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 .
1. Claims 1-13 are currently pending in this application.
Claims 1 and 8-9 are amended as filed on 01/30/2026.
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, 3-4, 7-9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mankovskii et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2019/0268138 A1), hereinafter Mankovskii, in view of Tong et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2020/0052884 A1), hereinafter Tong, and in further view of Hassani et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2021/0067513 A1), hereinafter Hassani, in view of Zeng et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2021/0135867 A1), hereinafter Zeng, and in further view of Zhao et al. (Patent No. US 11,893,552 B2), hereinafter Zhao.
2. With respect to claims 1 and 8-9, Mankovskii taught a vehicle data storage method for storing, using a blockchain formed of a plurality of blocks, data collected by a plurality of nodes, each of the plurality of nodes being configured to communicate with each other and having a common key which is common key information, the method, implemented by each of the plurality of nodes (0035 & figure 3, where the public or private keys are common keys under broadest reasonable interpretation), comprising: generating, as a new block, a block to be connected to the blockchain, each of the plurality of blocks including transactions as storage target data (0023. See also, 0021) and a signature value generated using a part of a previous block and the common key, the new block including a new signature value generated using a part of a last block located at an end of the blockchain and the common key (0035 & figure 3, items 315a, 310a, 320a, and 325a, where the previous link can be seen in 320b); requesting other nodes of the plurality of nodes to verify the new block by distributing the new block to the other nodes upon generating the new block (0021); verifying, using the common key, validity of a new block generated by, and distributed from, one of the other nodes when requested by the one of the other nodes and transmitting a verification result to at least the one of the other nodes that requested for verification (0035); connecting the new block to the blockchain when a majority of the plurality of nodes determines that the new block is valid (0031, the highest cumulated proof of work).
However, Mankovskii did not explicitly state that if two new blocks are generated by two nodes among the plurality of nodes and verification requests on the two new blocks are made by the two nodes at a substantially same time, re-transmitting, by at least one of the two nodes, a verification request at random or when a predetermined time has elapsed. On the other hand, Tong did teach that if two new blocks are generated by two nodes among the plurality of nodes and verification requests on the two new blocks are made by the two nodes at a substantially same time, re-transmitting, by at least one of the two nodes, a verification request at random or when a predetermined time has elapsed (0041, where the checking again, at least, teaches the predetermined time limitation in accordance with broadest reasonable interpretation. See also, 0031-0032, where the re-verification can be seen). Both of the systems of Mankovskii and Tong are directed towards managing blockchain ledgers and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Mankovskii to utilize various forms of fork/conflict resolution, as taught by Tong, in order to maintain an accurate
ledger.
However, Mankovskii did not explicitly state that the blockchain was formed by a plurality of blocks to store data collected by a vehicle, the vehicle comprising a plurality of in-vehicle devices and that each of the plurality of in-vehicle devices comprising one of the plurality of nodes. On the other hand, Hassani did teach that the blockchain was formed by a plurality of blocks to store data collected by a vehicle, the vehicle comprising a plurality of in-vehicle devices and that each of the plurality of in-vehicle devices comprising one of the plurality of nodes (0007). Both of the systems of Mankovskii and Hassani are directed towards managing blockchain networks and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Mankovskii, to utilize, specific vehicle blockchain storage, where the nodes represent in-vehicle systems, as taught by Hassani, in order to more securely manage a specific use network.
However, Zeng did not explicitly state wherein the vehicle data storage system further comprises: transmitting a verification request to three or more other nodes of the plurality of nodes to verify the new block by distributing the new block to the three or more other nodes upon generating the new block: and connecting the new block to the blockchain when a majority of the three or more other nodes to which the verification request was transmitted determines that the new block is valid. On the other hand, Zeng did teach wherein the vehicle data storage system further comprises: transmitting a verification request to three or more other nodes of the plurality of nodes to verify the new block by distributing the new block to the three or more other nodes upon generating the new block: and connecting the new block to the blockchain when a majority of the three or more other nodes to which the verification request was transmitted determines that the new block is valid (0016). Both of the systems of Mankovskii and Zeng are directed towards managing blockchain networks and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Mankovskii, to utilize, specific vehicle blockchain verification techniques, as taught by Zeng, in order to more securely manage a specific use network.
However, Mankovski did not explicitly state in response to generating the new block, selecting three or more other nodes from the plurality of nodes in accordance with a predetermined rule or at random, transmitting a verification request to the selected three or more other nodes. On the other hand, Zhao did teach in response to generating the new block, selecting three or more other nodes from the plurality of nodes in accordance with a predetermined rule or at random, transmitting a verification request to the selected three or more other nodes (15:8 to 16:5). Both of the systems of Mankovskii and Zhao are directed towards managing blockchain and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Mankovskii, to utilize selecting a specific number of blocks, as taught by Zhao, in order to effectively verify a new block.
3. As for claim 3, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. In addition, Mankovskii taught wherein a priority order is set for each of the plurality of nodes, and the method further comprises, if two new blocks are generated by two nodes among the plurality of nodes and verification requests on the two new blocks are made by the two nodes at a substantially same time: verifying one of the two block generated by one of the two nodes that has a higher priority order; and cancelling the other of the two blocks generated by the other of the two nodes that has a lower priority order (0031, where the higher priority teaches the priority under broadest reasonable interpretation).
4. As for claim 4, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. In addition, Mankovskii taught generating a hash value by inputting the signature value included in the last block and the transactions to be included in the new block into a predetermined hash function; and using, as the signature value of the new block, a value obtained by encrypting the generated hash value using the common key (figure 3, item 320b).
5. As for claim 7, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. In addition, Mankovskii taught uploading, by one of the plurality of nodes, the plurality of blocks connected to the blockchain to a server located outside of the vehicle via a transmitter that is configured to perform wireless communication (figure 1 & 0020, where it is obvious that the distributed ledger comprises external server devices).
6. As for claim 11, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. In addition, Zeng taught when a total number of the three or more other nodes to which the verification request was transmitted is odd, not giving a voting right to determine the majority to the node that generated the new block (0016, where this is implicitly taught as the negative limitation is true unless stated otherwise).
7. As for claim 12, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. In addition, Zhao taught transmitting the verification request only to the three or more other nodes that have been confirmed as valid vehicle devices (15:8 to 16:5, where the node being a vehicle was previously shown by Hassani: 0007).
7. As for claim 13, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. In addition, Zeng taught wherein the majority of the plurality of nodes determines that the new block is valid when 51% or more of the plurality of nodes constituting the system recognize the new block is valid (0016).
Claim(s) 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mankovskii, in view of Tong, in view of Hassani, in view of Zeng, and in further view of Li et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2022/0158836 A1), hereinafter Li.
8. As for claim 2, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. However, Mankovskii did not explicitly state that if two new blocks are generated by two nodes among the plurality of nodes and verification requests on the two new blocks are made by the two nodes at a substantially same time, re-transmitting, by each of the two nodes, a verification request when a random time has elapsed. On the other hand, Li did teach that if two new blocks are generated by two nodes among the plurality of nodes and verification requests on the two new blocks are made by the two nodes at a substantially same time, re-transmitting, by each of the two nodes, a verification request when a random time has elapsed (0067 & 0073, where the random generation time is utilized in accordance with BC1 to BCn in accordance with 0146). Both of the systems of Mankovskii and Li are directed towards managing blockchain and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Mankovskii, to utilize random generation time, as taught by Li, in order to more accurately avoid fork collisions.
9. As for claim 5, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. However, Mankovskii did not explicitly state generating, by each of the plurality of nodes, the new block when a random time has elapsed since the vehicle stopped. On the other hand, Li did teach generating, by each of the plurality of nodes, the new block when a random time has elapsed since the vehicle stopped (0067 & 0073, where the random generation time is utilized in accordance with BC1 to BCn in accordance with 0146). Both of the systems of Mankovskii and Li are directed towards managing blockchain and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Mankovskii, to utilize random generation time, as taught by Li, in order to more accurately avoid fork collisions.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mankovskii, in view of Tong, in view of Hassani, in view of Zeng, and in further view of Mishra (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2020/0192886 A1).
10. As for claim 6, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. In addition, Mankovskii taught requesting, by one of the plurality of nodes, a number of other nodes among the plurality of nodes to verify the new block by distributing the new block to the number of the other nodes upon generating the new block (0021, where it is obvious that node verification is part of utilizing a distribute ledger). However, Mankovskii did not explicitly state that it only selects odd nodes. On the other hand, Mishra did teach that it only selects odd nodes (0041). Both of the systems of Mankovskii and Mishra are directed towards managing blockchain networks and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Mankovskii, to specifically utilize an odd selection of nodes, (taught by Mishra) as any node selection number could’ve been chosen.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is allowed over the prior-art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
11. The applicant states on page 8 that “Claim 4 was objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the features of the base claim and any intervening claims. Applicant thanks the Examiner for indicating that Claim 4 was allowable.” However, it is to be noted that claim 4 is not allowable or objected to as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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 JOSEPH L GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-3730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 10:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Nicholas R. Taylor can be reached at 571 272-3889. 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.
/JOSEPH L GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443