authority, made up of the nodes in the network, the nodes 1504 may vote on the accession of new members. Nodes in a central authority may establish rules allowing by default, new members to join the network. Once a new member joins, the database 1506 of the new member may be synchronized with the databases 1506 of existing members.” Paragraph 0179)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Alger, namely, automatic vehicle climate control based on air quality, with the known techniques of Hendrikx, namely, dynamic control of vehicle components, the known techniques of Stuart, namely, incorporating sensor measurements into a blockchain, and the known techniques of Nolan, namely, data storage for IOT devices, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. Accordingly, applying the teachings of Alger to control vehicle components based on sensor data with the teachings of Hendrikx to use a geofence to control a vehicle and the teachings of Stuart to store sensor data in a blockchain and the teachings of Nolan to process data for IOT devices would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved control system (i.e., the combination of the cited references provides for an automatic vehicle climate control based on air quality and a geofence and communicating and processing data using various techniques based on the teachings of automatic vehicle climate control based on air quality data in Alger and the teachings of controlling a vehicle based on a geofence in Hendrikx and the teachings of sending a distributed ledger in Stuart and the teachings of consensus among devices in Nolan).
Claim 19:
Claim 19 is substantially similar to claim 7 and is rejected based on the same reasons and rationale.
19. The at least one non-transient machine readable medium of claim 18, wherein wirelessly connecting a third component of the set of heterogeneous components to a network upon entering the geofence includes operations comprising:
transmitting a distributed ledger to the third component; and
adding the third component to the network upon receiving consensus from other components of the set of heterogeneous components connected to the network.
Claims 8-10 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0318368 (Alger) in view of
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0165152 (Hendrikx) and further in view of
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0076891 (Stuart),
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0349733 (Nolan), and
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/006972 (Guim).
Claim 8:
Alger, Hendrikx, Stuart, and Nolan do not explicitly describe an autonomous vehicle communicating with V2X as described below. However, Guim teaches the autonomous vehicle communicating with V2X as described below.
The cited prior art describes the device of claim 7, wherein the third component is an autonomous vehicle that communicates with the controller using vehicle to everything (V2X) communication. (Guim: “Another example implementation is an edge computing system adapted for supporting client mobility, vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V), vehicle-to-everything (V2X)” paragraph 0226; “Some client endpoints 310, such as autonomous vehicles may obtain network access for requests and responses 326 via a wireless vehicular network through a street-located network system 336.” Paragraph 0039)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Alger, namely, automatic vehicle climate control based on air quality, with the known techniques of Hendrikx, namely, dynamic control of vehicle components, the known techniques of Stuart, namely, incorporating sensor measurements into a blockchain, the known techniques of Nolan, namely, data storage for IOT devices, and the known techniques of Guim, namely, a geofence based edge service control would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. Accordingly, applying the teachings of Alger to control vehicle components based on sensor data with the teachings of Hendrikx to use a geofence to control a vehicle and the teachings of Stuart to store sensor data in a blockchain and the teachings of Nolan to process data for IOT devices and the teachings of communicating with edge devices using various communication protocols in Guim would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved control system (i.e., the combination of the cited references provides for an automatic vehicle climate control based on air quality and a geofence and communicating and processing data using various techniques based on the teachings of automatic vehicle climate control based on air quality data in Alger and the teachings of controlling a vehicle based on a geofence in Hendrikx and the teachings of sending a distributed ledger in Stuart and the teachings of consensus among devices in Nolan and the teachings of communicating with autonomous vehicles using V2X in Guim).
Claim 9:
Alger, Hendrikx, and Stuart do not explicitly describe a bloom filter as described below. However, Nolan teaches the bloom filter as described below.
The cited prior art describes the device of claim 8, wherein autonomous vehicle attestation evidence is represented using a bloom filter, wherein bit fields of the bloom filter correspond to components commonly found on autonomous vehicles. (Nolan: “Other groups of IoT devices may include remote weather stations 314, local information terminals 316, alarm systems 318, automated teller machines 320, alarm panels 322, or moving vehicles, such as emergency vehicles 324 or other vehicles 326, among many others. Each of these IoT devices may be in communication with other IoT devices, with servers 304, or both.” Paragraph 0080; “The KDC 4702 may use a certificate, or attestation key 4704 issued by the TNS to verify subscribers, such as subscriber 4706, and publishers, such as publisher 4708, are members of the topic group before providing the topic group key 4710.” Paragraph 0334)
Alger, Hendrikx, Stuart, Nolan, and Guim are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 8.
Claim 10:
Alger, Hendrikx, and Stuart do not explicitly describe a bloom filter as described below. However, Nolan teaches the bloom filter as described below.
The cited prior art describes the device of claim 9, wherein the bloom filter is compressed into a hash tree where a root digest is returned with a tick nonce. (Nolan: “To further improve efficiency, the blockchains 2304 may be indexed by an associated hierarchy of Merkle trees 2306, as described further with respect to FIG. 25. As used herein, a Merkle tree is generally a form of hash tree in which every non-leaf node is labeled with a hash of the labels or the values of two child nodes.” Paragraph 0230; “As noted, current blockchain techniques may build a Merckle hash tree as a way to index to a particular block in the block chain. If a block hash is known, the block may be efficiently located in a repository of blocks. This may be considered a form of DHT. DHT may also be used to identify specific data that are included in a blockchain. In this approach, a data value may be hashed to a DHT where the location in the DHT database reveals the blockchain block hash where the data can be found.” Paragraph 0142)
Alger, Hendrikx, Stuart, Nolan, and Guim are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 8.
Claim 20:
Claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 8 and is rejected based on the same reasons and rationale.
20. The at least one non-transient machine readable medium of claim 19, wherein the third component is an autonomous vehicle that communicates with the controller using vehicle to everything (V2X) communication.
Claim 21:
Claim 21 is substantially similar to claim 9 and is rejected based on the same reasons and rationale.
21. The at least one non-transient machine readable medium of claim 20, wherein autonomous vehicle attestation evidence is represented using a bloom filter, wherein bit fields of the bloom filter correspond to components commonly found on autonomous vehicles.
Claim 22:
Claim 22 is substantially similar to claim 10 and is rejected based on the same reasons and rationale.
22. The at least one non-transient machine readable medium of claim 21, wherein the bloom filter is compressed into a hash tree where a root digest is returned with a tick nonce.
Claims 11-12 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0318368 (Alger) in view of
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0165152 (Hendrikx) and further in view of
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0076891 (Stuart),
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0349733 (Nolan),
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/006972 (Guim), and
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0069051 (Al-Stouhi).
Claim 11:
Alger, Hendrikx, Stuart, Nolan, and Guim do not explicitly describe a measurement gateway as described below. However, Al-Stouhi teaches the measurement gateway as described below.
The cited prior art describes the device of claim 8, wherein the set of heterogeneous components include a measurement gateway, the measurement gateway of the set of heterogeneous components synchronizes a local time of the set of heterogeneous components with a global time on a global measurement gateway. (Al-Stouhi: “Accordingly, at block 206, the processor 134 and/or the sensor data acquisition module 148 can synchronize a local clock signal (e.g., of the local clock 132) with the global time signal. Further, the processor 152 can synchronize a local clock signal (e.g., of the local clock 156) with the global time signal. Thus, each local clock of a plurality of vehicles can be synchronized according to the global time signal. By synchronizing the local clock 132 of the first vehicle 104 and the local clock 156 of the second vehicle 108, the timing of the instruction cycle of the first vehicle 106, namely, the sensor unit 126, and the second vehicle 108, namely, the sensor unit 154, will made with reference to the same global reference time base.” Paragraph 0061; “Furthermore, as will be discussed herein in further detail, by aligning the local clock 132 with the PPS signal from the global positioning source 141 and aligning the local clock 156 with the PPS signal from the global positioning source 141, the first vehicle 106 and the second vehicle 108 can control timing of sensor activation transmission of sensor data according to the same reference time signal (e.g., common time base).” Paragraph 0055)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Alger, namely, automatic vehicle climate control based on air quality, with the known techniques of Hendrikx, namely, dynamic control of vehicle components, the known techniques of Stuart, namely, incorporating sensor measurements into a blockchain, the known techniques of Nolan, namely, data storage for IOT devices, the known techniques of Guim, namely, a geofence based edge service control, and the known techniques of Al-Stouhi, namely, a system for synchronized vehicle sensor data, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. Accordingly, applying the teachings of Alger to control vehicle components based on sensor data with the teachings of Hendrikx to use a geofence to control a vehicle and the teachings of Stuart to store sensor data in a blockchain and the teachings of Nolan to process data for IOT devices and the teachings of communicating with edge devices using various communication protocols in Guim and the teachings of synchronizing vehicle sensor data in Al-Stouhiwould have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved control system (i.e., the combination of the cited references provides for an automatic vehicle climate control based on air quality and a geofence and communicating and processing data using various techniques based on the teachings of automatic vehicle climate control based on air quality data in Alger and the teachings of controlling a vehicle based on a geofence in Hendrikx and the teachings of sending a distributed ledger in Stuart and the teachings of consensus among devices in Nolan and the teachings of communicating with autonomous vehicles using V2X in Guim and the teachings of synchronizing data using a global time in Al-Stouhi).
Claim 12:
Alger, Hendrikx, Stuart, Nolan, and Guim do not explicitly describe global time as described below. However, Al-Stouhi teaches the global time as described below.
The cited prior art describes the device of claim 11, wherein the global time is an epoch handle that labels all communications between the set of heterogeneous components and the controller on the network. (Al-Stouhi: “As will be discussed herein, time synchronization of data capture and data transmission between the first vehicle 106 and the second vehicle 108 according to a global reference time frame, allows the first vehicle 106 and the second vehicle 108 to obtain useful sensor from each other according to accurate timing, that each vehicle alone may not be able to capture and/or process. Sensor data obtained in this way can provide an accurate means to control vehicle driving and/or vehicle systems.” Paragraph 0040)
Alger, Hendrikx, Stuart, Nolan, Guim, and Al-Stouhi are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 11.
Claim 23:
Claim 23 is substantially similar to claim 11 and is rejected based on the same reasons and rationale.
23. The at least one non-transient machine readable medium of claim 20, wherein the set of heterogeneous components include a measurement gateway, the measurement gateway of the set of heterogeneous components synchronizes a local time of the set of heterogeneous components with a global time on a global measurement gateway.
Claim 24:
Claim 24 is substantially similar to claim 12 and is rejected based on the same reasons and rationale.
24. The at least one non-transient machine readable medium of claim 23, wherein the global time is an epoch handle that labels all communications between the set of heterogeneous components and the controller on the network.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0064232 describes controlling vehicle performance based on weather data and vehicle location.
U.S. Patent No. 6,112,151 describes adaptive emission control based on the operation area.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0311443 describes using blockchain to store audit data for various types of data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E EVERETT whose telephone number is (571)272-2851. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am to 5:00 pm (Pacific).
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at 571-272-2748. 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.
/Christopher E. Everett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116