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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed 17 December 2025. The Applicant has amended claims 6, 10, 12-13 and 18-19. Claims 3-4, 8-9 and 15 were previously canceled. Claims 1-2, 5-7, 10-14 and 16-19 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Reply to Applicant’s Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed 17 December 2025 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Claim Objections:
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 17 December 2025 have overcome the Claim Objections previously set forth.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112:
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 17 December 2025 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections previously set forth.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101:
Applicant’s arguments, see Arguments/Remarks, filed 17 December 2025, with regard to the rejections of claims 1-2, 5-7, 10-14 and 16-19 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s argument that “…A human cannot operate a wired connection or traction battery…the claim cannot be performed in the human mind” (page 7 of Remarks, 1st full paragraph), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Office Action did not treat the limitations of “a wired connection…, a traction battery…; and a charging socket configured…” as being performed by a human as being argued in the Remarks, instead, these limitations merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. The systems are recited at a high level of generality and merely linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Regarding the applicant’s argument that “…the claims as a whole integrate a practical application of providing analyzing charge time with data transmit time. This can be seen at least by the recitations “responsive to…, determine a charging period for …; determine an uploading time…; and responsive to…transmit…” (page 7 of Remarks, last paragraph)”, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
“A claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application” (MPEP 2106.04(d)). Claim 6 recites “…determine a charging period…”, “determine an uploading time…” which can be implemented by a human and therefore the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The additional limitation of “…transmit…” amounts to mere data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As to the Applicant’s argument that “…the claims as a whole integrate a practical application of providing analyzing charge time with data transmit time. This can be seen at least by the recitations “responsive to…, determine a charging period for …; determine an uploading time…; and responsive to…transmit…”, “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology” (MPEP 2106.05(a) II.), Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding to the applicant’s argument related to step 2B, the applicant provides no arguments except for the conclusory languages (i.e., a bare assertion of “significantly more” without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art).
Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been maintained.
Claims Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102/103:
Applicant’s arguments, see Arguments/Remarks, filed 17 December 2025, with regard to the rejections of claims 1-2, 5-7, 10-14 and 16-19 under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments for claim 6 that “…it is still not clear how Yousefi expressly discloses “responsive to the charging period being shorter than the uploading time, transmit the second category data to the cloud storage system via the one or more wireless transceivers in addition to the wired connection…Park and Yousefi fail to cure the deficiencies…” (page 9 of Remarks, paragraphs 2-3), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Yousefi teaches the wireless and wired communication paths are used for packet aggregation… and concurrent transmission of different packets (see at least para 0481, para 0497, para 0510). It is obvious to a person with ordinary skills in the art that when there is a need to increase data transmission speed, e.g., when the time for data transmission is limited, adding a channel for data transmission, such as combining wired and wireless data transmission, could be an obvious solution. Therefore, the prior art discloses the claim limitations as recited and the prior art and rejections have been maintained.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments for claim 6 that “…one would not look to Plante, Park and Yousefi without undue hindsight reconstruction…” (page 9 of Remarks, paragraph 4) the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant’s arguments for claim 15 are moot since claim 15 is canceled.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments for claim 1 that “…such limited datasets and initial transmission are not related to being transferred to a data block or where the “predetermined data frames are uploaded by the data box to the cloud storage solutions…Plante is directed to a “memory buffer” and not to vehicle data box and cloud storage…” (page 10 of Remarks, 2nd full paragraph), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Plante teaches vehicle event recorder including video camera and microprocessor…loop memory…buffer memory (para 0075-0076, Fig. 2, para 0055). The data interface and data box are broadly recited in the claim, and are interpreted as loop memory, buffer memory and the I/O in between and in the up/downstream of the data pipeline. Plante further teaches …Datasets may be transmitted between complementary pairs of parallel receivers 28 either wirelessly or via wired connections 29. If no connections are available, a dataset remains in the buffer memory until a connection becomes available. If the first available connection is a low bandwidth mobile wireless connection, an abbreviated dataset is transmitted and a complete dataset remains in the buffer memory until a better connection becomes available (para 0075), i.e., if the connection is available, an abbreviated dataset is transmitted… (and a complete dataset remains in the buffer memory until a better connection becomes available). Therefore, the prior art discloses the claim limitations as recited and the prior art and rejections have been maintained.
With respect to the dependent claims, the Applicant provides no additional arguments other than their dependency from the independent claims. Because independent claims are not allowable, dependent claims are not allowable.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6, line 10, “…such the data is transmitted…” should read --…such as the data is transmitted …--;
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
computing unit in claim 1;
The structure is “one or more of computers, electronics control units (ECU)” (Specification para 0017).
data box in claims 1 and 14;
The structure is “one or more computer storage device (e.g., hard drives, solid state drives, optical drives)” (Specification para 0018).
computing device in claims 14 and 16;
The structure is “one or more of computers, electronics control units (ECU)” (Specification para 0017).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 10-14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 6 is directed to a vehicle (i.e., an apparatus). Therefore, claim 6 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 6 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 6 recites:
A vehicle comprising:
one or more sensors, configured to generate and transmit data;
one or more wireless transceivers, configured to communicate with a cloud storage system;
a wired connection configured to communicate with the cloud storage system;
a traction battery configured to providing propelling power to the vehicle; and
a charging socket configured to receive electric charge via a charging cable to charge the traction battery,
wherein the wired connection is integrated with the charging socket such the data is transmitted via the charging cable;
a data logger including a storage device, and programmed to,
- responsive to receiving the data from the one or more sensors, divide the data into first category data and a second category data,
- transmit the first category data to the cloud storage system via the one or more wireless transceivers in real time while the vehicle is being driven, and
- store the second category data in the storage device without transmitting via the one or more wireless transceivers while the vehicle is being driven.
- responsive to detecting plugging-in of the charging cable, determine a charging period for the traction battery to reach a predefined state of charge;
- determine an uploading time to completely transmitting the second category data to the cloud storage system via the wired connection; and
- responsive to the charging period being shorter than the uploading time, transmit the second category data to the cloud storage system via the one or more wireless transceivers in addition to via the wired connection
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “divide...”, “determine…” and “determine…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data received and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A vehicle comprising:
one or more sensors, configured to generate and transmit data;
one or more wireless transceivers, configured to communicate with a cloud storage system;
a wired connection configured to communicate with the cloud storage system;
a traction battery configured to providing propelling power to the vehicle; and
a charging socket configured to receive electric charge via a charging cable to charge the traction battery,
wherein the wired connection is integrated with the charging socket such the data is transmitted via the charging cable;
a data logger including a storage device, and programmed to,
- responsive to receiving the data from the one or more sensors, divide the data into first category data and a second category data,
- transmit the first category data to the cloud storage system via the one or more wireless transceivers in real time while the vehicle is being driven, and
- store the second category data in the storage device without transmitting via the one or more wireless transceivers while the vehicle is being driven.
- responsive to detecting plugging-in of the charging cable, determine a charging period for the traction battery to reach a predefined state of charge;
- determine an uploading time to completely transmitting the second category data to the cloud storage system via the wired connection; and
- responsive to the charging period being shorter than the uploading time, transmit the second category data to the cloud storage system via the one or more wireless transceivers in addition to via the wired connection
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “receiving the data from the one or more sensors”, “transmit the first category data...” and “store the second category data…” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. In particular, the receiving step from the sensors and from the external source is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering vehicle and road condition data for use in the dividing step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The transmit… and store… steps are also recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of data transmission as a result of the “divide…” step), and amounts to mere post solution data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “one or more sensor…”, “one or more wireless transceivers…”, “a data logger…”, “a wired connection…, “a traction battery…” and “a charging socket…” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. The systems are recited at a high level of generality and merely linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 6 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “one or more sensor…”, “one or more wireless transceivers…”, “a data logger…”, “a wired connection…, “a traction battery…” and “a charging socket…” they do not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because they merely linked the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “receiving…”, “transmit...” and “store…”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “receiving…”, “transmit...” and “store…” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors, transceivers, data loggers, “a wired connection…, “a traction battery…” and “a charging socket…” are all conventional components mounted on/used in the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the sensors, transceivers and data loggers are anything other than conventional components of a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
As per Claim 1.
Claim 1 recites “separate predetermined data…” which can be implemented by a human in the mind. Claim 1 further recites limitations/elements that are considered as insignificant activities (i.e., collect data…, transferred…transmit…) and conventional components mounted on the vehicle or used in a vehicle (e.g., computing unit, data interface, data box…) which are recited at a high level of generality and merely linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or were well-understood, routine, conventional activity recited at a high level of generality. Therefore, claim 3 is directed to an abstract idea and rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
As per Claim 14.
Claim 14, an apparatus claim, includes limitations analogous to claim 6 an apparatus claim, but adds a computing device. These generically recited computer elements do not add significantly more to the abstract idea because, they merely amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claims 2, 5, 7, 10-13 and 16-19.
Dependent claims 2, 5, 7, 10-13 and 16-19 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2, 5, 7, 10-13 and 16-19 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 3, 6 and 14.
Therefore, claims 1-2, 5-7, 10-14 and 16-19 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Plante (EP2988235).
As to claim 1, Plante teaches a data logging device for a vehicle, comprising:
a computing unit, a data interface and a data box (see at least Plante para 0075-0076 vehicle event recorder including video camera and microprocessor, a data interface and a data box, i.e., loop memory, buffer memory; also see Fig. 2, para 0055);
wherein the computing unit is configured to collect data from a vehicle (see at least Plante para 0055 camera output directed to the microprocessor),
wherein the collected data is transferred from the computing unit to the data box via the data interface, the data box being integrally housed in the data logging device via the data interface (see at least Plante para 0073-0076: video series being captured and preserved in a memory buffer…data in loop memory being transferred to a buffer memory; claim 1: effectuate storage of captured image data in the managed loop memory, detect the event declared by the event trigger; also see para 0040, 0047 Fig. 2-3); and
wherein the data box is configured to transmit data externally from the data logging device to a cloud storage solution (see at least Plante para 0073-76: additional parallel transceivers may be included…coupled to a communication network…and further to remote server and mass data storage…connection of highest available bandwidth is chosen and data is transferred accordingly…; also see para 0056, para 0065, Fig. 2-3),
wherein the computing unit is configured to separate predetermined data frames from other data frames before the data is transferred to the data box, and the predetermined data frames are uploaded by the data box to the cloud storage solution (see at least Plante para 0075: an abbreviated dataset is transmitted…(and a complete dataset remains in the buffer memory until a better connection becomes available); para 0080: Key frames of a video series, time of day, parameters which exceed threshold values, etcetera may be assembled into a brief data-limited dataset, also see para 0062 and para 0071, Fig. 2).
As to claim 5, Plante teaches the data logging device of claim 1, where the remaining data frames are transmitted to the cloud storage solution at predetermined intervals (see at least Plante para 0078: Vehicles returned to the such parking facility are automatically connected as they enter the communication space... when a fleet vehicle returns to the designated parking facility at the end of a shift, the vehicle event recorder establishes a network connection and downloads data collected and stored in the memory buffer, also see para 0081, para 0026).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plante (EP2988235) in view of Yamashita (US20110283053).
As to claims 2, 13 and 19, Plante teaches the data logging device of claim 1, the vehicle of claim 7 and the data logging device of claim 14.
Plante does not explicitly teach wherein the data box is configured with an exFAT format.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Yamashita teaches the OEM parameters are set using a storage area of a fixed address in the flash memory 140, the storage area being managed by exFAT (see at least Yamashita para 0086, also see Fig. 3, 6, 10 and 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Plante so as to wherein the data box is configured with an exFAT format in view of Yamashita et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that storage area being managed by exFAT of Yamashita can be used in Plante, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Plante and Yamashita because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a file system that is independent of an OS or a CPU of a PC and the like, and has device dependent parameters (OEM parameters) that are definable by an OEM so that the OEM can independently design the file system of the device, so as to obtain a uniform access method regardless of the type of semiconductor memory device (see at least Yamashita para 0084, para 0023).
Claims 6-7, 10-12, 14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plante in view of Park (US20130166136) and further in view of Yousefi (US20120110356).
As to claim 6, Plante teaches a vehicle comprising:
one or more sensors, configured to generate and transmit data (see at least Plante para 0075-0076 vehicle event recorder including video camera and microprocessor, a data interface and a buffer memory; also see Fig. 2, para 0055);
one or more wireless transceivers, configured to communicate with a cloud storage system (see at least Plante para 0072-0076: transceivers coupled to communication network; also see para 0056, Fig. 1-Fig. 3);
a wired connection configured to communicate with the cloud storage system (see at least Plante para 0056),
a data logger including a storage device, and programmed to (see at least Plante para 0075-0076 vehicle event recorder including memory; also see Fig. 2, para 0055),
responsive to receiving the data from the one or more sensors, divide the data into first category data and a second category data (see at least Plante para 0075-0076 an abbreviated dataset is transmitted and a complete dataset remains in the buffer memory until a better connection becomes available; para 0080 A dataset manager is also configured to parse a complete dataset to form abbreviated datasets. Key frames of a video series, time of day, parameters which exceed threshold values, etcetera may be assembled into a brief data-limited dataset; also see para 0039, para 0061-para 0066; Fig. 2-3),
transmit the first category data to the cloud storage system via the one or more wireless transceivers in real time while the vehicle is being driven (see at least Plante para 0075-0076 an abbreviated dataset is transmitted and a complete dataset remains in the buffer memory until a better connection becomes available; para 0080 A dataset manager is also configured to parse a complete dataset to form abbreviated datasets. Key frames of a video series, time of day, parameters which exceed threshold values, etcetera may be assembled into a brief data-limited dataset; para 0061-0066 abbreviated/critical data being transmitted in real time and in motion; also see para 0039; Fig. 2-3), and
store the second category data in the storage device without transmitting via the one or more wireless transceivers while the vehicle is being driven (see at least Plante para 0075-0076 an abbreviated dataset is transmitted and a complete dataset remains in the buffer memory until a better connection becomes available; para 0080 A dataset manager is also configured to parse a complete dataset to form abbreviated datasets. Key frames of a video series, time of day, parameters which exceed threshold values, etcetera may be assembled into a brief data-limited dataset; para 0061-0066 abbreviated/critical data being transmitted in real time and in motion, upon returning to parking facility the complete dataset being downloaded to the server; also see para 0039; Fig. 2-3).
Plante does not teach
a traction battery configured to providing propelling power to the vehicle; and
a charging socket configured to receive electric charge via a charging cable to charge the traction battery,
wherein the wired connection is integrated with the charging socket such the data is transmitted via the charging cable;
responsive to detecting plugging-in of the charging cable, determine a charging period for the traction battery to reach a predefined state of charge;
determine an uploading time to completely transmitting the second category data to the cloud storage system via the wired connection; and
responsive to the charging period being shorter than the uploading time, transmit the second category data to the cloud storage system via the one or more wireless transceivers in addition to via the wired connection.
Park is directed to a system and a method for transmitting and receiving data when charging an electrical vehicle. Park teaches when the driver enters to a charging station to charge the driver's vehicle and plugs-in the vehicle to be charged, the expected charging time is calculated… transmitting and receiving a data when charging a vehicle (e.g., an electric vehicle) includes an expected charging time analysis (first) module configured to calculate an expected charging time based on an instantaneous state of charge (SOC) value obtained through a controller area network (CAN) communication when charging the electrical vehicle is initiated…transmittable or receivable data determination module selects a size of data that is transmittable within the expected charging time…based on the data transmission speed (see at least Park 0009, also see para 0020, para 0025-0029, para 0033, Claim 1, Fig. 1 and 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Plante so as to include a traction battery configured to providing propelling power to the vehicle; and a charging socket configured to receive electric charge via a charging cable to charge the traction battery, wherein the wired connection is integrated with the charging socket such the data is transmitted via the charging cable; responsive to detecting plugging-in of the charging cable, determine a charging period for the traction battery to reach a predefined state of charge; determine an uploading time to completely transmitting the second category data to the cloud storage system via the wired connection in view of Park et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that estimating charging time and proper size of data for uploading of Park can be used in Plante, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Plante and Park because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a method for determining the size of data that could be effectively transmitted from the vehicle to the remote server.
Yousefi is directed to a power distribution system within a vehicle operates to provide power over Ethernet to a plurality of network node modules. Yousefi teaches the wireless and wired communication paths are used for packet aggregation… and concurrent transmission of different packets (see at least para 0481, para 0497, para 0510).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Plante so as to include responsive to the charging period being shorter than the uploading time, transmit the second category data to the cloud storage system via the one or more wireless transceivers in addition to via the wired connection in view of Yousefi et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that concurrent transmission of data via wired and wireless of Yousefi can be used in Plante, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Plante and Yousefi because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a method for transferring data from the vehicle to a server in a faster and more reliable way.
As to claim 7, Plante in view of Park and Yousefi teaches the vehicle of claim 6, further comprising:
a wired connection configured to communicate with the cloud storage system via a wired connection (see at least Plante para 0057-0059 A vehicle may be hardwire coupled via very high speed data link to a wired network; also see para 0079, Fig. 3),
wherein the data logger is further programmed to:
responsive to detecting the wired connection has become available after the vehicle is parked, transmit the second category data to the cloud storage system via the wired connection (see at least Plante para 0039: While the abbreviated dataset is transmitted through the network, the complete dataset is preserved locally for transmission at a later time when communication systems of higher bandwidth become available; para 0057-0059 A vehicle may be hardwire coupled via very high speed data link to a wired network; also see para 0079, Fig. 3).
As to claims 10 and 16, Plante in view of Park and Yousefi teaches the vehicle of claim 7 and the data logging device of claim 14.
Plante further teaches wherein the one or more wireless transceivers are configured to:
transmit the first category data via a high cost wireless connection (see at least Plante para 0065-0066: If it is determined that neither wired nor fixed wireless links are available, the system attempts to make a mobile wireless connection, i.e., high cost wireless connection. Limited abbreviated datasets comprising the most critical data may be transmitted while the vehicle is in motion but, unlike the other types of connection, this connection may be structured so that it takes place not necessarily when a connection is possible, but rather only when needed (for example, after an accident), Attempts to connect wirelessly are preferably made in response to an event having occurred. Because mobile wireless resources are limited, this type link is not generally left connected on a continuous basis but is established whenever a need arises); and
transmit the second category data via a low cost wireless connection (see at least Plante para 0066: … Upon return of the vehicle to the parking facility where a high bandwidth connection is again available, the entire or complete dataset associated with the captured event can be eventually downloaded to the server; para 0064: If it is determined that a wired connection is not present, then a test is made to determine whether a fixed wireless communication link is present and available/operable, such as a WiFi, i.e., low cost wireless connection).
As to claims 11 and 17, Plante in view of Park and Yousefi teaches the vehicle of claim 10 and the data logging device of claim 16.
Plante further teaches wherein the first category data include safety-related data, and the second category data does not include safety-related data (see at least Plante para 0065-0066: when a vehicle in mobile and working, the network is available via mobile wireless links and limited abbreviated datasets comprising the most critical data, i.e., safety-related, may be transmitted while the vehicle is in motion…upon return of the vehicle to the parking facility…the complete dataset, i.e., non-safety related, can be downloaded to the server).
As to claims 12 and 18, Plante in view of Park and Yousefi teaches the vehicle of claim 7 and the data logging device of claim 14.
Park further teaches wherein the wired connection is configured to transmit the data using powerline communication (PLC) protocol (see at least Park para 0033, claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Plante so as to include wherein the wired connection is configured to transmit the data using powerline communication (PLC) protocol in view of Park et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Plante and Park because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing an option to transfer data from the vehicle to a server in a reliable and fast way, especially when optical/coaxial cables are not available (see at least Park para 0005-0006).
As to claim 14, Plante teaches a data logging device for a vehicle, comprising:
a data box configured to receive data from one or more sensors of the vehicle (see at least Plante para 0075-0076 vehicle event recorder including video camera and microprocessor, a data interface and a data box, i.e., loop memory, buffer memory; also see Fig. 2, para 0055); and
a computing device programmed to,
divide the data into first category data and a second category data (see at least Plante para 0075-0076 an abbreviated dataset is transmitted and a complete dataset remains in the buffer memory until a better connection becomes available; para 0080 A dataset manager is also configured to parse a complete dataset to form abbreviated datasets. Key frames of a video series, time of day, parameters which exceed threshold values, etcetera may be assembled into a brief data-limited dataset; also see para 0039, para 0061-para 0066; Fig. 2-3),
transmit the first category data to a cloud storage system via one or more wireless transceivers on board the vehicle in real time while the vehicle is being driven (see at least Plante para 0075-0078 an abbreviated dataset is transmitted and a complete dataset remains in the buffer memory until a better connection becomes available, service…A mobile telephone transceiver integrated with these types of vehicle event recorders provides network communication while a vehicle is in motion…; para 0080 A dataset manager is also configured to parse a complete dataset to form abbreviated datasets. Key frames of a video series, time of day, parameters which exceed threshold values, etcetera may be assembled into a brief data-limited dataset; para 0061-0066 abbreviated/critical data being transmitted in real time and in motion; also see para 0039; Fig. 2-3), and
store the second category data in the data box without transmitting via the one or more wireless transceivers while the vehicle is being driven (see at least Plante para 0075-0078 an abbreviated dataset is transmitted and a complete dataset remains in the buffer memory until a better connection becomes available, service… Vehicles returned to the such parking facility are automatically connected as they enter the communication space … the vehicle event recorder establishes a network connection and downloads data collected and stored in the memory buffer…; para 0080 A dataset manager is also configured to parse a complete dataset to form abbreviated datasets. Key frames of a video series, time of day, parameters which exceed threshold values, etcetera may be assembled into a brief data-limited dataset; para 0061-0066 abbreviated/critical data being transmitted in real time and in motion; also see para 0039; Fig. 2-3).
Plante does not teach
a vehicle having a traction battery configured to power the vehicle,
detect a wired connection connected to the vehicle,
determine a charging period for the traction batter to reach a predefined state of charge when plugged into a charging cable,
determine an uploading time to completely transmit the second category data to the cloud storage system via the wired connection,
responsive to the charging period being shorter than the uploading time, transmit the second category data to the cloud storage system via the one or more wireless transceivers in addition to via the wired connection.
Park is directed to a system and a method for transmitting and receiving data when charging an electrical vehicle. Park teaches when the driver enters to a charging station to charge the driver's vehicle and plugs-in the vehicle to be charged, the expected charging time is calculated… transmitting and receiving a data when charging a vehicle (e.g., an electric vehicle) includes an expected charging time analysis (first) module configured to calculate an expected charging time based on an instantaneous state of charge (SOC) value obtained through a controller area network (CAN) communication when charging the electrical vehicle is initiated…transmittable or receivable data determination module selects a size of data that is transmittable within the expected charging time…based on the data transmission speed (see at least Park 0009, also see para 0020, para 0025-0029, para 0033, Claim 1, Fig. 1 and 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Plante so as to include detect a wired connection connected to the vehicle, determine a charging period for the traction batter to reach a predefined state of charge when plugged into a charging cable, determine an uploading time to completely transmit the second category data to the cloud storage system via the wired connection in view of Park et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that estimating charging time and proper size of data for uploading of Park can be used in Plante, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Plante and Park because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a method for determining the size of data that could be effectively transmitted from the vehicle to the remote server.
Yousefi is directed to a power distribution system within a vehicle operates to provide power over Ethernet to a plurality of network node modules. Yousefi teaches the wireless and wired communication paths are used for packet aggregation… and concurrent transmission of different packets (see at least para 0481, para 0497, para 0510).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Plante so as to include responsive to the charging period being shorter than the uploading time, transmit the second category data to the cloud storage system via the one or more wireless transceivers in addition to via the wired connection
in view of Yousefi et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that concurrent transmission of data via wired and wireless of Yousefi can be used in Plante, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Plante and Yousefi because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a method for transferring data from the vehicle to a server in a faster and more reliable way.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Examiner’s Notes
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraph and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as "Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced" may be deemed insufficient.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HONGYE LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5410. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on 571-272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HONGYE LIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights