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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/24/2025 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
“Run-time data” is interpreted, consistent with the definition known in the art, as any data collected during a time period when a function, program, system, etc. is operating (i.e. during run-time).
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 1-9 and 21-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) analyzing sensor data and generating a command based on the sensor data.
The limitation recited above, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting sensors, volatile memory, non-volatile memory, a controller, and a communication interface, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, a human operator may receive video from a vehicle’s dash cam and mentally determine that the vehicle’s self-driving must be disabled for safety reasons. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because sensors, volatile memory, non-volatile memory, and a controller are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims further recite storing sensor data in volatile memory, downloading sensor data from volatile memory into non-volatile memory, transmitting sensor data to a server, and receiving a command from a server. All of these are insignificant extra solution activities of mere data gathering and do not practically apply the judicial exception. The step of controlling operation of a system is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic control. Furthermore, the control step is generic enough to encompass insignificant extra post solution activities such as data gathering.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of sensors, volatile memory, non-volatile memory, a controller, and a communication interface are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The control step is also recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea with generic control. 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, and conventional activity in the field. The limitations of storing sensor data in volatile memory and downloading sensor data from volatile memory into non-volatile memory is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 indicated that the storage and retrieval of data from memory is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). The limitations of transmitting sensor data to a server and receiving a command from the server is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) indicated that the transmission and retrieval of data over a network is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). The control step is generic enough to at least encompass storage or transmission operations which are well understood, routine, and conventional functions as previously explained. Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-9, 22-23, 25-27, and 29-31 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed towards further aspects of the abstract idea, further data gathering, or further generic components.
Claims 2-3, 23, and 26-27 provide further details regarding the abstract idea and/or specify a server does the analysis. The recitation of an abstract idea applied to a computer does not prohibit the idea from being performed mentally as detailed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) and the court cases cited therein.
Claim 4 details the sensor is a generic camera which still is generically recited such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception with a generic computer component.
Claims 5, 7, 21, 25, and 29-31 are directed to further aspects of the data gathering.
Claim 6 details a generic display which is generically recited such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception with a generic computer component. Receiving configuration data to control the display is just further aspect of the mere data gathering detailed above.
Claim 8 specifies that the sensor data is utilized by software. The recitation of an abstract idea applied to a computer does not prohibit the idea from being performed mentally as detailed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) and the court cases cited therein.
Claim 9 recites a generic bus which is generically recited such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception with a generic computer component. The claim further details monitoring the bus which examiner understands as a conventional activity.
To overcome this rejection, examiner recommends amending the “system” which is controlled to a system that excludes well, understood, routine, and conventional functions such as mere display, mere data gathering, repetitive calculation, and so on OR amend the control operations to include a finite list of potential operations that are not well understood, routine, and conventional functions. Examples of functions found to be well understood, routine, and conventional can be found in at least MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) for reference. Examiner also recommends amending the control operation to perform the generated command such that the control step is not a mere “apply it” step. No new matter should be added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7, 21-23, 25-26, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sudak US 20170076396 A1 (hereinafter Sudak) in view of Della Penna US 20190220011 A1 (hereinafter Della).
Regarding claims 1, Sudak teaches a device (Abstract) comprising:
at least one sensor (paragraph 0153 discloses multiple cameras);
a volatile memory (paragraph 0153 discloses a volatile memory);
a non-volatile memory configured to download, from the volatile memory upon detecting a predetermined event of a vehicle, sensor data and run-time data (paragraph 0154 discloses transferring sensor data from volatile to non-volatile memory upon detection of a collision; paragraph 0155 discloses data includes acceleration and deceleration data which examiner understands would be data collected during a time of operation of the vehicle, i.e. run-time data).
Sudak does not teach a controller configured to receive a command to update operation of at least one system of the vehicle, wherein the command is generated based on analyzing the sensor data and run-time data; and control operation of at least one system of the vehicle.
Della teaches a controller configured to receive a command to update operation of at least one system of the vehicle (paragraph 0082 discloses a controller on a vehicle receiving a command from a server to update instructions of the controller), wherein the command is generated based on analyzing the sensor data and run-time data (Figure 7 shows a flowchart for the generation of the command wherein 706 and 710 indicate that the generation of the instructions 712 is based on analysis of the sensor data; Figure 7 702 discloses event data is captured in association with an event; as an event occurs during vehicle operation as detailed in at least paragraph 0017, event data is understood as being data obtained during vehicle operation, i.e. run-time data); and control operation of at least one system of the vehicle (paragraph 0055, for example, discloses performing autonomous driving).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Sudak to incorporate the teachings of Della such that, after data has been transferred to a non-volatile memory as taught by Sudak, that data can be sent to a server to be processed to generate a command and further result in vehicular control as taught by Della. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for management of more than one vehicle by utilizing a server for instruction generation and improve driving safety by continuously adjusting driving behaviors based on processed data.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Sudak reference teaches all of claim 1 as disclosed above. Sudak further teaches that the sensor data and run-time data are sent to a server (paragraph 0155 discloses transmitting data to a server).
Sudak does not teach that the server is configured to determine that the vehicle is operating improperly.
Della further teaches that the server is configured to determine that the vehicle is operating improperly (paragraph 0080-0081 discloses a server analyzing sensor data and determining a type of event and provides an example of failure of a controller to perceive a stop sign which examiner considers improper operation).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Sudak to incorporate the further teachings of Della with a reasonable expectation of success to improve safety of vehicle operation by diagnosing failures.
Regarding claim 4, the modified Sudak reference teaches all of claim 1 as disclosed above. Sudak further teaches that the sensor includes a camera (paragraph 0153 discloses multiple cameras), and the sensor data includes image data from the camera (paragraph 0153 discloses video data from the cameras).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Sudak reference teaches all of claim 1 as disclosed above. Sudak further teaches that the volatile memory is configured to store the run-time data (paragraphs 0147 and 0153, for example, disclose storing data generated during vehicle operation, i.e. run-time data, such as deceleration data and video data in volatile memory).
Sudak does not teach that the run-time data is used by the controller.
Della teaches that the run-time data is used by the controller (paragraph 0023 discloses controller controls vehicle according to collected event data).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Sudak to incorporate the teachings of Della with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for autonomous driving operations to improve vehicle road safety.
Regarding claims 21, Sudak teaches a device (Abstract) comprising:
at least one sensor configured to generate sensor data (paragraph 0153 discloses multiple cameras which generate video data);
a non-volatile memory configured to download, upon detecting a predetermined event, the sensor data and run-time data (paragraph 0154 discloses transferring sensor data from volatile to non-volatile memory upon detection of a collision; paragraph 0155 discloses data includes acceleration and deceleration data which examiner understands would data during a time of operation of the vehicle, i.e. run-time data), and to send the sensor data and run-time data to a server (paragraph 0155 discloses transmitting data to a server).
Sudak does not teach a controller configured to receive, from the server, a communication causing an update to operation of at least one system; and
control operation of the at least one system.
Della teaches a controller configured to receive, from the server, a communication causing an update to operation of at least one system (paragraph 0082 discloses a controller on a vehicle receiving a command from a server to update instructions of the controller); and
control operation of the at least one system (paragraph 0055, for example, discloses performing autonomous driving).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Sudak to incorporate the teachings of Della such that, after data has been transferred to a non-volatile memory as taught by Sudak, that data can be sent to a server to be processed to generate a command and further result in vehicular control as taught by Della. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for management of more than one vehicle by utilizing a server for instruction generation and improve driving safety by continuously adjusting driving behaviors based on processed data.
Regarding claim 22, the modified Sudak reference teaches all of claim 21 as disclosed above. Sudak further teaches a volatile memory configured to store the sensor data and run-time data (paragraph 0153 discloses a volatile memory storing sensor data), wherein the sensor data and run-time data are downloaded from the volatile memory (paragraph 0154 discloses transferring sensor data from volatile to non-volatile memory upon detection of a collision).
Regarding claim 23, the modified Sudak reference teaches all of claim 21 as disclosed above.
Sudak does not teach that the server generates the communication based on analyzing the sensor data and run-time data.
Della further teaches that the server generates the communication based on analyzing the sensor data and run-time data (Figure 7 shows a flowchart for the generation of the command wherein 706 and 710 indicate that the generation of the instructions 712 is based on analysis of the sensor data).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Sudak to incorporate the further teachings of Della with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for management of more than one vehicle by utilizing a server for instruction generation and improve driving safety by continuously adjusting driving behaviors based on processed data.
Regarding claim 25, the modified Sudak reference teaches all of claim 21 as disclosed above. Sudak further teaches a volatile memory that provides system memory for the controller (paragraph 0153 discloses a system volatile memory), wherein data downloaded from the volatile memory is sent to the server (paragraph 0154 discloses transferring sensor data from volatile to non-volatile memory upon detection of a collision; paragraph 0155 discloses transmitting the downloaded data to a server).
Regarding claim 26, the modified Sudak reference teaches all of claim 21 as disclosed above.
Sudak does not teach updating operation of the system comprises updating software.
Della further teaches updating operation of the system comprises updating software (paragraph 0023-0024 disclose that updating software or logistics may be performed as corrective actions).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Sudak to incorporate the further teachings of Della with a reasonable expectation of success to improve safety of software by ensuring it is up to date.
Regarding claims 28, Sudak teaches a device (Abstract) comprising:
a non-volatile memory configured to download, upon detecting a predetermined event of a vehicle, sensor data and run-time data (paragraph 0154 discloses transferring sensor data from volatile to non-volatile memory upon detection of a collision; paragraph 0155 discloses data includes acceleration and deceleration data which examiner understands would data during a time of operation of the vehicle, i.e. run-time data), and to send the sensor data and the run-time data to a server (paragraph 0155 discloses transmitting data to a server).
Sudak doesn’t teach a controller configured to receive, from the server, a command to update operation of at least one system of the vehicle, wherein the command is generated based on the sensor data; control operation of the at least one system of the vehicle.
Della teaches a controller configured to receive, from the server, a command to update operation of at least one system of the vehicle (paragraph 0082 discloses a controller on a vehicle receiving a command from a server to update instructions of the controller), wherein the command is generated based on the sensor data and run-time data (Figure 7 shows a flowchart for the generation of the command wherein 706 and 710 indicate that the generation of the instructions 712 is based on analysis of the sensor data; Figure 7 702 discloses event data is captured in association with an event; as an event occurs during vehicle operation as detailed in at least paragraph 0017, event data is understood as being data obtained during vehicle operation, i.e. run-time data); control operation of the at least one system of the vehicle (paragraph 0055, for example, discloses performing autonomous driving).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Sudak to incorporate the teachings of Della such that, after data has been transferred to a non-volatile memory as taught by Sudak, that data can be sent to a server to be processed to generate a command and further result in vehicular control as taught by Della. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for management of more than one vehicle by utilizing a server for instruction generation and improve driving safety by continuously adjusting driving behaviors based on processed data.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sudak in view of Della as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Niihara et al. JP 2015072651 A (hereinafter Niihara; a translated copy has been provided which the examiner relies upon).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Sudak reference teaches all of claim 2 as disclosed above.
Sudak does not teach that the server is configured to terminate an autonomous mode of the vehicle.
Niihara teaches the server is configured to terminate an autonomous mode of the vehicle (paragraph 0030 discloses a server able to terminate autonomous driving of vehicles it manages).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Sudak to incorporate the teachings of Niihara with a reasonable expectation of success to improve safety of the vehicle driving operation.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sudak in view of Della as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oka et al. US 20130066815 A1 (hereinafter Oka).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Sudak reference teaches all of claim 1 as disclosed above.
Sudak does not teach a database configured to store the sensor data prior to sending the sensor data to a server.
Oka teaches a database configured to store the sensor data prior to sending the sensor data to a server (paragraph 0079 discloses storing sensor data prior to transmitting the data to a server).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Sudak to incorporate the teachings of Oka with a reasonable expectation of success to maintain a backup of data in case of improper transmission.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sudak in view of Della as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kapoor et al. US 10083588 B1 (hereinafter Kapoor).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Sudak reference teaches all of claim 1 as disclosed above.
Sudak does not teach a display device, wherein the controller is further configured to receive configuration data used to control the display device.
Kapoor teaches a display device (Figure 1 154 shows a display device), wherein the controller is further configured to receive configuration data used to control the display device (column 12 lines 35-40 disclose a control system receives fault data and uses the data to display a fault message to the driver).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Sudak to incorporate the teachings of Kapoor with a reasonable expectation of success to improve driver awareness of faults in a vehicle.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sudak in view of Della as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of "Mai v Peak" (hereinafter Mai).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Sudak reference teaches all of claim 1 as disclosed above. Sudak further teaches that the sensor data is used by software (paragraph 0139 discloses using internal sensor data to perform facial recognition with a facial recognition software).
Sudak does not explicitly teach that the software is stored in the volatile memory.
Mai teaches software stored in the volatile memory (page 649 paragraph 2 discloses loading system software into RAM when a computer is turned on).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Sudak to incorporate the teachings of Mai with a reasonable expectation of success to increase processing speeds.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sudak in view of Della as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hammerschmidt US 20170050588 A1 (hereinafter Hammerschmidt).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Sudak reference teaches all of claim 1 as disclosed above. Sudak teaches at least one bus of the vehicle
Sudak does not teach that the controller is further configured to monitor the bus, and the sensor data is transmitted by the bus.
Hammerschmidt teaches that the controller is further configured to monitor the bus (paragraph 0031 discloses monitoring the bus with a control unit), and the sensor data is transmitted by the bus (paragraph 0037 discloses transmitting sensor data by bus).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Sudak to incorporate the teachings of Hammerschmidt with a reasonable expectation of success to improve efficiency of management of data and ensure proper operation of the bus.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sudak in view of Della as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of "Classification of Software Behaviors for Failure Detection" by Lo et al. (Lo hereinafter) and Konrardy et al. US 10086782 B1 (hereinafter Konrardy).
Regarding claim 27, the modified Sudak reference teaches all of claim 21 as disclosed above.
Sudak does not teach that the server identifies that software is unsafe based on pattern recognition.
Lo teaches the server identifies that software is unsafe based on pattern recognition (Abstract discloses using a pattern based approach to detect software anomalies and failures; examiner considers software anomalies "unsafe").
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Sudak to incorporate the teachings of Lo with a reasonable expectation of success to improve classification accuracy as disclosed by Lo (Conclusion second paragraph).
The modified Sudak reference does not teach that the communication indicates that the software is unsafe.
Konrardy teaches that the communication indicates that the software is unsafe (column 54 lines 51-67 and column 55 lines 1-12 discloses warning a vehicle owner of corrupted or out of date software).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Sudak teaches to incorporate the teachings of Konrardy with a reasonable expectation of success to improve operator awareness of software problems.
Claim(s) 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sudak in view of Della as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of McElhinney et al. US 20160155315 A1 (hereinafter McElhinney).
Regarding claim 29, the modified Sudak reference teaches all of claim 28 as disclosed above. Sudak further teaches that the sensor data is extracted from volatile memory of the vehicle
Sudak does not explicitly teach extracting data without any knowledge of or control by the controller.
McElhinney teaches operating a data acquisition system without any knowledge of or control by the controller (paragraph 0086 discloses that a data acquisition system for obtaining sensor data operates independently from a central controller which controls operation).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Sudak to incorporate the teachings of McElhinney such that the extracting process of the device taught by Sudak is done independently of the controller as detailed by McElhinney. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce processing time be excluding unnecessary processing actions.
Regarding claim 30, the modified Sudak reference teaches all of claim 28 as disclosed above. Sudak further teaches that the sensor data is automatically stored in volatile memory of the vehicle (paragraph 0153 discloses a volatile memory storing sensor data).
Sudak does not teach storing data independently of any control by the controller.
McElhinney teaches operating a data acquisition system independently of any control by the controller (paragraph 0086 discloses that a data acquisition system for obtaining sensor data operates independently from a central controller which controls operation).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Sudak to incorporate the teachings of McElhinney such that the extracting process of the device taught by Sudak is done independently of the controller as detailed by McElhinney. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce processing time be excluding unnecessary processing actions.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sudak in view of Della as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Thompson US 20020033946 A1 (hereinafter Thompson).
Regarding claim 31, the modified Sudak reference teaches all of claim 28 as disclosed above.
Sudak does not explicitly teach that storing the sensor data comprises formatting the sensor data into a predetermined format.
Thompson teaches that storing the sensor data comprises formatting the sensor data into a predetermined format (paragraph 0069 discloses formatting image data generated from a camera into known formats, such as PNG and JPEG, before storing the data).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Sudak to incorporate the teachings of Thompson with a reasonable expectation of success to ensure easy readability of the data.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 9, 21-23, and 28-31 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-4, 6, and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,670,123 B2 (hereinafter Sato).
Application 18/307,723
US Patent 11,670,123 B2 (Sato)
Claim 1
Claim 1
A device comprising:
A method for an autonomous vehicle, the method comprising:
at least one sensor;
generating data by one or more sensors within the autonomous vehicle;
a volatile memory;
automatically storing the sensor data in a volatile memory independently of any control by a host controller;
a non-volatile memory configured to download, from the volatile memory upon detecting a predetermined event of a vehicle sensor data and run-time date;
transferring at least a first portion of the sensor data stored in the volatile memory to a non-volatile memory disposed in a predetermined location within the autonomous vehicle upon detecting a predetermined event by the host controller, wherein data of a predetermined type is extracted from the volatile memory without any knowledge of or control by the host controller; and
a controller configured to receive a command to update operation of at least one system of the vehicle, wherein the command is generated based on analyzing the sensor data and run time data; and
configuring at least one system of the autonomous vehicle based on analyzing the first portion of the sensor data stored in the non-volatile memory.
control operation of the at least one system of the vehicle.
Claim 9
Claim 3
The device of claim 1, further comprising at least one bus of the vehicle, wherein the controller is further configured to monitor the bus, and the sensor data is transmitted by the bus.
The method of claim 1, further comprising monitoring at least one bus of the vehicle, wherein the data generated by the one or more sensors are transmitted by the at least one bus.
Claim 21
Claim 1
A device comprising:
A method for an autonomous vehicle, the method comprising:
at least one sensor configured to generate sensor data;
generating data by one or more sensors within the autonomous vehicle;
automatically storing the sensor data in a volatile memory independently of any control by a host controller;
a non-volatile memory configured to download, upon detecting a predetermined event, the sensor data the sensor data and run-time data, and to send the sensor data and run-time data to a server; and
transferring at least a first portion of the sensor data stored in the volatile memory to a non-volatile memory disposed in a predetermined location within the autonomous vehicle upon detecting a predetermined event by the host controller, wherein data of a predetermined type is extracted from the volatile memory without any knowledge of or control by the host controller; and
a controller configured to receive, from the server, a communication causing an update to operation of at least one system; and
configuring at least one system of the autonomous vehicle based on analyzing the first portion of the sensor data stored in the non-volatile memory.
control operation of the at least one system.
Claim 22
Claim 1
The device of claim 21, further comprising a volatile memory configured to store the sensor data and run-time data, wherein the sensor data and run-time data is downloaded from the volatile memory.
...automatically storing the sensor data in a volatile memory independently of any control by a host controller; transferring at least a first portion of the sensor data stored in the volatile memory to a non-volatile memory disposed in a predetermined location within the autonomous vehicle upon detecting a predetermined event by the host controller, wherein data of a predetermined type is extracted from the volatile memory without any knowledge of or control by the host controller…
Claim 23
Claim 6
The device of claim 21, wherein the server generates the communication based on analyzing the sensor data and run-time data.
The method of claim 1, further comprising:sending, via wireless communication, the first portion of the sensor data to a server, wherein the server is configured to analyze the data; and
receiving, from the server, a command to update an engine operation configuration of the vehicle.
Claim 28
Claim 1
A device comprising:
A method for an autonomous vehicle, the method comprising:
generating data by one or more sensors within the autonomous vehicle;
automatically storing the sensor data in a volatile memory independently of any control by a host controller;
a non-volatile memory configured to download, upon detecting a predetermined event of a vehicle, sensor data and run-time data and to send the sensor data and run-time data to a server; and
transferring at least a first portion of the sensor data stored in the volatile memory to a non-volatile memory disposed in a predetermined location within the autonomous vehicle upon detecting a predetermined event by the host controller, wherein data of a predetermined type is extracted from the volatile memory without any knowledge of or control by the host controller; and
a controller configured to receive, from the server, a command to update operation of at least one system of the vehicle, wherein the command is generated based on the sensor data; and
configuring at least one system of the autonomous vehicle based on analyzing the first portion of the sensor data stored in the non-volatile memory.
control operation of the at least one system of the vehicle.
Claim 29
Claim 1
The device of claim 28, wherein the sensor data is extracted from volatile memory of the vehicle without any knowledge of or control by the controller.
...transferring at least a first portion of the sensor data stored in the volatile memory to a non-volatile memory disposed in a predetermined location within the autonomous vehicle upon detecting a predetermined event by the host controller, wherein data of a predetermined type is extracted from the volatile memory without any knowledge of or control by the host controller...
Claim 30
Claim 1
The device of claim 28, wherein the sensor data is automatically stored in volatile memory of the vehicle independently of any control by the controller.
...automatically storing the sensor data in a volatile memory independently of any control by a host controller...
Claim 31
Claim 4
The device of claim 30, wherein storing the sensor data comprises formatting the sensor data into a predetermined format.
The method of claim 1, wherein storing the datacomprises formatting the data into a predetermined format.
The claims presented of the application are directed towards a device rather than a method as presented within claim 1 of Sato. Examiner respectfully points towards claim 9 of Sato which is directed to a device to perform the described method of Sato and thus fixes the deficiencies of claim 1 towards the non-taught portion of the application.
Regarding claims 1, 21, and 28 of the application, claim 6 of Sato teaches the missing server communication aspects which is shown in the application claim 23 and Sato claim 6 comparison above.
Further regarding claims 1, 21, and 28 of the application, while Sato does not explicitly recite a control operation in verbatim as claimed by the application, control operations are caried out by systems of the vehicle in at least claim 1 of Sato for example by performing a storage operation. Therefore, no deficiency exists for this limitation.
Regarding claims 1, 21-23, and 28 of the application, while only sensor data is explicitly recited in Sato’s claims, a review of at least column 13 lines 36-45 indicate that the downloaded data can also be run-time data. Further, column 1 lines 28-38 detail indicate that sensor data is collected in real time, i.e. during operation, so the sensor data recited in Sato is enough to encompass the limitations of run-time data as well.
Regarding claim 23, which claim 6 of Sato is not explicit that the server generates a communication, it is heavily implied since the server analyzes data then a command is received from the server. If the server does not produce a communication in claim 6, then there would be nothing to receive. One of ordinary skill in the art would thus recognize that claim 6 incorporates generation of a communication by a server implicitly.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the application at hand teaches a broader scope than Sato. Since Sato is a species of the broader application, the species of Sato teaches the genus of the application (see in re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). A patent to the genus issued after issuance of a patent for the species would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by the patent to the species.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 9, and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,670,123 B2 in view of Mai.
Sato claims 1, 6, and 9 teach all of the application claim 1 as detailed above.
Application 18/307,723
US Patent 11,670,123 B2 (Sato)
Claim 8
Claim 2
The device of claim 1, wherein the sensor data is used by software stored in the volatile memory.
The method of claim 1, wherein the data generated by the sensors is used by software of the at least one system of the vehicle.
Claim 2 of Sato fails to teach explicitly that the software is stored in the volatile memory.
Mai teaches software stored in the volatile memory (page 649 paragraph 2 discloses loading system software into RAM when a computer is turned on).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Sudak to incorporate the teachings of Mai with a reasonable expectation of success to increase processing speeds.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,670,123 B2 in view of Della.
Sato claims 1, 6, and 9 teach all of the application claim 1 as detailed above.
Application 18/307,723
US Patent 11,670,123 B2 (Sato)
Claim 2
Claim 6
The device of claim 1, wherein the sensor data and run-time data are sent to a server, and the server is configured to determine that the vehicle is operating improperly.
The method of claim 1, further comprising:sending, via wireless communication, the first portion of the sensor data to a server, wherein the server is configured to analyze the data; and
receiving, from the server, a command to update an engine operation configuration of the vehicle.
Claim 6 of Sato fails to explicitly teach that the server determines that the vehicle is operating improperly.
Della teaches that the server is configured to determine that the vehicle is operating improperly (paragraph 0080-0081 discloses a server analyzing sensor data and determining a type of event and provides an example of failure of a controller to perceive a stop sign which examiner considers improper operation).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Sato to incorporate the further teachings of Della with a reasonable expectation of success to improve safety of vehicle operation by diagnosing failures.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 2-3, with respect to rejection of claim 7 (partially incorporated into amended independent claims 1, 21, and 28 filed 11/24/2025) using Mylly US 20150160863 A1 (hereinafter Mylly) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Mylly applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
On page 3, applicant argues that Sudak does not teach or suggest downloading run-time data in addition to image data. Furthermore, applicant argues that Sudak does not teach or suggest monitoring a state of a processing device such as by downloading run-time data. While these arguments are directed towards a failure for motivation to combine Mylly with Sudak, examiner addresses these as they are deemed pertinent to the new grounds of rejection. Regarding the term “run-time data”, after a further review of the specification and claimed language, examiner understands that the initial interpretation of the term “run-time data” as being synonymous with “run-time” was too narrow. Applicant argues that run-time data is used for monitoring a state of a processing device, but a review of the specification provides no such evidence. Instead, paragraph 00112 appears to be the only mention of run-time data:
“The autonomous vehicle 303 includes volatile Dynamic Random-Access Memory (DRAM) 311 for the storage of run-time data and instructions used by the controller 307. The run-time data and/or instructions can be part of the data downloaded in response to detecting an event.”
In light of this passage, there is no clear and explicit definition for run-time data being indicative of the state of a processing device. The claims further do not recite this. Therefore, run-time data can be broadly and reasonably interpreted as known in the art (see claim interpretation above) as being any data collected during run-time of a vehicle. While this may include run-time of the vehicle, this can also include far more. This means that at least the image data of Sudak can be interpreted as run-time data as it is captured during operation of the vehicle (see at least paragraph 0148). Additionally, other data such as deceleration data stored as taught by Sudak can also be considered run-time data (see at least paragraph 0155). Any collected data can also be deemed run-time data as long as the data was collected during vehicular operation. Therefore, reliance on Mylly is not utilized as detailed above and Sudak in combination with Della covers all limitations of the claimed invention (see above). Applicant is respectfully reminded that if “run-time data” is later amended to “run-time” to limit this interpretation, evidence that “run-time data” is synonymous with “run-time” and can only mean “run-time” is required to prevent a new matter rejection.
On page 4, applicant's argument appears to be built on incorrect search for a reference cited and rather than reviewing the reference provided by the examiner. The examiner previously provided the application number rather than the publication number for the Niihara reference in the Office Action dated 8/22/2025. Examiner understands how this resulted in confusion as the reference with the publication number JP 2013208896 A is a completely different reference than the reference with the application number JP 2013208896 A. To alleviate confusion regarding searching for foreign references, the office always provides translated copies in the application folder which the applicant is kindly advised to review to prevent arguments against art not relied upon. For this Office Action and any further actions, examiner will change the cited reference number to the publication number to improve clarity of the record. If applicant wants to search for the reference themselves using the actual publication number, the number is as follows: JP 2015072651 A.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bräutigam et al. US 20200210336 A1 discloses transferring data from volatile to no-volatile memory when an event, such as an accident, is detected.
Camhi et al. US 5430432 A discloses transferring sensor data from volatile to non-volatile memory.
Foxworth et al. US 20190018712 A1 discloses transferring sensor data from a volatile to a non-volatile memory upon detection of an event, such as a thermal problem.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashley Tiffany Schoech whose telephone number is (571)272-2937. The examiner can normally be reached 5:00 am - 3:30 pm PT Monday - Thursday.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/A.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669