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 .
Application Status
This office action is in response to the application filed on 01/11/2024. Applicant’s preliminary amendment filed 07/11/2025 has been entered. Claim(s) 1 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and rejected as detailed below.
A note about claim 3: the claim appears to include a grammatical error where it does not make complete sense. The claim is objected to as detailed below, but for purposes of examination the examiner interpreted the claim to be substantially similar to claim 16, so the claim was examined as if it said, “configured to sense acceleration.” (Emphasis added.)
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 01/11/2024, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Fig. 3 “calibration 325” as described in [0037]
Fig. 5 “510b” as described in [0051]
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Fig. 5 “500”
Fig. 5 “505b”
Fig. 6 “602”
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because:
[0037] describes modules 323 but fig 3, shows it pointing to the calibration module, not “modules” as a whole
Fig. 5 has two item 506a, they both point to the same item so one is in error and should be removed for clarity
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0033] “autonomous vehicle 100” should be “autonomous vehicle 302”
[0037] refers to modules 323 and calibration 325, 325 is absent from the drawings and 323 points towards the calibration module not “modules” as a whole
[0044] “autonomous vehicle 100” should be “autonomous vehicle 302”
[0047] “cannister 430” should be “cannister 431”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites "one sensor configured to acceleration," this doesn't make grammatical sense. It appears to be a substantially similar claim to claim 16 which recites, "configured to sense acceleration," and has been interpreted as such.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 19 is 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 19 recites the limitation "the housing" in the limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 20 depends on claim 18 which in turn depends on claim 14. Claim 14 recites "initiating a protection mechanism for the EDR." While claim 18 furthers this protection to include, "wherein the protection mechanism includes...disabling a cooling system." Claim 20 recites "disabling a cooling system for cooling the EDR in response to the signal." By following claims 14 and 18 the system can activate a protection for the EDR by disabling a cooling system of the EDR. Claim 20 does not further limit this claim in any way.. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bittle (AU 2014203535) in view of Wolfram (DE-10-2015-014-602-B3).
Regarding claim 1, Bittle teaches an apparatus comprising: an electronic data recorder (EDR); ([0027]-[0028] teaches a data recording device that is in a vehicle. It includes a data storage device 16, in a separate enclosure 18. This storage device captures the data recorded by the system.)
at least one sensor configured to generate a signal in response to detecting that a sensor measurement exceeds a preset threshold; ([0040]-[0041] teach the data recording device in communication with a sensor, and determining that a sensed value exceeds a threshold, and sending a signal of this)
circuitry in communication with the at least one sensor (Fig. 5 items 14, 30, 32, and DS; and [0037] teaches a processor, 14, in communication with a series of data recording devices both in an enclosure and outside of the enclosure. Additionally, [0041] teaches a circuit receiving a signal from a sensor that a data point exceeds a threshold)
Bittle does not teach a cannister including expanding foam; and the cannister, wherein in response receiving the signal, the circuit is configured to cause the cannister to dispense the expanding foam to envelop the EDR.
However, Wolfram teaches “a cannister including expanding foam;” ([0033] teaches a propellant case 12 that can generate foam when triggered) and “the cannister, wherein in response receiving the signal, the circuit is configured to cause the cannister to dispense the expanding foam to envelop the EDR.” ([0033] teaches a circuit that can detect from an acceleration sensor that it has been triggered in response to this the propellant triggers and generates foam that encapsulates the data recording device.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Bittle with Wolfram; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to devices that contain electronic vehicle data recorders. Additionally, both deal with situations in which a crash or other catastrophic event has occurred. As Wolfram teaches in [0018] and [0023] the use of foam allows for a device to rapidly fill the cavity in which the EDR is located. This foam is non-flammable and heat resistant; and can reduce mechanical shock on the EDR. This allows for the device to be rapidly protected in the event of an emergency while also allowing for maintenance on the internals of the EDR prior to the activation event as there is not a cavity filled with some other form of protection.
Regarding claim 2, Bittle teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor is a temperature sensor. ([0041] teaches the use of a temperature sensor)
Regarding claim 3, Bittle teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor is configured to acceleration. ([0040] teaches the use of a sensor that can sense acceleration)
Regarding claim 4, Bittle teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor is an accelerometer. ([0040] teaches the use of a sensor that can sense acceleration)
Regarding claim 5, Bittle teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor includes a sensor to detect acceleration and a temperature sensor. ([0040] teaches the use of a sensor that can sense acceleration. [0041] teaches the use of a temperature sensor)
Regarding claim 6, Bittle teaches the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a housing, wherein the housing includes the EDR (Fig. 1 and [0027]-[0028] teaches a housing enclosing the EDR) and
Bittle does not teach the cannister.
However, Wolfram teaches “the cannister.” (Fig. 2 item 12 and [0033] teach the foaming agent container in a housing with a data recorder)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Bittle with Wolfram; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to devices that contain electronic vehicle data recorders. Additionally, both deal with situations in which a crash or other catastrophic event has occurred. As Wolfram teaches in [0018] and [0023] the use of foam allows for a device to rapidly fill the cavity in which the EDR is located. This foam is non-flammable and heat resistant; and can reduce mechanical shock on the EDR. This allows for the device to be rapidly protected in the event of an emergency while also allowing for maintenance on the internals of the EDR prior to the activation event as there is not a cavity filled with some other form of protection.
Regarding claim 7, Bittle teaches the apparatus of claim 6, wherein the housing further includes the at least one sensor. (Fig. 7 and [0041]-[0042] teaches the housing having the sensor in it)
Regarding claim 9, Bittle teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the circuitry includes one or more processors in communication with a plurality of EDRs that includes the EDR. (Fig. 5 items 14, 30, 32, and DS; and [0037] teaches a processor, 14, in communication with a series of data recording devices both in an enclosure and outside of the enclosure)
Regarding claim 10, Bittle teaches the apparatus of claim 9, wherein the one or more processors are configured to receive the signal. ([0040] teaches the processor receiving the signal that something has occurred form the sensor)
Regarding claim 11, Bittle teaches the apparatus of claim 9, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to update the EDR data at each of the plurality of EDRs. ([0040] teaches the processor can continue to update the data storage devices in the event of an error)
Regarding claim 12, Bittle teaches a vehicle comprising: an electronic data recorders (EDRs) of a plurality of EDRs positioned on the vehicle; ([0027]-[0028] teaches a data recording device that is in a vehicle. It includes a data storage device 16, in a separate enclosure 18. This storage device captures the data recorded by the system. [0025]-[0026] teaches that the vehicle can have multiple data recorders in multiple locations of the vehicle.)
at least one sensor configured to generate a signal in response to detecting that a sensor measurement exceeds a preset threshold; ([0040]-[0041] teach the data recording device in communication with a sensor, and determining that a sensed value exceeds a threshold, and sending a signal of this)
circuitry comprising at least one processor in communication with the EDR (Fig. 5 items 14, 30, 32, and DS; and [0037] teaches a processor, 14, in communication with a series of data recording devices both in an enclosure and outside of the enclosure. Additionally, [0041] teaches a circuit receiving a signal from a sensor that a data point exceeds a threshold)
Bittle does not teach a cannister including expanding foam; and the cannister, wherein in response receiving the signal, the circuit is configured to cause the cannister to dispense the expanding foam to envelop the EDR
However, Wolfram teaches “a cannister including expanding foam;” ([0033] teaches a propellant case 12 that can generate foam when triggered) and “the cannister, wherein in response receiving the signal, the circuit is configured to cause the cannister to dispense the expanding foam to envelop the EDR.” ([0033] teaches a circuit that can detect from an acceleration sensor that it has been triggered in response to this the propellant triggers and generates foam that encapsulates the data recording device.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Bittle with Wolfram; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to devices that contain electronic vehicle data recorders. Additionally, both deal with situations in which a crash or other catastrophic event has occurred. As Wolfram teaches in [0018] and [0023] the use of foam allows for a device to rapidly fill the cavity in which the EDR is located. This foam is non-flammable and heat resistant; and can reduce mechanical shock on the EDR. This allows for the device to be rapidly protected in the event of an emergency while also allowing for maintenance on the internals of the EDR prior to the activation event as there is not a cavity filled with some other form of protection.
Regarding claim 13, Bittle teaches the vehicle of claim 12, wherein the at least one processor is in communication with the plurality of EDRs. (Fig. 5 items 14, 30, 32, and DS; and [0037] teaches a processor, 14, in communication with a series of data recording devices both in an enclosure and outside of the enclosure)
Regarding claim 14, Bittle teaches a method of protecting an electronic data recorder (EDR) on a vehicle, the method comprising: generating at a sensor a signal in response to a sensor measurement exceeding a preset threshold; ([0040]-[0041] teach the data recording device in communication with a sensor, and determining that a sensed value exceeds a threshold, and sending a signal of this)
transmitting the signal to circuitry in communication with the sensor ([0041] teaches a circuit receiving a signal from a sensor that a data point exceeds a threshold) and ; and
in response to receiving the signal at the circuitry, initiating a protection mechanism for an EDR. ([0041] teaches that system determining that a temperature is exceeded and initiating a form of protection for the EDR)
Bittle does not teach a dispensing cannister configured to dispense expanding foam.
However, Wolfram teaches “a dispensing cannister configured to dispense expanding foam;” ([0033] teaches a propellant case 12 that can generate foam when triggered)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Bittle with Wolfram; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to devices that contain electronic vehicle data recorders. Additionally, both deal with situations in which a crash or other catastrophic event has occurred. As Wolfram teaches in [0018] and [0023] the use of foam allows for a device to rapidly fill the cavity in which the EDR is located. This foam is non-flammable and heat resistant; and can reduce mechanical shock on the EDR. This allows for the device to be rapidly protected in the event of an emergency while also allowing for maintenance on the internals of the EDR prior to the activation event as there is not a cavity filled with some other form of protection.
Regarding claim 15, Bittle teaches the method of claim 14, wherein generating the signal at the sensor further includes generating the signal at a temperature sensor. ([0041] teaches the use of a temperature sensor)
Regarding claim 16, Bittle teaches the method of claim 14, wherein generating the signal at the sensor further includes generating the signal at a sensor configured to sense acceleration. ([0040] teaches the use of a sensor that can sense acceleration)
Regarding claim 17, Bittle teaches the method of claim 14, wherein generating the signal at the sensor further includes generating the signal at an accelerometer. ([0040] teaches the use of a sensor that can sense acceleration)
Claim(s) 8 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bittle and Wolfram in view of Alberti (US PG Pub 2023/0060791).
Regarding claim 8 the combination of Bittle and Wolfram teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
The combination of Bittle and Wolfram does not teach wherein the circuitry is further configured to disable a cooling system for cooling the EDR in response to the signal.
However, Alberti teaches “wherein the circuitry is further configured to disable a cooling system for cooling the EDR in response to the signal.” ([0018] and [0044] teach disabling a cooling system for a vehicle part in the event that a fire has occurred)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Bittle and Wolfram with Alberti; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to vehicle systems that can be activated in the event of an external consequence. As Alberti teaches in [0018] the disabling of vehicle fans in the event of a fire can prevent the fire from spreading due to induced air. This can also prevent the fans/vehicle components from being further damaged as the fire occurs. This would prevent unnecessary damage for a vehicle and its sub-systems.
Regarding claim 18, Bittle teaches the method of claim 14.
Bittle does not teach wherein the protection mechanism includes at least one of dispensing foam and disabling a cooling system.
However, Wolfram teaches “dispensing foam” ([0033] teaches a circuit that can detect from an acceleration sensor that it has been triggered in response to this the propellant triggers and generates foam that encapsulates the data recording device.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Bittle with Wolfram; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to devices that contain electronic vehicle data recorders. Additionally, both deal with situations in which a crash or other catastrophic event has occurred. As Wolfram teaches in [0018] and [0023] the use of foam allows for a device to rapidly fill the cavity in which the EDR is located. This foam is non-flammable and heat resistant; and can reduce mechanical shock on the EDR. This allows for the device to be rapidly protected in the event of an emergency while also allowing for maintenance on the internals of the EDR prior to the activation event as there is not a cavity filled with some other form of protection.
The combination of Bittle and Wolfram does not teach disabling a cooling system.
However, Alberti teaches “disabling a cooling system.” ([0018] and [0044] teach disabling a cooling system for a vehicle part in the event that a fire has occurred)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Bittle and Wolfram with Alberti; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to vehicle systems that can be activated in the event of an external consequence. As Alberti teaches in [0018] the disabling of vehicle fans in the event of a fire can prevent the fire from spreading due to induced air. This can also prevent the fans/vehicle components from being further damaged as the fire occurs. This would prevent unnecessary damage for a vehicle and its sub-systems.
Regarding claim 19, Bittle teaches the method of claim 18, further comprising positioning at least one of the circuitry and the sensor within the housing. (Fig. 1 and [0027]-[0028] teaches a housing enclosing the EDR; Fig. 7 and [0041]-[0042] teaches the housing having the sensor in it)
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Bittle and Wolfram teach the method of claim 14.
The combination of Bittle and Wolfram does not teach disabling a cooling system for cooling the EDR in response to the signal.
However, Alberti teaches “disabling a cooling system for cooling the EDR in response to the signal.” ([0018] and [0044] teach disabling a cooling system for a vehicle part in the event that a fire has occurred)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Bittle and Wolfram with Alberti; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to vehicle systems that can be activated in the event of an external consequence. As Alberti teaches in [0018] the disabling of vehicle fans in the event of a fire can prevent the fire from spreading due to induced air. This can also prevent the fans/vehicle components from being further damaged as the fire occurs. This would prevent unnecessary damage for a vehicle and its sub-systems.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shuai (CN203982464) teaches an intelligent amphibious positioning recco for a black box. The intelligent amphibious positioning recco comprises a drum shell and a material containing barrel, wherein a nitrogen folding balloon and a helium folding balloon are placed in the material containing barrel, and a pressure sensing meter, a temperature sensing meter and a receiving antenna are mounted on the drum shell; the nitrogen folding balloon is connected with the inner part of the drum shell through a carbon fiber cable, and the nitrogen balloon is connected with the helium balloon through a nylon wire; hot stamping markers and luminous markers are sprayed on masks of the helium balloon, the nitrogen balloon and a floating ring, and thin-film photovoltaic cells are stuck on the surfaces of the hot stamping markers and the luminous markers. Wireless transmitting modules are placed in the helium balloon, the nitrogen balloon and the floating ring and used for sending out distress radio signals, storage batteries are used as a power supply of all modules, a microprocessor and a multi-channel electronic switch, and the thin-film photovoltaic cells are used for supplementing electricity for the storage batteries. The folding balloons are filled with nitrogen, and the floating ring is filled with polyurethane. All analysis and function modules are controlled through a CPU in the microprocessor by the multi-channel electronic switch, and the drum shell is connected and fixed with a shell of the black box through a steel strip. The intelligent amphibious positioning recco is an intelligent product with high cost performance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS STRYKER whose telephone number is (571)272-4659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/N.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665