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 . Claims 1-20 were previously pending, of which claims 1, 10, and 17 have been amended and claims 2, 11, and 18 have been cancelled. Thus claims 1, 3-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the
references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as
the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is
reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the
language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant's definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 (claims 10 and 17 recite similar limitations) recites “storing information regarding the identified tables in a data map, wherein the identified tables are tagged to automatically enforce computer-implemented data governance policies comprising one or more of data retention periods, legal holds, and access control rules” and this aspect appears to be new matter. The specification does not mention automatically enforcing any computer-implemented data governance policies. Paragraph [0073] of the specification mentions that the tag may indicate retention periods, legal holds, and access control, but there is no mention of automatically enforcing anything.
Claims 3-9, 12-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claims 1, 10, and 17 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 (claims 10 and 17 recite similar limitations) recites “storing information regarding the identified tables in a data map, wherein the identified tables are tagged to automatically enforce computer-implemented data governance policies comprising one or more of data retention periods, legal holds, and access control rules.” It is not clear to the examiner what is meant by “to automatically enforce…” The metes and bounds of the claim limitation are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim limitation will be treated such that the identified tables are tagged based on governance policies comprising one or more of data retention periods, legal holds, and access control rules.
Claims 3-9, 12-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claims 1, 10, and 17 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10, 12-15, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 2006/0101005 A1) in view of Hughes (US 2024/0349012 A1), Daviau (US 2024/0202244 A1), and Tara (US 2012/0290311 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yang discloses a method, comprising: receiving a data set from a data store comprising a plurality of data in connection with a fleet, the received data set comprising a plurality of table records (Figs. 2, 41-43, 51B, [0242, 0270, 0285] – latitude and longitude of each entity); filtering the received data set by comparing data values of the plurality of table records with a range of latitude values and a range of longitude values and removing from the data set table records comprising data values outside both the range of latitude values and the range of longitude values (Figs. 2, 41-43, 51B, [0242, 0247, 0270, 0285] – comparing the latitude and longitude of each entity in the data structure with the latitude and longitude of the search area boundaries to determine if the entity is within the search area boundaries); and storing information regarding the identified tables in a data map, wherein the identified tables are tagged to automatically enforce computer-implemented data governance policies comprising one or more of data retention periods, legal holds, and access control rules (Figs. 2, 41-44, 51B, [0242-0243, 0254, 0270, 0276, 0285] – if the entity is within the search area boundaries… classify each entity in the search area… entity is classified as open or closed).
Yang does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the fleet is an autonomous vehicle (AV) fleet.
Hughes, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: an autonomous vehicle (AV) fleet (abstract, [0009, 0025] – fleet management system of vehicles entering and exiting dynamic geofences… autonomous driving).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Hughes into the invention of Yang with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of enabling the vehicles to respond to entering and exiting dynamic geofences resulting in improved driver and passenger safety and also reducing vehicle damage costs to rental or leasing companies (Hughes - abstract). Hughes demonstrates that it is obvious to perform fleet management for various types autonomous vehicles operating in geofences. Performing this method for a fleet of autonomous vehicles would yield predictable results.
Yang does not appear to explicitly disclose filtering the received data set by performing a trigram index-based regular expression (regex) search to compare data values.
Daviau teaches the following limitations: filtering the received data set by performing a trigram index-based regular expression (regex) search to compare data values (see at least [0005, 0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Daviau into the invention of Yang with a reasonable expectation of success because Daviau teaches that executing regular expression matching on indexed data by extraction of trigrams from the data is a known solution for filtering and expression matching of data (Daviau – [0004-0005]). Regular expressions are a known tool for searching text, and can parse through large amounts of data quickly and accurately looking for matches. Applying a regular expression to filter the latitude and longitude values is applying a known tool or technique to a particular application and would yield predictable results. Specifically, regular expressions are known to be able to filter or select specific n-grams, and therefore a trigram (i.e., 3-gram) is defining a specific parameter for the regular expression.
Yang does not appear to explicitly disclose performing a cross-schema check by post-processing the filtered data set to identify tables containing location data split across separate records, wherein said post-processing confirms an identified table includes a first table record comprising a data value within the range of latitude values and a corresponding second table record comprising a data value within the range of longitude values.
Tara, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: performing a cross-schema check by post-processing the filtered data set to identify tables containing location data split across separate records, wherein said post-processing confirms an identified table includes a first table record comprising a data value within the range of latitude values and a corresponding second table record comprising a data value within the range of longitude values ([0173-0176] - at a decision step 1032, the operation determines if the received latitude value for the client device is within the geofenced latitude range... at a decision step 1040 the system determines if the received longitude value defining the location of the client device is within the range of longitude values that define the geofenced location… if the received longitude value for the client device is within the range of longitude values that define the geofenced location then the operation advances to step 1044. In this embodiment step 1044 is an optional wait state or location confirmation. This may occur to prevent or reduce the likelihood of false positives. For example, if the client device is just passing by, such as the physician is driving by a geofenced location, then a wait period with a re-analysis confirmation may prevent a false positive.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Tara into the invention of Yang with a reasonable expectation of success because the re-analysis confirmation may prevent a false positive (Tara – [0176]). Tara demonstrates that it is obvious to perform post-processing in the form of re-analyzing the longitude and latitude values. Doing so would yield predictable results and improve accuracy of the results.
Regarding claim 3, Yang does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the AV fleet operates in a geofenced area.
Hughes, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the AV fleet operates in a geofenced area (abstract, [0009, 0025] – fleet management system of vehicles entering and exiting dynamic geofences… autonomous driving).
The motivation to combine Yang and Hughes is the same as in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Yang does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the range of latitude values and the range of longitude values collectively correspond to boundaries of the geofenced area.
Hughes, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the range of latitude values and the range of longitude values collectively correspond to boundaries of the geofenced area ([0035, 0064] – location tracking of the vehicle (including its longitude and latitude) comparing the vehicle’s current GPS coordinates with the geographic boundaries of the dynamic geofence areas stored in the system).
The motivation to combine Yang and Hughes is the same as in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Yang does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the AV fleet operates in a plurality of geofenced areas.
Hughes, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the AV fleet operates in a plurality of geofenced areas (abstract, [0009, 0025] – fleet management system of vehicles entering and exiting dynamic geofences… autonomous driving).
The motivation to combine Yang and Hughes is the same as in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Yang does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the range of latitude values comprises a plurality of ranges of latitude values and the range of longitude values comprises a plurality of ranges of longitude values and wherein the plurality of ranges of latitude values and the plurality of ranges of longitude values collectively correspond to boundaries of the pluralities of geofenced areas.
Hughes, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the range of latitude values comprises a plurality of ranges of latitude values and the range of longitude values comprises a plurality of ranges of longitude values and wherein the plurality of ranges of latitude values and the plurality of ranges of longitude values collectively correspond to boundaries of the pluralities of geofenced areas ([0035, 0064] – location tracking of the vehicle (including its longitude and latitude) comparing the vehicle’s current GPS coordinates with the geographic boundaries of the dynamic geofence areas stored in the system).
The motivation to combine Yang and Hughes is the same as in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Yang does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the data values comprise one or more of sensor readings, temperature values, and GPS location values.
Hughes, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the data values comprise one or more of (BRI only requires one of the following) sensor readings, temperature values, and GPS location values ([0035] – GPS enabling precise location tracking of the vehicle (including its longitude and latitude)).
The motivation to combine Yang and Hughes is the same as in the rejection of claim 1.
With respect to claim 10, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claim 10 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 1; therefore, claim 10 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
With respect to claim 12, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 3, and it has been determined that claim 12 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 3; therefore, claim 12 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 3.
With respect to claim 13, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 4, and it has been determined that claim 13 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 4; therefore, claim 13 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 4.
With respect to claim 14, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 5, and it has been determined that claim 14 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 5; therefore, claim 14 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 5.
With respect to claim 15, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 6, and it has been determined that claim 15 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 6; therefore, claim 15 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 6.
With respect to claim 17, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claim 17 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 1; therefore, claim 17 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
With respect to claim 19, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 3-4, and it has been determined that claim 19 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claims 3-4; therefore, claim 19 is also rejected over the same rationale as claims 3-4.
With respect to claim 20, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 5-6, and it has been determined that claim 20 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claims 5-6; therefore, claim 20 is also rejected over the same rationale as claims 5-6.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Hughes, Daviau, Tara, and Mengfei (CN 114510656 A, a machine translation was attached with the Office action dated 4/16/2025 and is being relied upon).
Regarding claim 7, Yang does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the filtering further comprises removing from the data set table records comprising data values truncated to less than a predetermined number of decimal places.
Mengfei teaches the following limitations: wherein the filtering further comprises removing from the data set table records comprising data values truncated to less than a predetermined number of decimal places ([0022-0024, 0080] – determine whether the decimal place of latitude and longitude is less than 10, if yes it can be considered virtual positioning data, if not then the device positioning data is normal positioning data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Mengfei into the invention of Yang with a reasonable expectation of success. The advantage of doing so is to obtain more accurate positioning data and prevent cheating (Mengfei – [0080-0081]). Since the virtual positioning data is not a true representation of the positioning data, it would have been obvious to remove the virtual positioning data from the records and alert a fleet operator that the vehicle with the virtual positioning data is not being accurately represented.
With respect to claim 16, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 7, and it has been determined that claim 16 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim7 2; therefore, claim 16 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 7.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Hughes, Daviau, Tara, and Ramohalli Gopala Rao (US 2020/0394110 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Yang does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the data store comprises a serverless cloud-based data warehouse.
Ramohalli Gopala Rao teaches the following limitations: wherein the data store comprises a serverless cloud-based data warehouse ([0004] – serverless cloud database).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Ramohalli Gopala Rao into the invention of Yang with a reasonable expectation of success. The advantage of doing so is because it provides an efficient, powerful, and user-friendly solution for protecting and managing data (Ramohalli Gopala Rao – [0048]). Using a serverless cloud-based data warehouse for the data store is applying a particular type of data storage which is known in different applications to a particular application and would yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-10 filed 7/14/2025, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 11-12 filed 7/14/2025, with respect to the previous prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 11 that Yang’s filtering logic is the inverse of that claimed because Yang would discard records that the claimed configuration explicitly retains for further analysis. The examiner respectfully disagrees that Yang’s filtering logic is the inverse of that claimed. The claim recites “removing…data values outside both the range of latitude values and the range of longitude values…post-processing the filtered data set”. As best understood, the claim reads filtering the data set by removing values outside the range of latitude and longitude values, and then perform post-processing on the filtered data set (which includes the values within the ranges). Nothing in the claim suggests that the post-processing is performed on the removed values outside of the latitude and longitude values from the filtering step.
Applicant argues on page 11 that Yang fails to disclose or suggest “performing a cross-schema check by post-processing the filtered data set to identify tables containing location data split across separate records.” However, the examiner relies upon Tara for this limitation.
Applicant argues on page 11 that Yang’s disclosure of classifying entities as “open” or “closed” for display on a map provides no disclosure or suggestion of tagging identified tables to automatically enforce computer-implemented data governance policies. However, the limitation “to automatically enforce computer-implemented data governance policies” appears to be new matter and is interpreted as best understood (see 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections for further details on the limitation “tagging tables to automatically enforce computer-implemented data governance policies”).
Applicant argues on pages 11-12 that Hughes provides no disclosure or suggestion of “performing a cross-schema check to identify tables with split location data records” or “tagging tables to automatically enforce computer-implemented data governance policies.” However, the examiner relies upon Tara and Yang, respectively, for these limitations.
Applicant argues on page 12 that Tara fails to disclose or suggest performing a cross-schema check by post-processing a data set to identify tables containing location data split across separate records, as claimed. Tara's "re-analysis confirmation" is a temporal check on a single device's real-time physical location, not a structural analysis of a database schema to solve a data fragmentation problem. The examiner notes that “a structural analysis of a database schema to solve a data fragmentation problem” is not found in the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues on page 12 that Tara is silent on the concept of analyzing data tables to discover their contents. The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the Applicant provides no evidence or arguments and is merely making a conclusory statement. Tara analyzes latitude and longitude values, see paragraphs [0173-0176] of Tara. For further clarification of Tara’s use of table data, see paragraphs [0143, 0162-0163] of Tara.
Applicant argues on page 12 that Tara provides no disclosure or suggestion of tagging tables to automatically enforce computer-implemented governance policies. The examiner notes that the Applicant provides no evidence or arguments and is merely making a conclusory statement. Furthermore, the examiner relies upon Yang for this limitation.
Furthermore, with respect to the arguments above, the examiner reminds the Applicant that one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Where a rejection of a claim is based on two or more references, a reply that is limited to what a subset of the applied references teaches or fails to teach, or that fails to address the combined teaching of the applied references may be considered to be an argument that attacks the reference(s) individually.
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 CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/C.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669