Detailed Action
Claims 1, 4-19, and 21-32 are pending.
Claims 1, 4-19, and 21-32 are rejected.
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)(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, 4-11, 16, 19, 21-25 and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by ADAMS et al (Pub. No.: US 2021/0004486 A1).
As per claim 1, ADAMS discloses an apparatus comprising:- a policy acquisition circuit structured to interpret a vehicle policy data value comprising at least a portion of a vehicle policy for a vehicle (ADAMS, Fig 2-3, paragraph 0013, 0022-0023, wherein “The system 106 comprises one or more processors 202 that are coupled to a memory 204. The instructions stored in a storage component or device 206 are executed by the processor 202 from the memory 204. The instructions provide functionality for video/image/data processing 224 which provides for the filtering of PII objects 222 that are associated with an enforcement policy 224. The enforcement policy 224 is described in further detail in regards to FIG. 3. The processor 202 is coupled to one or more sensors 210a-210f of the vehicle 104 through a sensor subsystem 210. These sensors may include, but not be limited to, LiDAR 210a, radar 210b, one or more cameras 210c, gyroscopes 210d, accelerometers 210e or ultrasonic devices 210f. The data from these devices is collected by the processor 202 and processed using the functionality 220. The enforcement policy 224 is received through a communication subsystem 212 that may contain a system identity module (SIM) 214 via one or more antennas 216”, “retrieving an enforcement policy associated with the location of the vehicle. The system 300 shows an example of an enforcement policy 321 defines the region 322 to which enforcement policy is applicable. The example provides defines the region based upon a country, however small subdivisions or geographic coordinates can be utilized. The enforcement policy 321 can define the types of objects 324 or data that must be filtered or redacted within the contents and the means by which the data must be protected.”; thus, the components within ‘The in-vehicle data collection system 106’, inside the vehicle 104, that are responsible for implementing the enforcement policy can be the policy acquisition circuit structured as claimed); - a policy processing circuit structured to generate, in response to and based at least in part on the vehicle policy data value, parsed policy data that comprises of one or more vehicle sub-policies of the vehicle policy (ADAMS, Fig 3, paragraph 0023, wherein “The system 300 shows an example of an enforcement policy 321 defines the region 322 to which enforcement policy is applicable. The example provides defines the region based upon a country, however small subdivisions or geographic coordinates can be utilized. The enforcement policy 321 can define the types of objects 324 or data that must be filtered or redacted within the contents and the means by which the data must be protected. For example the entry ‘1’ may define be associated with redacting only faces within an image. Thus, the entry ‘1’ can be used to generate a sub-policy associated with redacting only faces within an image”; Thus, as shown by Fig 3, the table as whole represent the enforcement policy as a whole and each row defining sub-policy based on location and/or policy type.Paragraph 0013, wherein “The system 106 comprises one or more processors 202 that are coupled to a memory 204. The instructions stored in a storage component or device 206 are executed by the processor 202 from the memory 204. The instructions provide functionality for video/image/data processing 224 which provides for the filtering of PII objects 222 that are associated with an enforcement policy 224.”; Thus, the processor implementing the enforcement policy which inherently parses the policy data can be the policy processing circuit as claimed); and- determine from the vehicle policy data value a type value of the vehicle policy, wherein the type value is at least one of a passive vehicle policy, wherein the vehicle policy specifies passive vehicle data to be initially collected from one or more vehicle sensors (ADAMS, paragraph 0016, wherein “a filter is provided within a in-vehicle data collection system to redact or mask private information taken by vehicle cameras or sensor associated with the vehicle”) during ordinary operations of the vehicle; or an active vehicle policy, wherein the vehicle policy specifies active vehicle data to be initially collected from the ore more vehicle sensors (ADAMS, paragraph 0016, wherein “a filter is provided within a in-vehicle data collection system to redact or mask private information taken by vehicle cameras or sensor associated with the vehicle”) responsive to a request for the vehicle data transmitted to one or more endpoints, wherein the request is based at least in part on the vehicle policy (ADAMS, Fig 3, paragraph 0023, wherein “Triggers 328 may also be defined as to when data is to be filtered for example at the time of data collection, when the data is uploaded to the network, or when a trigger event associated with the vehicle occurs such as an accident, public alert or privacy identification sign is received requesting information from vehicles that are within a defined area. The trigger may alternatively define when filter is to occur in a particular region for example when a sign requesting PII be filtered is identified by a camera.”; Thus, the trigger can be the type value defining passive or active policy. For example, a trigger can define that the policy is performed only when a request is received and hence ‘active policy’ wherein other trigger events that do not require receiving a request can be indicating the passive policy.In addition, paragraph 0026, wherein “The region may be determined by the vehicle through a lookup table or by requesting identification of the region by a remote server based upon location coordinates of the vehicle.” which is equivalent to the vehicle policy specifies vehicle data to be generated responsive to a request for the vehicle data transmitted to one or more endpoints); and- a policy execution circuit structured to collect vehicle data from one or more vehicle sensors in response to the parsed policy data (ADAMS, paragraph 0026, wherein the data from one or more of the vehicle sensors such as the camera can then be acquired (510). The enforcement policy can then be retrieved. PII objects can then be identified within the vehicle data (512). The PII objects can then be filtered through redaction and or encryption process (514). The filtering process encrypts the objects using the retrieved encryption key such that the original content can not be identified. The filtering process may alternatively include multiple levels of filtering for PII objects. For example different objects may require different levels of redaction or encryption and could only be accessible by particular authorities. For example, Authority A may have access to license plates objects while Authority B has access to faces of people thereby providing layers of redaction within the vehicle data. The objects can be independently encrypted using different encryption keys or redaction methods depending on the policy associated with the respective authority);
As pre claim 3, claim 1 is incorporated and ADAMS discloses wherein when the type value of the vehicle policy is the passive policy, the vehicle data collected by the policy execution circuit is ordinarily collected during operation of the vehicle (ADAMS, Fig 3, paragraph 0023, Triggers 328 may also be defined as to when data is to be filtered for example at the time of data collection, when the data is uploaded to the network, or when a trigger event associated with the vehicle occurs such as an accident, public alert or privacy identification sign is received requesting information from vehicles that are within a defined area. Thus, the trigger that defines that data to be collected when a trigger event associated with the vehicle occurs such as an accident (during operation of the vehicle) can be the passive policy type).
As pre claim 4, claim 1 is incorporated and ADAMS discloses wherein when the type value of the vehicle policy is the passive vehicle policy, the vehicle data collected by the policy execution circuit is ordinarily made available for collection by the one or more vehicle sensors during operation of the vehicle (ADAMS, Fig 3, paragraph 0023, Triggers 328 may also be defined as to when data is to be filtered for example at the time of data collection, when the data is uploaded to the network, or when a trigger event associated with the vehicle occurs such as an accident, public alert or privacy identification sign is received requesting information from vehicles that are within a defined area. Thus, the trigger that defines that data to be collected when a trigger event associated with the vehicle occurs such as an accident (during operation of the vehicle) can be the passive policy type. Paragraph 0016, In order to manage PII data to protect people's privacy, and abide by law enforcement and insurance requests, a filter is provided within a in-vehicle data collection system to redact or mask private information taken by vehicle cameras or sensor associated with the vehicle).
As pre claim 5, claim 1 is incorporated and ADAMS discloses wherein when the type value of the vehicle policy is the active vehicle policy, the vehicle data collected by the policy execution circuit is generated by one or more sensors corresponding to the one or more endpoints(ADAMS, Fig 3, paragraph 0023, wherein the enforcement policy 321 can define the types of objects 324 or data that must be filtered or redacted within the contents and the means by which the data must be protected. For example the entry ‘1’ may define be associated with redacting only faces within an image. Triggers 328 may also be defined as to when data is to be filtered for example at the time of data collection, when the data is uploaded to the network, or when a trigger event associated with the vehicle occurs such as an accident, public alert or privacy identification sign is received requesting information from vehicles that are within a defined area. Thus, the trigger that defines that data to be collected when the data is uploaded to the network can be the active policy type and the uploading of the data to the network (server) can be the request for the vehicle data transmitted to one or more endpoints as claimed);
As pre claim 6, claim 1 is incorporated and ADAMS discloses wherein the policy execution circuit is further structured to passively collect the vehicle data in response to the type value being a passive vehicle policy (ADAMS, Fig 3, paragraph 0023, wherein “Triggers 328 may also be defined as to when data is to be filtered for example at the time of data collection, when the data is uploaded to the network, or when a trigger event associated with the vehicle occurs such as an accident, public alert or privacy identification sign is received requesting information from vehicles that are within a defined area. The trigger may alternatively define when filter is to occur in a particular region for example when a sign requesting PII be filtered is identified by a camera.”; Thus, the trigger can be the type value defining passive or active policy. For example, a trigger can define that the policy is performed only when a request is received and hence ‘active policy’ wherein other trigger events that do not require receiving a request can be indicating the passive policy.).
As pre claim 7, claim 1 is incorporated and ADAMS discloses wherein the policy execution circuit is further structured to actively collect the vehicle data in response to the type value being an active vehicle policy (ADAMS, Fig 3, paragraph 0023, wherein “Triggers 328 may also be defined as to when data is to be filtered for example at the time of data collection, when the data is uploaded to the network, or when a trigger event associated with the vehicle occurs such as an accident, public alert or privacy identification sign is received requesting information from vehicles that are within a defined area. The trigger may alternatively define when filter is to occur in a particular region for example when a sign requesting PII be filtered is identified by a camera.”; Thus, the trigger can be the type value defining passive or active policy. For example, a trigger can define that the policy is performed only when a request is received and hence ‘active policy’ wherein other trigger events that do not require receiving a request can be indicating the passive policy.).
As pre claim 8, claim 7 is incorporated and ADAMS discloses wherein the policy execution circuit is further structured to transmit a begin collection command value to actively collect the vehicle data (ADAMS, Fig 3, paragraph 0023, wherein “Triggers 328 may also be defined as to when data is to be filtered for example at the time of data collection, when the data is uploaded to the network, or when a trigger event associated with the vehicle occurs such as an accident, public alert or privacy identification sign is received requesting information from vehicles that are within a defined area. The trigger may alternatively define when filter is to occur in a particular region for example when a sign requesting PII be filtered is identified by a camera.”; Thus, the trigger having a request received requesting information form the vehicle can be the collection command value as claimed).
As pre claim 9, claim 7 is incorporated and ADAMS discloses wherein the policy execution circuit is further structured to generate, based at least in part on the collected vehicle data, a vehicle property value to actively collect the vehicle data (ADAMS, Fig 3, paragraph 0023, wherein the enforcement policy 321 can define the types of objects 324 or data that must be filtered or redacted within the contents and the means by which the data must be protected. For example the entry ‘1’ may define be associated with redacting only faces within an image. Triggers 328 may also be defined as to when data is to be filtered for example at the time of data collection, when the data is uploaded to the network, or when a trigger event associated with the vehicle occurs such as an accident, public alert or privacy identification sign is received requesting information from vehicles that are within a defined area. Thus, the trigger that defines that data to be collected when the data is uploaded to the network can be the active policy type).
As pre claim 10, claim 7 is incorporated and ADAMS discloses wherein the policy execution circuit is further structured to transmit a query value to actively collect the vehicle data (ADAMS, Fig 3, paragraph 0023, wherein the enforcement policy 321 can define the types of objects 324 or data that must be filtered or redacted within the contents and the means by which the data must be protected. For example the entry ‘1’ may define be associated with redacting only faces within an image. Triggers 328 may also be defined as to when data is to be filtered for example at the time of data collection, when the data is uploaded to the network, or when a trigger event associated with the vehicle occurs such as an accident, public alert or privacy identification sign is received requesting information from vehicles that are within a defined area. Thus, the trigger that defines that data to be collected when the data is uploaded to the network or privacy identification sign is received requesting information from vehicles can be the active policy type and the uploading and/or request can be the query value as claimed).
As pre claim 11, claim 1 is incorporated and ADAMS discloses a memory device structured to store the collected vehicle data (ADAMS, Fig 3, paragraph 0026-0027, wherein the filtered data can then be stored locally (516) or uploaded to an external device, server or repository (518). Each element in the embodiments of the present disclosure may be implemented as hardware, software/program, or any combination thereof. Software codes, either in its entirety or a part thereof, may be stored in a computer readable medium or memory (e.g., as a ROM, for example a non-volatile memory such as flash memory, CD ROM, DVD ROM, Blu-ray™, a semiconductor ROM, USB, or a magnetic recording medium, for example a hard disk)).
As pre claim 16, claim 1 is incorporated and ADAMS discloses a collected data provisioning circuit structured to transmit the collected vehicle data (ADAMS, Fig 3, paragraph 0026-0027, wherein the filtered data can then be stored locally (516) or uploaded to an external device, server or repository (518)).
Claims 19, 21-25 and 31-32 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, 4-11, and 16.
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.
Claims 12-15, 17-18 and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103) as being unpatentable over ADAMS et al (Pub. No.: US 2021/0004486 A1) and BARRETT et al (Pub. No.: US 2019/0394089 A1).
As per claim 12, claim 1 is incorporated and ADAMS does not explicitly disclose a system, comprising a converged network device (CND) structured to regulate communications between a first network zone and a second network zone, the first network zone having a first vehicle sensor of the one or more vehicle sensors and the second network zone having a second vehicle sensor of the one or more vehicle sensors. However, BARRETT disclosesa system, comprising a converged network device (CND) structured to regulate communications between a first network zone and a second network zone, the first network zone having a first vehicle sensor of the one or more vehicle sensors and the second network zone having a second vehicle sensor of the one or more vehicle sensors (BARRETT, Fig 1, 2, paragraph 0021, 0027-0028 vehicle network, the internal network 100 can be a heterogeneous network. For example, a vehicle can integrate over 100 ECUs connected over multiple networks such as CAN (Control Area Network), LIN (Local Interconnect Network), FlexRay. BARRETT, Fig 2, paragraph 0037, wherein for example the gateway 240 can be the converged network device (CND) which is between internal network nodes of a first type (such as CAN) and telecoms control unit 260 (the transceiver) and network nodes of a second type (such as LIN and/or FlexRay)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate BARRETT to ADAMS to achieve the claimed limitations because this would have provided a way to apply vehicle data collection policies to vehicles having sensors distributed in multiple network zones within the vehicle.
As pre claim 13, claim 12 is incorporated and BARRETT discloses wherein the first network zone and the second network zone are of distinct types (BARRETT, Fig 1, 2, paragraph 0021, 0027-0028 vehicle network, the internal network 100 can be a heterogeneous network. For example, a vehicle can integrate over 100 ECUs connected over multiple networks such as CAN (Control Area Network), LIN (Local Interconnect Network), FlexRay. BARRETT, Fig 2, paragraph 0037, wherein for example the gateway 240 can be the converged network device (CND) which is between internal network nodes of a first type (such as CAN) and telecoms control unit 260 (the transceiver) and network nodes of a second type (such as LIN and/or FlexRay));
As per claim 14, claim 1 is incorporated and ADAMS does not explicitly disclose wherein the policy execution circuit is further structured to delegate collection of the vehicle data to one or more vehicle controllers via transmitting at least some of the parsed policy data to the one or more vehicle controllers. However, BARRETT discloses wherein the policy execution circuit is further structured to delegate collection of the vehicle data to one or more vehicle controllers via transmitting at least some of the parsed policy data to the one or more vehicle controllers (BARRETT, Fig 1, 2, paragraph 0018, 0062, Example techniques for configuring a firewall system in a vehicle network are described. At a high level, the disclosure describes example techniques determining allowed (i.e., whitelisted) connectivity between or among network nodes in a vehicle network. The connectivity can be between domains or domain controllers (also referred to as “inter domain connectivity”), or within a domain (also referred to “intra-domain connectivity”). In some implementations, the connectivity can be between domain controllers and ECUs, or between ECUs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate BARRETT to ADAMS to achieve the claimed limitations because this would have provided a way to apply vehicle data collection policies to vehicles having controllers managing multiple network zones within the vehicle.
As pre claim 15, claim 14 is incorporated and BARRETT discloses a collected data acquisition circuit structured to interpret the vehicle data collected by the one or more vehicle controllers (BARRETT, Fig 1, 2, paragraph 0018, 0062, Example techniques for configuring a firewall system in a vehicle network are described. At a high level, the disclosure describes example techniques determining allowed (i.e., whitelisted) connectivity between or among network nodes in a vehicle network. The connectivity can be between domains or domain controllers (also referred to as “inter domain connectivity”), or within a domain (also referred to “intra-domain connectivity”). In some implementations, the connectivity can be between domain controllers and ECUs, or between ECUs)
As per claim 17, claim 1 is incorporated and ADAMS does not explicitly disclose wherein the vehicle policy data value is encrypted. BARRETT already discloses encrypting the collected/filtered data (ADAMS, Fig 3, paragraph 0020, wherein the filtering or redaction of PII may be performed on individual objects within an image or video stream such as for example the license plate 110 to generate an image 142 using an encryption key 130 to generate a redacted 111 masked object 141. The object may be masked within the original image 142, or extracted to a separate file 143 containing the masked object 141 which can be encrypted and stored separately. The encryption process may utilize a two-step encryption process to encrypt the content) and encrypting data is well known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify ADAMS so that the vehicle policy data value is encrypted as claimed because this would have provided a way to improve the security of the system by protecting the policy.
As per claim 18, claim 1 is incorporated and ADAMS does not explicitly disclose wherein the parsed policy data is encrypted. BARRETT already discloses encrypting the collected/filtered data (ADAMS, Fig 3, paragraph 0020, wherein the filtering or redaction of PII may be performed on individual objects within an image or video stream such as for example the license plate 110 to generate an image 142 using an encryption key 130 to generate a redacted 111 masked object 141. The object may be masked within the original image 142, or extracted to a separate file 143 containing the masked object 141 which can be encrypted and stored separately. The encryption process may utilize a two-step encryption process to encrypt the content) and encrypting data is well known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify ADAMS so that the parsed policy data is encrypted as claimed because this would have provided a way to improve the security of the system by protecting the policy.
Claims 26-29 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 12-15.
Alternative rejection for claims 1, 19 and 31.
Note: To expedite prosecution, the examiner interduces alternative rejection to show that even, assuming arguendo, that ADAMS’s filtering is a second collection of data, it is well known to implement the filtering within the process of the initial collection of data as shown below.
Claims 1, 19 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103) as being unpatentable over ADAMS et al (Pub. No.: US 2021/0004486 A1) and James et al (Pub. No.: US 2018/0293809 A1).
As per claim 1, ADAMS discloses an apparatus comprising:- a policy acquisition circuit structured to interpret a vehicle policy data value comprising at least a portion of a vehicle policy for a vehicle (ADAMS, Fig 2-3, paragraph 0013, 0022-0023, wherein “The system 106 comprises one or more processors 202 that are coupled to a memory 204. The instructions stored in a storage component or device 206 are executed by the processor 202 from the memory 204. The instructions provide functionality for video/image/data processing 224 which provides for the filtering of PII objects 222 that are associated with an enforcement policy 224. The enforcement policy 224 is described in further detail in regards to FIG. 3. The processor 202 is coupled to one or more sensors 210a-210f of the vehicle 104 through a sensor subsystem 210. These sensors may include, but not be limited to, LiDAR 210a, radar 210b, one or more cameras 210c, gyroscopes 210d, accelerometers 210e or ultrasonic devices 210f. The data from these devices is collected by the processor 202 and processed using the functionality 220. The enforcement policy 224 is received through a communication subsystem 212 that may contain a system identity module (SIM) 214 via one or more antennas 216”, “retrieving an enforcement policy associated with the location of the vehicle. The system 300 shows an example of an enforcement policy 321 defines the region 322 to which enforcement policy is applicable. The example provides defines the region based upon a country, however small subdivisions or geographic coordinates can be utilized. The enforcement policy 321 can define the types of objects 324 or data that must be filtered or redacted within the contents and the means by which the data must be protected.”; thus, the components within ‘The in-vehicle data collection system 106’, inside the vehicle 104, that are responsible for implementing the enforcement policy can be the policy acquisition circuit structured as claimed); - a policy processing circuit structured to generate, in response to and based at least in part on the vehicle policy data value, parsed policy data that comprises of one or more vehicle sub-policies of the vehicle policy (ADAMS, Fig 3, paragraph 0023, wherein “The system 300 shows an example of an enforcement policy 321 defines the region 322 to which enforcement policy is applicable. The example provides defines the region based upon a country, however small subdivisions or geographic coordinates can be utilized. The enforcement policy 321 can define the types of objects 324 or data that must be filtered or redacted within the contents and the means by which the data must be protected. For example the entry ‘1’ may define be associated with redacting only faces within an image. Thus, the entry ‘1’ can be used to generate a sub-policy associated with redacting only faces within an image”; Thus, as shown by Fig 3, the table as whole represent the enforcement policy as a whole and each row defining sub-policy based on location and/or policy type.Paragraph 0013, wherein “The system 106 comprises one or more processors 202 that are coupled to a memory 204. The instructions stored in a storage component or device 206 are executed by the processor 202 from the memory 204. The instructions provide functionality for video/image/data processing 224 which provides for the filtering of PII objects 222 that are associated with an enforcement policy 224.”; Thus, the processor implementing the enforcement policy which inherently parses the policy data can be the policy processing circuit as claimed); and- determine from the vehicle policy data value a type value of the vehicle policy, wherein the type value is at least one of a passive vehicle policy, wherein the vehicle policy specifies passive vehicle data to be(ADAMS, paragraph 0016, wherein “a filter is provided within a in-vehicle data collection system to redact or mask private information taken by vehicle cameras or sensor associated with the vehicle”) during ordinary operations of the vehicle; or an active vehicle policy, wherein the vehicle policy specifies active vehicle data to be (ADAMS, paragraph 0016, wherein “a filter is provided within a in-vehicle data collection system to redact or mask private information taken by vehicle cameras or sensor associated with the vehicle”) responsive to a request for the vehicle data transmitted to one or more endpoints, wherein the request is based at least in part on the vehicle policy (ADAMS, Fig 3, paragraph 0023, wherein “Triggers 328 may also be defined as to when data is to be filtered for example at the time of data collection, when the data is uploaded to the network, or when a trigger event associated with the vehicle occurs such as an accident, public alert or privacy identification sign is received requesting information from vehicles that are within a defined area. The trigger may alternatively define when filter is to occur in a particular region for example when a sign requesting PII be filtered is identified by a camera.”; Thus, the trigger can be the type value defining passive or active policy. For example, a trigger can define that the policy is performed only when a request is received and hence ‘active policy’ wherein other trigger events that do not require receiving a request can be indicating the passive policy.In addition, paragraph 0026, wherein “The region may be determined by the vehicle through a lookup table or by requesting identification of the region by a remote server based upon location coordinates of the vehicle.” which is equivalent to the vehicle policy specifies vehicle data to be generated responsive to a request for the vehicle data transmitted to one or more endpoints); and- a policy execution circuit structured to collect vehicle data from one or more vehicle sensors in response to the parsed policy data (ADAMS, paragraph 0026, wherein the data from one or more of the vehicle sensors such as the camera can then be acquired (510). The enforcement policy can then be retrieved. PII objects can then be identified within the vehicle data (512). The PII objects can then be filtered through redaction and or encryption process (514). The filtering process encrypts the objects using the retrieved encryption key such that the original content can not be identified. The filtering process may alternatively include multiple levels of filtering for PII objects. For example different objects may require different levels of redaction or encryption and could only be accessible by particular authorities. For example, Authority A may have access to license plates objects while Authority B has access to faces of people thereby providing layers of redaction within the vehicle data. The objects can be independently encrypted using different encryption keys or redaction methods depending on the policy associated with the respective authority).Assuming that ADAMS filtering of data is not initial collection of data, it is well known in the art to perform the filtering during the initial collection when needed. For example, James discloses filtering vehicle data that is vehicle data to be initially collected from the one or more vehicle sensors (James, abstract, wherein “System, methods, and other embodiments described herein relate to controlling a vehicle to selectively collect event data. In one embodiment, a method includes, in response to receiving a collection request from a remote server, identifying defined parameters from the collection request about which data is to be harvested from the vehicle. The defined parameters include at least a content parameter that indicates criteria for determining which data associated with the vehicle is to be collected. The method includes collecting, from one or more vehicle systems of the vehicle, event data as a function of the content parameter and discarding extraneous data that does not match the content parameter. The method includes providing the event data to fulfill the collection request”;James, Fig 3 step 330, 350, 370, paragraph 0029, 0033, wherein “At 330, the communication module 220 configures one or more filters of the vehicle 100 with the defined parameters … At 350, the filter module 230 collects event data 250 from the vehicle 100. In one embodiment, the filter module 230 collects the event data 250 from one or more vehicle systems 140 including the sensor system 120. That is, upon detecting the occurrence of the trigger event, the filter module 230 collects data that matches the content parameters”);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify ADAMS with James to achieve the claimed limitation because this would have provided a way to reduce the amount of data collected by only collecting needed data (filtered data) which reduces costs and improve the performance of searching the data when needed (see James’s paragraph 0002).
Claims 19, and 31 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues in remarks:
(1) However, assuming arguendo that one skilled in the art would find the interpretation of the filtering of collected data to constitute "a specific way of collecting data," as alleged on page 16 of the Office Action, to be reasonable, Applicant respectfully submits that, under such an interpretation, ADAMS's filtering therefore discloses a second collection of data, as opposed to an initial collection of data. In other words, the filter described by ADAMS does not collect non-existent data from a data-generating source. Rather, it operates on an existing (previously collected) pool of data. For example, paragraph [0017] of ADAMS, which the Office Action cites on page 16, states that: "All data and video taken is passed through a filter on the in-vehicle data collection system that 'redacts' personally identifiable information/objects, as specified by the enforcement policy.".
(1) Examiner respectfully disagrees.
ADAMS, Fig 3, paragraph 0023, wherein “Triggers 328 may also be defined as to when data is to be filtered for example at the time of data collection.”; Thus, the trigger can be performed at the time of data collection which implies when data initially collected as claimed.
In addition, to expedite prosecution, the examiner interduces alternative rejection (secondary reference) which renders the argument moot in light of the new grounds of rejection.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMZA N ALGIBHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7212. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 3:30 pm.
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, Wing Chan can be reached at (571) 272-7493. 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.
/HAMZA N ALGIBHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441
Prosecution Insights