Detailed Office Action
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed 10/02/2025. The applicant has amended claims 1, 3-16, and 18-20. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 10/02/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Reply to Applicant’s Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed 10/02/2025 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 101:
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 10/02/2025 have not overcome the 35 U.S.C 101 rejections previously set forth. Regarding the Applicant’s argument that the claims are not directed to an abstract, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner asserts that while the previous abstract idea has been removed from the claims, the newly added limitations of “when the modular EDR is determined to be attached to the vehicle, transferring the data stored in the first EDR to the modular EDR; and when the replacement EDR is determined to be attached to the vehicle, transferring the data stored in the first EDR to the replacement EDR” contains the mental processes of determining. While the determining steps may appear conditional for the transferring of data limitation and not part of the overall method, the Examiner asserts that because the overall method described and more specifically the transferring of data steps could not occur without such determining steps, that the determining conditions themselves are method steps and therefore a
mental process is recited in the claims.
Further, regarding the Applicant’s argument that the present claims are directed to a practical application and significantly more than the abstract idea, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Because the claims only recite mental processes and insignificant extra solution activities, there are no additional elements that can integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, the claim cannot provide an improvement to the technology as an improved abstract idea is still an abstract idea. (see MPEP 2106.05(a) Section II, “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea…is not an improvement in technology”).
Similarly, the claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Please see detailed rejection below.
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 102/103:
Applicant’s arguments, see Arguments/Remarks, filed 01/27/2025, with regard to the rejections of Claims 1, 15, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art reference(s).
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis of the claims’ subject matter eligibility will follow the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (January 7, 2019) (“2019 PEG”).
101 Analysis - With respect to Claim 1
Claim 1, 15, 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis - Step 1:
Claim 1 is directed towards a vehicle which is directed to the statutory category of a machine. Claim 15 is directed towards a method which is directed to the statutory category of a process. Claim 20 is directed towards a non-transitory computer readable medium which is directed to the statutory category of a manufacture. Therefore Claims 1, 15, and 20 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis- Step 2A Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental process.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 15 recites, inter alai:
“A method of managing electronic data recorder (EDR) data, the method comprising:
storing data generated by at least one sensor of a vehicle in a first EDR of a plurality of EDRs, the plurality of EDRs further including a modular EDR and a replacement EDR, the modular EDR and the replacement EDR removably attachable to the vehicle to facilitate exchanging of the modular EDR with the replacement EDR;
when the modular EDR is determined to be attached to the vehicle, transferring the data stored in the first EDR to the modular EDR; and
when the replacement EDR is determined to be attached to the vehicle, transferring the data stored in the first EDR to the replacement EDR.”
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind.
For example, “determining” in the context of this claim, encompass a person looking at available data and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, etc.) either manually or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
As drafted, the above claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), that are merely completed via generic computer components. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
Regarding Prong Two of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Claim 15 recites, inter alai:
“A method of managing electronic data recorder (EDR) data, the method comprising:
storing data generated by at least one sensor of a vehicle in a first EDR of a plurality of EDRs, the plurality of EDRs further including a modular EDR and a replacement EDR, the modular EDR and the replacement EDR removably attachable to the vehicle to facilitate exchanging of the modular EDR with the replacement EDR;
when the modular EDR is determined to be attached to the vehicle, transferring the data stored in the first EDR to the modular EDR; and
when the replacement EDR is determined to be attached to the vehicle, transferring the data stored in the first EDR to the replacement EDR.”
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of “the plurality of EDRs further including a modular EDR and a replacement EDR, the modular EDR and the replacement EDR removably attachable to the vehicle to facilitate exchanging of the modular EDR with the replacement EDR…”, this limitation merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
Regarding the additional limitation of “storing data generated by at least one sensor of a vehicle in a first EDR of a plurality of EDRs…” and “transferring the data…”, these limitations merely describes the sending, receiving, and storing of data, which are insignificant extra solution activities. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the act of collecting data and displaying data amounts to no more than merely storing and displaying information of the exception and thus is an extra-solution activity. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 2-14 and 16-19, no claim further adds a limitation that introduces any practical applications to the claimed invention, the dependent claims merely add more mental process, mathematical concepts, and post-solution activities and are thus not patent eligible.
Therefore, Claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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, 8, 10, 15, 18, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vlaiko et al (US 20250121731 A1) in view of Sameier (DE 102016214691 A1). Hereafter referred to as Vlaiko and Sameier respectively.
Regarding Claim 1, Vlaiko teaches a vehicle comprising: a plurality of electronic data recorders (EDRs) the plurality of EDRs including a first EDR, a modular EDR and a replacement EDR, the modular EDR and the replacement EDR removably attachable to the vehicle to facilitate exchanging of the modular EDR with the replacement EDR (see at least Vlaiko [¶ 12, 15, 27] ECU 202 receives video data or image data from camera 204 and sensor data from sensor 208, which ECU 202 can store in a battery memory of vehicle battery 206A. In some cases, the battery memory may store a backup copy of data recorded by vehicle 200, and in other cases, the battery memory may store the only copy of the video, image, and/or sensor data recorded by vehicle 200…the battery memory can be used as an event data recorder or “black box” for recording data from immediately before, during, and/or after a crash....In implementations where the vehicle battery is removable for recharging, the vehicle battery's removable and portable design can also facilitate its use as a black box designed to be recovered from the scene of an accident...data device 300 may associate a user profile retrieved from the battery memory of vehicle battery 206B with the additional data to be stored in a replacement battery for the same user or in the same vehicle battery if it is to be reused in the same vehicle… ECU 202 and/or data storage controller 224 may concurrently store data to both battery memory 226 and another memory of vehicle 200, while in other cases, ECU 202 and/or data storage controller 224 may copy data from a vehicle memory to battery memory 226 during idle periods when battery storage device 222 is less active.) Vlaiko discusses how the memory of the modular battery can be used as a “black box” which is analogous to an EDR. Further, the disclosure of both the removable battery which includes a memory and a replacement battery that includes a memory is analogous to a modular EDR and a replacement EDR respectively. Additionally, Vlaiko discloses that there may be additional vehicle memories that the same data is stored to, which is analogous to a first EDR.
a memory storing instructions (see at least Vlaiko [¶ 21] Battery controller 216 includes processor 218 that can execute instructions, such as from battery firmware stored in battery controller memory 219 of battery controller 216 or battery management module 20 stored in battery memory 226)
at least one processor in communication with the plurality of EDRs and the memory (see at least Vlaiko [¶ 21] Processor 218 can include, for example, circuitry such as one or more CPUs, GPUs, microcontrollers, DSPs, ASICs, FPGAs, hard-wired logic, analog circuitry and/or a combination thereof. In some implementations, processor 218 can include an SoC that may be combined with battery controller memory 219).
wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
store data generated by at least one sensor of the vehicle in the first EDR (see at least Vlaiko [¶ 12] ECU 202 receives video data or image data from camera 204 and sensor data from sensor 208, which ECU 202 can store in a battery memory of vehicle battery 206A. In some cases, the battery memory may store a backup copy of data recorded by vehicle 200, and in other cases, the battery memory may store the only copy of the video, image, and/or sensor data recorded by vehicle 200)
transfer the data stored in the first EDR to the modular EDR…and…transfer the data stored in the first EDR to the replacement EDR (see at least Vlaiko [¶ 12, 14, 27, 36] the battery memory may store a backup copy of data recorded by vehicle 200...Vehicle battery 206A is removable from vehicle 200 in the example of FIG. 1 for replacement with a fully charged replacement battery, such as vehicle battery 206B….ECU 202 and/or data storage controller 224 may concurrently store data to both battery memory 226 and another memory of vehicle 200, while in other cases, ECU 202 and/or data storage controller 224 may copy data from a vehicle memory to battery memory 226 during idle periods when battery storage device 222 is less active).
However, while Vlaiko teaches transferring data from the first EDR to the modular or replacement EDRs, it does not explicitly teach only doing so when either the modular or replacement EDR is determined to be attached to the vehicle.
Sameier, in the same field as the endeavor, teaches when the modular EDR is determined to be attached to the vehicle, transfer the data stored in the first EDR to the modular EDR; and when the replacement EDR is determined to be attached to the vehicle, transfer the data stored in the first EDR to the replacement EDR (see at least Sameier [English Translation Abstract and pg.3 para.5] a motor vehicle (10) having a plurality of logger units (11), each of which is set up to provide logging data (13) of at least one sensor (12) and / or communication data (16) of at least one data bus (14). 18) and to store the logging data (18) in its own, local memory (17). The invention provides that the logging units (11) are coupled via a communication device (20) to a memory unit (19) and the memory unit (19) is adapted to the respective logging data (18) of all the logging units (11) via the communication device (20) and to store the received logging data (18) of the logging units (11) together in a storage medium (23) of the storage unit (19)…when mechanically connecting the storage medium to the housing, a data connection for transferring the logging data received from the communication device to the storage medium may be simultaneously or implicitly provided or established).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system set forth in Vlaiko to contain a system for transferring data stored in one EDR to be transferred to another EDR when it is detected that the modular EDR or replacement EDR is connected or attached to the vehicle with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification for benefit of improving the convenience of the system by automatically starting data transfer when a physical connection or attachment of the removable EDR is made.
Regarding Claim 3, Vlaiko in view of Sameier teaches all limitations of Claim 1 as set forth above. Vlaiko further teaches wherein the data transferred to the modular EDR is uploaded to a server after the removal of the modular EDR from the vehicle (see at least Vlaiko [¶ 14, 18] swapping batteries can provide a low-overhead and secure method of transferring data between the vehicle and a data device and/or cloud service…Network 104 can include, for example, a local or wide area network, such as the Internet…vehicle 200 may alternatively or additionally communicate with remote data device 102 via network 104 using, for example, a wireless data link…this can provide an alternative to transferring additional data to data device 300 for storage at remote data device 102 or an alternative to transferring data from remote data device 102 to vehicle 200) Vlaiko discloses how after batteries and their respective EDR analogous memories are swapped with a replacement, not only does it allow quick battery replacement, it also offers an easy way to transfer data to a cloud service, which is analogous to uploading a modular EDR’s data to a server after their removal from the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 8, Vlaiko in view of Sameier teaches all limitations of Claim 1 as set forth above. Vlaiko further teaches wherein the data transferred from the first EDR to the modular EDR or the replacement EDR is the oldest data stored in the first EDR (see at least Vlaiko [¶ 27] ECU 202 and/or data storage controller 224 may copy data from a vehicle memory to battery memory 226 during idle periods when battery storage device 222 is less active) Because data storage may begin by first storing it in the vehicle memory and then copying it over to the battery memory at a certain point the future, the data being stored in the permanent EDR (the vehicle memory) will be the oldest EDR data that is stored.
Regarding Claim 10, Vlaiko in view of Sameier teaches all limitations of Claim 1 as set forth above. Vlaiko further teaches wherein the first EDR of the plurality of EDRs is removably attached to the vehicle (see at least Vlaiko [¶ 36, FIG. 1, FIG. 3] FIG. 3 is a block diagram of data device 300 connected to vehicle battery 206A according to one or more embodiments. As compared to the example of FIG. 1 where vehicle battery 206B is connected to data device 300, the example of FIG. 3 can be at a later point in time after vehicle battery 206A has been removed from vehicle 200 and is connected to data device 300 for charging and for transferring data to and/or from vehicle battery 206A) Vlaiko discloses two modular batteries with memories that can be utilized as EDRs. FIG. 1 illustrates how out of the plurality of EDRs that are part of the vehicle system, there is more than one modular EDR, the batteries with memory, 206A and 206B, either of these may be analogous to a first EDR of the plurality of EDRs.
Regarding Claim 15, Vlaiko teaches a method of managing electronic data recorder (EDR) data…the plurality of EDRs further including a modular EDR and a replacement EDR, the modular EDR and the replacement EDR removably attachable to the vehicle to facilitate exchanging of the modular EDR with the replacement EDR; (see at least Vlaiko [¶ 12, 15, 27] ECU 202 receives video data or image data from camera 204 and sensor data from sensor 208, which ECU 202 can store in a battery memory of vehicle battery 206A. In some cases, the battery memory may store a backup copy of data recorded by vehicle 200, and in other cases, the battery memory may store the only copy of the video, image, and/or sensor data recorded by vehicle 200…the battery memory can be used as an event data recorder or “black box” for recording data from immediately before, during, and/or after a crash....In implementations where the vehicle battery is removable for recharging, the vehicle battery's removable and portable design can also facilitate its use as a black box designed to be recovered from the scene of an accident...data device 300 may associate a user profile retrieved from the battery memory of vehicle battery 206B with the additional data to be stored in a replacement battery for the same user or in the same vehicle battery if it is to be reused in the same vehicle… ECU 202 and/or data storage controller 224 may concurrently store data to both battery memory 226 and another memory of vehicle 200, while in other cases, ECU 202 and/or data storage controller 224 may copy data from a vehicle memory to battery memory 226 during idle periods when battery storage device 222 is less active.) Vlaiko discusses how the memory of the modular battery can be used as a “black box” which is analogous to an EDR. Further, the disclosure of both the removable battery which includes a memory and a replacement battery that includes a memory is analogous to a modular EDR and a replacement EDR respectively. Additionally, Vlaiko discloses that there may be additional vehicle memories that the same data is stored to, which is analogous to a first EDR
the method comprising:
storing data generated by at least one sensor of a vehicle in a first EDR of a plurality of EDRs (see at least Vlaiko [¶ 12] ECU 202 receives video data or image data from camera 204 and sensor data from sensor 208, which ECU 202 can store in a battery memory of vehicle battery 206A. In some cases, the battery memory may store a backup copy of data recorded by vehicle 200, and in other cases, the battery memory may store the only copy of the video, image, and/or sensor data recorded by vehicle 200)
transferring the data stored in the first EDR to the modular EDR…and…transferring the data stored in the first EDR to the replacement EDR (see at least Vlaiko [¶ 12, 14, 27, 36] the battery memory may store a backup copy of data recorded by vehicle 200...Vehicle battery 206A is removable from vehicle 200 in the example of FIG. 1 for replacement with a fully charged replacement battery, such as vehicle battery 206B….ECU 202 and/or data storage controller 224 may concurrently store data to both battery memory 226 and another memory of vehicle 200, while in other cases, ECU 202 and/or data storage controller 224 may copy data from a vehicle memory to battery memory 226 during idle periods when battery storage device 222 is less active).
However, while Vlaiko teaches transferring data from the first EDR to the modular or replacement EDRs, it does not explicitly teach only doing so when either the modular or replacement EDR is determined to be attached to the vehicle.
Sameier, in the same field as the endeavor, teaches when the modular EDR is determined to be attached to the vehicle, transferring the data stored in the first EDR to the modular EDR; and when the replacement EDR is determined to be attached to the vehicle, transferring the data stored in the first EDR to the replacement EDR (see at least Sameier [English Translation Abstract and pg.3 para.5] a motor vehicle (10) having a plurality of logger units (11), each of which is set up to provide logging data (13) of at least one sensor (12) and / or communication data (16) of at least one data bus (14). 18) and to store the logging data (18) in its own, local memory (17). The invention provides that the logging units (11) are coupled via a communication device (20) to a memory unit (19) and the memory unit (19) is adapted to the respective logging data (18) of all the logging units (11) via the communication device (20) and to store the received logging data (18) of the logging units (11) together in a storage medium (23) of the storage unit (19)…when mechanically connecting the storage medium to the housing, a data connection for transferring the logging data received from the communication device to the storage medium may be simultaneously or implicitly provided or established).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system set forth in Vlaiko to contain a system for transferring data stored in one EDR to be transferred to another EDR when it is detected that the modular EDR or replacement EDR is connected or attached to the vehicle with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification for benefit of improving the convenience of the system by automatically starting data transfer when a physical connection or attachment of the removable EDR is made.
Regarding Claim 18, Vlaiko in view of Sameier teaches all limitations of Claim 15 as set forth above. Vlaiko further teaches further comprising uploading EDR data stored on the modular EDR to a server after the removal of the modular EDR from the vehicle (see at least Vlaiko [¶ 14, 18] swapping batteries can provide a low-overhead and secure method of transferring data between the vehicle and a data device and/or cloud service…Network 104 can include, for example, a local or wide area network, such as the Internet…vehicle 200 may alternatively or additionally communicate with remote data device 102 via network 104 using, for example, a wireless data link…this can provide an alternative to transferring additional data to data device 300 for storage at remote data device 102 or an alternative to transferring data from remote data device 102 to vehicle 200) Vlaiko discloses how after batteries and their respective EDR analogous memories are swapped with a replacement, not only does it allow quick battery replacement, it also offers an easy way to transfer data to a cloud service, which is analogous to uploading a modular EDR’s data to a server after their removal from the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 20, Vlaiko teaches at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (see at least Vlaiko [¶ 69, 72] A software module may reside in RAM memory, flash memory, ROM memory, EPROM memory, EEPROM memory, registers, hard disk, a removable media, an optical media, or any other form of storage medium known in the art. An exemplary storage medium is coupled to processor or controller circuitry such that the processor or controller circuitry can read information from, and write information to, the storage medium)
with instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by at least one processor of a vehicle, cause the at least one processor to:
store data generated by at least one sensor of the vehicle in a first EDR of a plurality of EDRs, the plurality of EDRs further including a modular EDR and a replacement EDR, the modular EDR and the replacement EDR removably attachable to the vehicle to facilitate exchanging of the modular EDR with the replacement EDR (see at least Vlaiko [¶ 12, 15, 27] ECU 202 receives video data or image data from camera 204 and sensor data from sensor 208, which ECU 202 can store in a battery memory of vehicle battery 206A. In some cases, the battery memory may store a backup copy of data recorded by vehicle 200, and in other cases, the battery memory may store the only copy of the video, image, and/or sensor data recorded by vehicle 200…the battery memory can be used as an event data recorder or “black box” for recording data from immediately before, during, and/or after a crash....In implementations where the vehicle battery is removable for recharging, the vehicle battery's removable and portable design can also facilitate its use as a black box designed to be recovered from the scene of an accident...data device 300 may associate a user profile retrieved from the battery memory of vehicle battery 206B with the additional data to be stored in a replacement battery for the same user or in the same vehicle battery if it is to be reused in the same vehicle… ECU 202 and/or data storage controller 224 may concurrently store data to both battery memory 226 and another memory of vehicle 200, while in other cases, ECU 202 and/or data storage controller 224 may copy data from a vehicle memory to battery memory 226 during idle periods when battery storage device 222 is less active.) Vlaiko discusses how the memory of the modular battery can be used as a “black box” which is analogous to an EDR. Further, the disclosure of both the removable battery which includes a memory and a replacement battery that includes a memory is analogous to a modular EDR and a replacement EDR respectively. Additionally, Vlaiko discloses that there may be additional vehicle memories that the same data is stored to, which is analogous to a first EDR
transfer the data stored in the first EDR to the modular EDR…and…transfer the data stored in the first EDR to the replacement EDR (see at least Vlaiko [¶ 12, 14, 27, 36] the battery memory may store a backup copy of data recorded by vehicle 200...Vehicle battery 206A is removable from vehicle 200 in the example of FIG. 1 for replacement with a fully charged replacement battery, such as vehicle battery 206B….ECU 202 and/or data storage controller 224 may concurrently store data to both battery memory 226 and another memory of vehicle 200, while in other cases, ECU 202 and/or data storage controller 224 may copy data from a vehicle memory to battery memory 226 during idle periods when battery storage device 222 is less active).
However, while Vlaiko teaches transferring data from the first EDR to the modular or replacement EDRs, it does not explicitly teach only doing so when either the modular or replacement EDR is determined to be attached to the vehicle.
Sameier, in the same field as the endeavor, teaches when the modular EDR is determined to be attached to the vehicle, transfer the data stored in the first EDR to the modular EDR; and when the replacement EDR is determined to be attached to the vehicle, transfer the data stored in the first EDR to the replacement EDR (see at least Sameier [English Translation Abstract and pg.3 para.5] a motor vehicle (10) having a plurality of logger units (11), each of which is set up to provide logging data (13) of at least one sensor (12) and / or communication data (16) of at least one data bus (14). 18) and to store the logging data (18) in its own, local memory (17). The invention provides that the logging units (11) are coupled via a communication device (20) to a memory unit (19) and the memory unit (19) is adapted to the respective logging data (18) of all the logging units (11) via the communication device (20) and to store the received logging data (18) of the logging units (11) together in a storage medium (23) of the storage unit (19)…when mechanically connecting the storage medium to the housing, a data connection for transferring the logging data received from the communication device to the storage medium may be simultaneously or implicitly provided or established).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system set forth in Vlaiko to contain a system for transferring data stored in one EDR to be transferred to another EDR when it is detected that the modular EDR or replacement EDR is connected or attached to the vehicle with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification for benefit of improving the convenience of the system by automatically starting data transfer when a physical connection or attachment of the removable EDR is made.
Claims 2 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vlaiko et al (US 20250121731 A1) in view of Sameier (DE 102016214691 A1) and Fang (US 20160155476 A1). Hereafter referred to as Vlaiko, Sameier, and Fang respectively.
Regarding Claims 2 and 17, Vlaiko in view of Sameier teaches all limitations of the vehicle of Claim 1 and the method of Claim 15 as set forth above. However, Vlaiko does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine that the modular EDR is running low on storage space.
Fang, in the same field as the endeavor, teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine that the modular EDR is running low on storage space (see at least Fang [¶ 23] the micro-control unit 200 of the event data recorder 100 with the communication module of the present invention has a function of determining storage capacity of the memory unit 400. When the micro-control unit 200 determines that the memory unit 400 cannot store the image record because of an insufficient or damaged memory space or other factors, the image record and the position information not stored yet are uploaded into the storage server 210 of the cloud network through the network connection established by the communication module 700 (S303 and S304), thereby avoiding the loss of an important image record because of the loss of the function of the memory unit 400).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system set forth in Vlaiko to contain a system for determining when the storage capacity of an EDR is low with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification for benefit of improving the memory storage capabilities of the system by avoiding an instance when there is insufficient space to store data, as discussed in Fang.
Claims 4, 6-7, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vlaiko et al (US 20250121731 A1) in view of Sameier (DE 102016214691 A1) and Yamada (US 20080133088 A1). Hereafter referred to as Vlaiko, Sameier, and Yamada respectively.
Regarding Claims 4 and 19, Vlaiko in view of Sameier teaches all limitations of the vehicle of Claim 1 and the method of Claim 15 as set forth above. However, Vlaiko does not explicitly teach wherein at least the first EDR of the plurality of EDRs includes a permanently affixed EDR.
Yamada, in the same field as the endeavor, teaches wherein at least the first EDR of the plurality of EDRs includes a permanently affixed EDR (see at least Yamada [¶ 24] vehicle data recorded 100 may employ two non-volatile memories 175, one permanent and internal to the vehicle data recorder 100, and one removable).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system set forth in Vlaiko to contain a permanently affixed EDR with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification for benefit of employing EDR technology that is commonplace in the art.
Regarding Claim 6, Vlaiko in view of Sameier and Yamada teaches all limitations of Claim 4 as set forth above. Vlaiko further teaches wherein data stored in the permanently affixed EDR is transferred to the modular EDR (see at least Vlaiko [¶ 27] ECU 202 and/or data storage controller 224 may copy data from a vehicle memory to battery memory 226 during idle periods when battery storage device 222 is less active).
Regarding Claim 7, Vlaiko in view of Sameier and Yamada teaches all limitations of Claim 4 as set forth above. Vlaiko further teaches wherein EDR data stored in the first EDR is transferred to the replacement EDR after the replacement of the modular EDR with the replacement EDR (see at least Vlaiko [¶ 27] ECU 202 and/or data storage controller 224 may copy data from a vehicle memory to battery memory 226 during idle periods when battery storage device 222 is less active) Because the batteries with memories can be swapped, and the vehicle memory can send data to the battery memory at any time, it may transfer data after a period of time in which a modular battery with memory has been swapped with its replacement battery with memory.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vlaiko et al (US 20250121731 A1) in view of Sameier (DE 102016214691 A1), Yamada (US 20080133088 A1) and Fang (US 20160155476 A1). Hereafter referred to as Vlaiko, Sameier, Yamada, and Fang respectively.
Regarding Claim 5, Vlaiko in view of Sameier and Yamada teaches all limitations of Claim 4 as set forth above. However, Vlaiko does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine that the first EDR is running low on storage space, and transfer the data stored in the first EDR to one of the modular EDR or the replacement EDR in response to determining that the first EDR is running low on storage space.
Fang, in the same field as the endeavor, teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine that the first EDR is running low on storage space, and in response, transfer the data (see at least Fang [¶ 23, 27] the micro-control unit 200 of the event data recorder 100 with the communication module of the present invention has a function of determining storage capacity of the memory unit 400. then the micro-control unit 200 determines that the memory unit 400 cannot store the image record because of an insufficient or damaged memory space or other factors, the image record and the position information not stored yet are uploaded into the storage server 210 of the cloud network through the network connection established by the communication module 700.
Further, Vlaiko teaches where in the transfer of data is to transfer data stored in the first EDR to the modular EDR or the replacement EDR (see at least Vlaiko [¶ 17, 57, 58] data device 300 sends data received from vehicle battery 206B to remote data device 102 via network 104. Remote data device 102 may also provide data device 300 additional data to be transferred to vehicle battery 206B. In some implementations, remote data device 102 or data device 300 may associate a user profile retrieved from the battery memory of vehicle battery 206B with the additional data to be stored in a replacement battery for the same user or in the same vehicle battery if it is to be reused in the same vehicle. The data transferred to or from vehicle battery 206B may be encrypted or otherwise protected until decrypted or otherwise securely accessed by remote data device 102 or a processor of vehicle 200 (e.g., ECU 202)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system set forth in Vlaiko to contain a system for determining that the first EDR is running low on storage space, and in response, transfer the data stored in the first EDR to one of the modular EDR or the replacement EDR with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification for benefit of avoiding losing important data as discussed in Fang (see at least Fang [¶ 23] thereby avoiding the loss of an important image record because of the loss of the function of the memory unit 400).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vlaiko et al (US 20250121731 A1) in view of Sameier (DE 102016214691 A1), Yamada (US 20080133088 A1) and Simoudis (US 20230282036 A1). Hereafter referred to as Vlaiko, Sameier, and Simoudis respectively.
Regarding Claim 9, Vlaiko in view of Sameier teaches all limitations of Claim 1 as set forth above. However, Vlaiko does not explicitly teach wherein the data is transferred according to First In, First Out (FIFO) processes.
Simoudis, in the same field as the endeavor, teaches wherein the data is transferred according to First In, First Out (FIFO) processes (see at least Simoudis [¶ 212] a vehicle data recorder 2100 may comprise a FIFO (First-In, First-Out) memory 2101 that stores data, and a Query Engine 2103 that responds to queries (from external devices such as the data orchestrator) by accessing the data stored in the FIFO memory. In some cases, the FIFO memory 2101 may be written with vehicle information sampled periodically using a ring buffer in a First-In, First-Out manner...The query engine might be configured to automatically transfer one or more data records from the vehicle data recorder to a database coupled to the system upon detection of an event).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system set forth in Vlaiko to contain a system for transferring data in a First In First Out process with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification for benefit of employing a data transfer technique that is common in the art.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vlaiko et al (US 20250121731 A1) in view of Sameier (DE 102016214691 A1), Fang (US 20160155476 A1) and Simoudis (US 20230282036 A1). Hereafter referred to as Vlaiko, Sameier, Fang, and Simoudis respectively.
Regarding Claim 11, Vlaiko in view of Sameier teaches all limitations of Claim 10 as set forth above. However, Vlaiko does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine that the first EDR is running low on storage space, and in response, transfer the data.
Fang, in the same field as the endeavor, teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine that the first EDR is running low on storage space, and in response, transfer the data (see at least Fang [¶ 23, 27] the micro-control unit 200 of the event data recorder 100 with the communication module of the present invention has a function of determining storage capacity of the memory unit 400. then the micro-control unit 200 determines that the memory unit 400 cannot store the image record because of an insufficient or damaged memory space or other factors, the image record and the position information not stored yet are uploaded into the storage server 210 of the cloud network through the network connection established by the communication module 700.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system set forth in Vlaiko to contain a system for determining that the first EDR is running low on storage space, and in response, transfer the data with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification for benefit of avoiding losing important data as discussed in Fang (see at least Fang [¶ 23] thereby avoiding the loss of an important image record because of the loss of the function of the memory unit 400).
Further, Vlaiko teaches where in the transfer of data is to transfer data stored in the first EDR to the modular EDR (see at least Vlaiko [¶ 17, 57, 58] data device 300 sends data received from vehicle battery 206B to remote data device 102 via network 104. Remote data device 102 may also provide data device 300 additional data to be transferred to vehicle battery 206B. In some implementations, remote data device 102 or data device 300 may associate a user profile retrieved from the battery memory of vehicle battery 206B with the additional data to be stored in a replacement battery for the same user or in the same vehicle battery if it is to be reused in the same vehicle. The data transferred to or from vehicle battery 206B may be encrypted or otherwise protected until decrypted or otherwise securely accessed by remote data device 102 or a processor of vehicle 200 (e.g., ECU 202)).
However, the combination of Vlaiko and Fang does not teach wherein the data transfer is in a First in, First out (FIFO) manner.
Simoudis, in the same field as the endeavor, teaches wherein the data transfer is in a First in, First out (FIFO) manner (see at least Simoudis [¶ 212] a vehicle data recorder 2100 may comprise a FIFO (First-In, First-Out) memory 2101 that stores data, and a Query Engine 2103 that responds to queries (from external devices such as the data orchestrator) by accessing the data stored in the FIFO memory. In some cases, the FIFO memory 2101 may be written with vehicle information sampled periodically using a ring buffer in a First-In, First-Out manner...The query engine might be configured to automatically transfer one or more data records from the vehicle data recorder to a database coupled to the system upon detection of an event).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system set forth in Vlaiko and Fang to contain a system for transferring data in a First In First Out process with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification for benefit of employing a data transfer technique that is common in the art.
Claim 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vlaiko et al (US 20250121731 A1) in view of Sameier (DE 102016214691 A1) and Heichal (WO 2013144948 A1). Hereafter referred to as Vlaiko, Sameier, and Heichal respectively.
Regarding Claim 12 and 16, Vlaiko teaches all limitations of the vehicle of Claim 1 and the method of Claim 15 as set forth above. However, Vlaiko does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to disable movement of the vehicle during the replacement of the EDR.
Heichal, in the same field as the endeavor, teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to disable movement of the vehicle during the replacement of the EDR (see at least Heichal [English Translation pg.13 para.3, pg.10 para.5] The control system may comprise one or more processors...The lifting of the front wheels 41a above the surface of the exchange platform provides a safety measure to prevent drivers driving their vehicles in the battery exchange lane 10 while they are prohibited to do so during the battery exchange process).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system set forth in Vlaiko to contain a system for disabling the movement of the vehicle during the EDR replacement process with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification due the substantial similarity between replacing a vehicle’s battery and a vehicle’s EDR. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill ion the art to want to prevent a vehicle from moving during any operation in which you are swapping one of the vehicles components. Therefore, a simple substitution of swapping an EDR instead of a battery would obtain predicable results.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vlaiko et al (US 20250121731 A1) in view of Sameier (DE 102016214691 A1) and Teraoka (JP 2023151144 A). Hereafter referred to as Vlaiko, Sameier, and Teraoka, respectively.
Regarding Claim 13, Vlaiko in view of Sameier teaches all limitations of Claim 1 as set forth above. However, Vlaiko does not explicitly teach further comprising a releasable securing mechanism to prevent erroneous removal of another EDR of the plurality of EDRs during the replacement of the modular EDR.
Teraoka, in the same field as the endeavor, teaches teach further comprising a releasable securing mechanism to prevent erroneous removal of another EDR of the plurality of EDRs during the replacement of the modular EDR (see at least Teraoka [English Translation pg.16 para.1] Therefore, in the charging and data collection system 1 of the present embodiment, for the replacement unit 2 in such a state, the replacement unit side connector 8 is connected to the station until the vehicle data and battery data have been uploaded to the data management server 4. The charging station 3 is equipped with a function to physically lock the replacement unit 2 so that it cannot be removed from the side connector. When the data transfer is not completed, the exchange unit 2 is locked by this function, and a message indicating that it is locked is displayed on the display device 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system set forth in Vlaiko to contain a releasable securing mechanism to prevent erroneous removal of another EDR of the plurality of EDRs during the replacement operation with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification for benefit of increasing the reliability of the data transfer by avoiding a situation where an EDR is prematurely removed which may lead to data loss or data corruption.
Regarding Claim 14, Vlaiko in view of Sameier teaches all limitations of Claim 1 as set forth above. However, Vlaiko does not explicitly teach further comprising an electronically changeable display indicating which of the plurality of EDRs should be replaced.
Teraoka, in the same field as the endeavor, teaches further comprising an electronically changeable display indicating which of the plurality of EDRs should be replaced (see at least Teraoka [English Translation pg.15 para.6] a message indicating that the replacement unit 2 should be replaced is displayed on the display panel in front of the driver's seat and passenger seat).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system set forth in Vlaiko to contain an electronically changeable display indicating which of the plurality of EDRs should be replaced during the replacement operation with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification for benefit of improving the usability of the system by providing visual feedback and a visual indicator of what component needs to be replaced.
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 A YANOSKA whose telephone number is (703)756-5891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am to 5:00pm (Pacific Time).
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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 ANDERSON YANOSKA/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664