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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s RCE amendment dated March 20, 2026. Claims 1-4, 6-9, and 21-30 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 and 6-9 and 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hansel et al., U.S. Patent 10,636,229 B2 (2020) in view of Nix, U.S. Patent 10,427,655 B2 (2019), and further in view of Klausner et al., U.S. Patent 6,629,030 B2 (2003) and further in view of Plante, U.S. Patent 9,226,004 B1 (2015).
As to claim 1, Hansel et al. discloses a device, comprising:
a non-volatile memory (Column 3, Lines 30-56, Figure 1, non-volatile memory module 106); and
a circuit coupled to the non-volatile memory and configured to: access a system memory of a vehicle in response to an event associated with operations of the vehicle (Column 4, Lines 36-55); and
store a copy of content from the system memory into the non-volatile memory (Column 3, Lines 30-56, Column 4, Lines 36-55).
Hansel et al. discloses the transfer of data, which Applicant interprets as different than a copy of content, as claimed. The “transfer” of data in Hansel et al., transferring from a volatile memory to a non-volatile memory to preserve the data after a collision in the same manner, does not describe or imply that the data is deleted from the volatile memory, thus includes making a copy, as claimed.
Even if the transfer was different than sending a copy of the data, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine transfer of data, as disclosed by Hansel et al., with the use of not deleting the data in the volatile memory, which is not required by the word “transfer”, thus creating a copy of the data, as claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, to transfer the data to non-volatile memory for storage and retrieval after a collision and possible damage, in the exact same manner as disclosed by Hansel et al.
Hansel et al. further discloses receiving new software or software updates (Column 11, Lines 19-39)
Hansel et al. does not disclose updating the software based on the content from the system memory, as claimed.
Nix discloses to determine, based on the content, whether to update software executing on the vehicle (Column 29, Lines 39-52).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device, as disclosed by Hansel et al., with the use of a determination of software updating, as claimed, as disclosed by Nix, with a reasonable expectation of success, to identify an unsafe condition of the software and determine an update is necessary, utilizing a common software updating system.
Hansel et al. discloses periodic refresh cycles to download content at a predetermined period of time. Hansel et al. does not disclose a predetermined period of time after detecting the event, as claimed.
Klausner et al. discloses wherein the content from the system memory is downloaded from a volatile memory, the download of the content from the volatile memory to the non-volatile memory is completed within a predetermined period of time after detecting the event (Column 4, Line 64 – Column 5, Line 33).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device, as disclosed by Hansel et al., with the use of a download of the content to non-volatile memory in a predetermined period of time, as claimed, as disclosed by Klausner et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, to transfer the data to storage without relying on energy storage mechanisms, such as capacitors, to power the RAM or volatile memory, where the data could be lost after the detecting the event.
Plante discloses transfer in an order based on a priority associated with the event (Column 4, Lines 59-67, Column 7, Lines 23-34, Figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device, as disclosed by Hansel et al., with the use of a priority associated with the event, as claimed, as disclosed by Plante, with a reasonable expectation of success, to transfer the data to storage of important high priority data sooner, which could be lost after the detecting the event. This may relate to traffic accident information which could be lost after damage to the system memory.
As to claim 2, Hansel et al., as modified by Nix, Klausner et al. and Plante, discloses the device of claim 1, and Hansel et al. further discloses wherein the event comprises a collision of the vehicle with an object, and the object is to be identified based on output from an artificial neural network (Column 4, Lines 36-55, Column 8, Line 51 – Column 9, Line 42).
As to claim 3, Hansel et al., as modified by Nix, Klausner et al., and Plante, discloses the device of claim 2, and Hansel et al. further discloses wherein data output from the artificial neural network is downloaded to the non-volatile memory in response to detecting the event (Column 4, Lines 36-55).
As to claim 6, Hansel et al., as modified by Nix, Klausner et al., and Plante, discloses the device of claim 1, and Hansel et al. further discloses wherein the content is stored in the system memory of the device during operation of a vehicle (Column 3, Lines 9-29).
As to claim 7, Hansel et al., as modified by Nix, Klausner et al., and Plante, discloses the device of claim 1, and Hansel et al. further discloses wherein the content is downloaded from a volatile memory, and the volatile memory comprises dynamic random access memory (Column 3, Lines 9-29, Column 15, Lines 7-43).
As to claim 8, Hansel et al., as modified by Nix, Klausner et al., and Plante, discloses the device of claim 1, and Hansel et al. further discloses wherein the non-volatile memory device is configured to provide the content to a computing device for analyzing the content (Column 3, Lines 9-29).
As to claim 9, Hansel et al., as modified by Nix, Klausner et al. and Plante, discloses the device of claim 1, and Hansel et al. further discloses wherein the content is configured for use in emulating the event (Column 3, Lines 9-29).
As to claim 21, Hansel et al. discloses a method, comprising: accessing a system memory of a vehicle in response to an event associated with operations of the vehicle (Column 4, Lines 36-55);
storing a copy of content from the system memory into a non-volatile memory (Column 3, Lines 30-56, Column 4, Lines 36-55).
Hansel et al. discloses the transfer of data, which Applicant interprets as different than a copy of content, as claimed. The “transfer” of data in Hansel et al., transferring from a volatile memory to a non-volatile memory to preserve the data after a collision in the same manner, does not describe or imply that the data is deleted from the volatile memory, thus includes making a copy, as claimed.
Even if the transfer was different than sending a copy of the data, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine transfer of data, as disclosed by Hansel et al., with the use of not deleting the data in the volatile memory, which is not required by the word “transfer”, thus creating a copy of the data, as claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, to transfer the data to non-volatile memory for storage and retrieval after a collision and possible damage, in the exact same manner as disclosed by Hansel et al.
Hansel et al. does not disclose updating the software based on the content, as claimed.
Nix discloses to determine, based on the content, whether to update software executing on the vehicle (Column 29, Lines 39-52).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method, as disclosed by Hansel et al., with the use of a determination of software updating, as claimed, as disclosed by Nix, with a reasonable expectation of success, to identify an unsafe condition of the software and determine an update is necessary, utilizing a common software updating system.
Hansel et al. discloses periodic refresh cycles to download content at a predetermined period of time. Hansel et al. does not disclose a predetermined period of time after detecting the event, as claimed.
Klausner et al. discloses wherein the content is downloaded from a volatile memory, the download of the content from the volatile memory to the non-volatile memory is completed within a predetermined period of time after detecting the event (Column 4, Line 64 – Column 5, Line 33).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method, as disclosed by Hansel et al., with the use of a download of the content to non-volatile memory in a predetermined period of time, as claimed, as disclosed by Klausner et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, to transfer the data to storage without relying on energy storage mechanisms, such as capacitors, to power the RAM or volatile memory, where the data could be lost after the detecting the event.
Plante discloses transfer in an order based on a priority associated with the event (Column 4, Lines 59-67, Column 7, Lines 23-34, Figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device, as disclosed by Hansel et al., with the use of a priority associated with the event, as claimed, as disclosed by Plante, with a reasonable expectation of success, to transfer the data to storage of important high priority data sooner, which could be lost after the detecting the event. This may relate to traffic accident information which could be lost after damage to the system memory.
As to claim 22, Hansel et al., as modified by Nix, Klausner et al., and Plante, discloses the method of claim 21, and Hansel et al. further discloses wherein the event comprises detecting a collision (Column 4, Lines 36-55, Column 8, Line 51 – Column 9, Line 42).
As to claim 23, Hansel et al., as modified by Nix, Klausner et al., and Plante, discloses the method of claim 22, and Hansel et al. further discloses further comprising analyzing an output from an artificial neural network to identify an object based at least in part on the content (Column 4, Lines 36-55, Column 8, Line 51 – Column 9, Line 42).
As to claim 24, Hansel et al., as modified by Nix, Klausner et al., and Plante, discloses the method of claim 21. Hansel et al. further discloses software updates (Column 11, Lines 19-39).
Hansel et al. does not disclose determining whether to update software, as claimed.
Nix discloses wherein the software executing on the vehicle that performs object detection (Column 29, Lines 39-52).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of claim 21, as disclosed by Hansel et al., as modified by Nix, Klausner et al., and Plante, with the use of a determination of software updating, as claimed, as disclosed by Nix, with a reasonable expectation of success, to identify an unsafe condition of the software and determine an update is necessary, utilizing a common software updating system.
As to claim 25, Hansel et al., as modified by Nix, Klausner et al., and Plante, discloses the method of claim 24. Nix further discloses wherein the determining the content comprises analyzing a function of the software (Column 4, Lines 46-60).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of claim 24, as disclosed by Hansel et al., as modified by Nix, Klausner et al., and Plante, with the use of analyzing a function of the software, as claimed, as disclosed by Nix, with a reasonable expectation of success, to identify an unsafe condition of the software and determine an update is necessary, analyzing a function of the software, which is to identify a collision or potential collision in storing a copy to preserve the data when a collision may damage the information.
As to claim 26, Hansel et al., as modified by Nix, Klausner et al., and Plante, discloses the method of claim 25. Hansel et al. further discloses wherein the software controls navigation of the vehicle (Column 3, Lines 9-29).
As to claim 27, Hansel et al., as modified by Nix, Klausner et al., and Plante, discloses the method of claim 26. Hansel et al. further discloses further comprising extracting the content from the non-volatile memory and sending, over a wireless network, to a server for analysis (Column 9, Line 43 – Column 10, Line 27).
As to claim 28, Hansel et al., as modified by Nix, Klausner et al., and Plante, discloses the method of claim 26. Hansel et al. further discloses wherein the system memory comprises of volatile memory (Column 3, Lines 30-56).
As to claim 29, Hansel et al., as modified by Nix, Klausner et al., and Plante, discloses the method of claim 26. Hansel et al. further discloses wherein an output from an artificial neural network classifies the event associated with operations of the vehicle based at least in part on the content (Column 8, Line 51 – Column 9, Line 42).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hansel et al., U.S. Patent 10,636,229 B2 (2020) and Nix, U.S. Patent 10,427,655 B2 (2019), Klausner et al., U.S. Patent 6,629,030 B2 (2003), and Plante, U.S. Patent 9,226,004 B1 (2015), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Pickel et al., U.S. Patent 9,329,919 B2 (2016).
As to claim 4, Hansel et al., as modified by Nix, Klausner et al., and Plante, discloses the device of claim 1. Hansel et al. does not disclose a program counter, as claimed.
Pickel et al. discloses wherein the circuit is further configured to store program counter data from the system memory to the non-volatile memory, the program counter data indicating an operational state of the vehicle while executing during the event (Column 6, Line 54 – Column 7, Line 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of claim 1, as disclosed by Hansel et al., as modified by Nix, Klausner et al., and Plante, with the use of a program counter, as claimed, as disclosed by Pickel et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, to utilize a standard type of register that can determine the status of the vehicle to save to the non-volatile memory to allow utilization of the data.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hansel et al., U.S. Patent 10,636,229 B2 (2020) and Klausner et al., U.S. Patent 6,629,030 B2 (2003) and Plante, U.S. Patent 9,226,004 B1 (2015).
As to claim 30, Hansel et al. discloses a device, comprising:
a non-volatile memory (Column 3, Lines 30-56, Figure 1, non-volatile memory module 106); and
a circuit coupled to the non-volatile memory and configured to:
access a system memory of a vehicle in response to an event associated with operations of the vehicle; and store a copy of content from the system memory into the non-volatile memory (Column 4, Lines 36-55), and
store a copy of content into the non-volatile memory, wherein the predetermined event comprises a collision of the vehicle with an object, and wherein the content comprises at least an output from an artificial neural network configured to classify or identify the object (Column 4, Lines 36-55, Column 8, Line 51 – Column 9, Line 42).
Hansel et al. discloses periodic refresh cycles to download content at a predetermined period of time. Hansel et al. does not disclose a predetermined period of time after detecting the event, as claimed.
Klausner et al. discloses wherein the content is downloaded from a volatile memory, the download of the content from the volatile memory to the non-volatile memory is completed within a predetermined period of time after detecting the event (Column 4, Line 64 – Column 5, Line 33).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device, as disclosed by Hansel et al., with the use of a download of the content to non-volatile memory in a predetermined period of time, as claimed, as disclosed by Klausner et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, to transfer the data to storage without relying on energy storage mechanisms, such as capacitors, to power the RAM or volatile memory, where the data could be lost after the detecting the event.
Plante discloses transfer in an order based on a priority associated with the event (Column 4, Lines 59-67, Column 7, Lines 23-34, Figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device, as disclosed by Hansel et al., with the use of a priority associated with the event, as claimed, as disclosed by Plante, with a reasonable expectation of success, to transfer the data to storage of important high priority data sooner, which could be lost after the detecting the event. This may relate to traffic accident information which could be lost after damage to the system memory.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The amendments to the claims included the order based on priority associated with the event, which is disclosed by Plante and would have been obvious to those skilled in the art to transfer the data most prioritized to avoid losing it. Plante discloses a similar system that transfers vehicle event data from a memory buffer to a more permanent memory facility.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art newly cited discloses related memory transfer systems after a collision.
Tran et al. discloses a newer system that transfers vehicle data based on a priority level.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BERNS whose telephone number is (313)446-4892. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at 571-270-5442. 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.
MICHAEL BERNS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3667
/MICHAEL A BERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667