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 .
Introduction
This is a first action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Examiner' s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed August 9, 2023 has been received and considered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 0023, "vehicle 21" should read "vehicle 12".
In paragraph 0028, "step S18" should read "step S16".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hiroyuki (JP H09170936).
Regarding claim 1, Hiroyuki discloses a data logging assembly for a vehicle (Hiroyuki, [0007] regarding a data logger stored in the trunk of a vehicle) comprising:
a substrate (Hiroyuki, Fig. 1 regarding the data logger consisting of a control circuit, clock IC, memory unit, battery, IC card I/F, RS-232C I/F, temperature measurement unit, analog input unit, ECU monitor input unit, SW input unit, regulator, and relay switch. As these all are part of the data logger, they must be fixed to a substrate.);
a data logger mounted on the substrate, the data logger being configured to receive and store vehicle data (Hiroyuki, [0012] regarding the main CPU controlling each part of the data logger and storing, reading, and holding data in the 40 MB memory unit); and
a power source mounted on the substrate, the power source being electrically connected to the data logger (Hiroyuki, [0009] regarding a battery provided in the data logger).
Regarding claim 2, Hiroyuki discloses the data logging assembly as claimed in claim 1, wherein
the data logger is a microcontroller (Hiroyuki, Fig. 1 regarding the data logger consisting of a control circuit & [0008] regarding the control circuit consisting of a CPU, ROM, RAM, etc.).
Regarding claim 3, Hiroyuki discloses the data logging assembly as claimed in claim 1, wherein
the power source is a battery (Hiroyuki, [0009] regarding a battery provided in the data logger).
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.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroyuki in view of Sumcad (US 2014/0031005).
Regarding claim 4, Hiroyuki discloses the data logging assembly as claimed in claim 1, wherein
the data logger is configured to be electrically connected to a vehicle battery (Hiroyuki, [0009] regarding the battery backup using power supplied from the sub-battery of the electric vehicle).
Hiroyuki does not explicitly disclose wherein the power source being configured to supply power to the data logger when the vehicle is in an ignition off state.
Sumcad teaches wherein the power source being configured to supply power to the data logger when the vehicle is in an ignition off state (Sumcad, [0022] regarding the data logger being powered by its own independent power source when the vehicle engine is off).
Hiroyuki and Sumcad are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data logging. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hiroyuki to incorporate using the data loggers independent power source when the vehicle engine is off, as disclosed by Sumcad, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of preventing the vehicle battery from being discharged even when the vehicle is not in use.
Regarding claim 5, Hiroyuki in view of Sumcad teaches the data logging assembly as claimed in claim 4, wherein
the vehicle battery is configured to supply power to the data logger when the vehicle is in an ignition on state or in an engine on state (Hiroyuki, [0024] regarding the data logger receiving power from the regulator which receives power from the sub-battery when the relay switch is turned on and the relay switch turning on when it is detected that the operator turns on the ignition key of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 6, Hiroyuki discloses the data logging assembly as claimed in claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein
the data logger is configured to be connected to a telematics unit of the vehicle to transmit the stored data.
Sumcad teaches wherein
the data logger is configured to be connected to a telematics unit of the vehicle to transmit the stored data (Sumcad, [0022] regarding the data logger being coupled to the telematics unit & [0024] regarding the telematics unit sending or uploading recorded data from the data logger).
Hiroyuki and Sumcad are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data logging. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hiroyuki to incorporate transmitting stored data using the telematics unit, as disclosed by Sumcad, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of sending the stored data.
Regarding claim 7, Hiroyuki in view of Sumcad teaches the data logging assembly as claimed in claim 6. Sumcad further teaches wherein
the data logger is configured to transmit the stored data at a predetermined interval (Sumcad, [0024] regarding timer activity being a trigger event for automatically triggered uploads & [0025] regarding timer activity including uploading recorded data from the vehicle after a specified amount of time (i.e., send recorded data from the data logger after a specified amount of time)).
Hiroyuki and Sumcad are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data logging. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hiroyuki, as modified, to incorporate transmitting stored data after a specified amount of time, as disclosed by Sumcad, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable preventing the memory of the data logger from being too full.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroyuki in view of Sumcad, and further in view of Jauss (US 2023/0073058).
Regarding claim 8, Hiroyuki in view of Sumcad teaches the data logging assembly as claimed in claim 7, but does not explicitly teach wherein
the data logger is configured to overwrite the stored data after transmitting the stored data.
Jauss teaches to overwrite the stored data after transmitting the stored data (Jauss, [0068] regarding stored and communicated events are allowed to be overwritten (i.e., data that has been transmitted can be overwritten)).
Hiroyuki and Jauss are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data storage. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hiroyuki, as modified, to incorporate overwriting data that has already been sent, as disclosed by Jauss, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of preventing the memory from being too full.
Hiroyuki, as modified, teaches wherein
the data logger is configured to overwrite the stored data after transmitting the stored data.
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroyuki in view of Bourilkov (US 2021/0296907).
Regarding claim 9, Hiroyuki discloses a vehicle data logging system (Hiroyuki, [0007] regarding a data logger stored in the trunk of a vehicle), comprising:
a vehicle battery (Hiroyuki, [0009] regarding the sub-battery of the electric vehicle);
a regulator electrically connected to the vehicle battery (Hiroyuki, [0011] regarding a regulator that generates a power supply voltage of 5 V from a power supply voltage of 12 V supplied from the sub-battery); and
a data logging assembly electrically connected to the vehicle battery and to the regulator (Hiroyuki, [0009] regarding the battery backup using power supplied from the sub-battery of the electric vehicle & [0011] regarding the regulator generating a power supply voltage for operating each part of the data logger), the data logging system including
a substrate (Hiroyuki, Fig. 1 regarding the data logger consisting of a control circuit, clock IC, memory unit, battery, IC card I/F, RS-232C I/F, temperature measurement unit, analog input unit, ECU monitor input unit, SW input unit, regulator, and relay switch. As these all are part of the data logger, they must be fixed to a substrate.);
a data logger mounted on the substrate, the data logger being configured to receive and store vehicle data (Hiroyuki, [0012] regarding the main CPU controlling each part of the data logger and storing, reading, and holding data in the 40 MB memory unit); and
a power source mounted on the substrate, the power source being electrically connected to the data logger (Hiroyuki, [0009] regarding a battery provided in the data logger).
Hiroyuki does not explicitly disclose a DC-DC converter electrically connected to the vehicle battery; and
a data logging assembly electrically connected to the vehicle battery and to the DC-DC converter.
Bourilkov teaches that a DC-DC voltage converter is a voltage regulator ([0049]).
Hiroyuki and Bourilkov are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle components. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hiroyuki to incorporate that a DC-DC converter is a regulator, as disclosed by Bourilkov, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of regulating the voltage coming from a battery.
Hiroyuki, as modified, teaches a DC-DC converter electrically connected to the vehicle battery; and
a data logging assembly electrically connected to the vehicle battery and to the DC-DC converter.
Regarding claim 10, Hiroyuki in view of Bourilkov teaches the vehicle data logging system as claimed in claim 9, wherein
the power source is a battery (Hiroyuki, [0009] regarding a battery provided in the data logger).
Regarding claim 11, Hiroyuki in view of Bourilkov teaches the vehicle data logging system as claimed in claim 9, wherein
the data logger is a microcontroller (Hiroyuki, Fig. 1 regarding the data logger consisting of a control circuit & [0008] regarding the control circuit consisting of a CPU, ROM, RAM, etc.).
Regarding claim 12, Hiroyuki, as modified in view of Bourilkov, teaches the vehicle data logging system as claimed in claim 9, wherein
the DC-DC converter is configured to supply power to the power source when the vehicle is in an ignition on state or in an engine on state (Hiroyuki, [0024] regarding the data logger receiving power from the regulator which receives power from the sub-battery when the relay switch is turned on and the relay switch turning on when it is detected that the operator turns on the ignition key of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 13, Hiroyuki in view of Bourilkov teaches the vehicle data logging system as claimed in claim 9, wherein
the vehicle battery is configured to supply power to the data logger when the vehicle is in an ignition on state or in an engine on state (Hiroyuki, [0024] regarding the data logger receiving power from the regulator which receives power from the sub-battery when the relay switch is turned on and the relay switch turning on when it is detected that the operator turns on the ignition key of the vehicle).
Claims 14-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroyuki in view of Bourilkov, and further in view of Sumcad.
Regarding claim 14, Hiroyuki in view of Bourilkov teaches the data logging system as claimed in claim 13, but does not explicitly teach wherein
the data logger is configured to not receive power from the vehicle battery when the vehicle is in an ignition off state.
Sumcad teaches wherein
the data logger is configured to not receive power from the vehicle battery when the vehicle is in an ignition off state (Sumcad, [0022] regarding the data logger being powered by its own independent power source when the vehicle engine is off. By using its own power source when the engine is off, the data logger is not receiving power from the vehicle battery).
Hiroyuki and Sumcad are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data logging. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hiroyuki, as modified, to incorporate using the data loggers independent power source when the vehicle engine is off, as disclosed by Sumcad, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of preventing the vehicle battery from being discharged even when the vehicle is not in use.
Regarding claim 15, Hiroyuki in view of Bourilkov teaches the data logging system as claimed in claim 9, but does not explicitly teach wherein
the power source is configured to supply power to the data logger when the vehicle is in an ignition off state.
Sumcad teaches wherein
the power source is configured to supply power to the data logger when the vehicle is in an ignition off state (Sumcad, [0022] regarding the data logger being powered by its own independent power source when the vehicle engine is off).
Hiroyuki and Sumcad are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data logging. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hiroyuki, as modified, to incorporate using the data loggers independent power source when the vehicle engine is off, as disclosed by Sumcad, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of preventing the vehicle battery from being discharged even when the vehicle is not in use.
Regarding claim 16, Hiroyuki in view of Bourilkov teaches the data logging system as claimed in claim 9, but does not explicitly teach wherein
the data logger is connected to a telematics unit of the vehicle to transmit the stored data.
Sumcad teaches wherein
the data logger is connected to a telematics unit of the vehicle to transmit the stored data (Sumcad, [0022] regarding the data logger being coupled to the telematics unit & [0024] regarding the telematics unit sending or uploading recorded data from the data logger).
Hiroyuki and Sumcad are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data logging. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hiroyuki, as modified, to incorporate transmitting stored data using the telematics unit, as disclosed by Sumcad, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of sending the stored data.
Regarding claim 20, Hiroyuki in view of Bourilkov teaches the data logging system as claimed in claim 16, wherein
the data logger is connected to a CAN bus of the vehicle to receive the vehicle data (Hiroyuki, [0015] regarding the monitor communication I/Fs adjusting communication timing, converting data formats, converting signal levels, etc. when communicating between the corresponding ECU and the data logger and the communication CPU, communication ROM, communication RAM, and monitor communication I/Fs being connected to a communication BUS.).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroyuki in view of Bourilkov and Sumcad, and further in view of Oda (US 9,978,188).
Regarding claim 17, Hiroyuki in view of Bourilkov and Sumcad teaches the data logging system as claimed in claim 16, but does not explicitly teach wherein
the data logger is configured to transmit the stored data after each ignition cycle of the vehicle.
Oda teaches to transmit the stored data after each ignition cycle of the vehicle (Oda, Col. 2, lines 32-37 regarding refraining from transmitting the diagnosis data to the external management center while the ignition switch of the vehicle is turned on and transmitting the diagnosis data after the turning off of the ignition switch).
Hiroyuki and Oda are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data storage. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hiroyuki, as modified, to incorporate transmitting stored data after the vehicle is turned off, as disclosed by Oda, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of ensuring the data is transmitted in case the battery on the data logger dies before the information can be transmitted when the ignition is turned back on.
Hiroyuki, as modified, teaches wherein
the data logger is configured to transmit the stored data after each ignition cycle of the vehicle.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroyuki in view of Bourilkov and Sumcad, and further in view of Chong (US 2017/0136834).
Regarding claim 18, Hiroyuki in view of Bourilkov and Sumcad teaches the data logging system as claimed in claim 15, but does not explicitly teach wherein
the data logger is configured to receive vehicle data from a sensor when the vehicle is in the ignition off state.
Chong teaches to receive vehicle data from a sensor when the vehicle is in the ignition off state (Chong, [0029] regarding receiving data/information from the sensor unit(s) even when the vehicle's ignition is switched off).
Hiroyuki and Chong are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data storage. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hiroyuki, as modified, to incorporate receiving vehicle data after the vehicle is turned off, as disclosed by Chong, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of always acquiring data on the vehicle.
Hiroyuki, as modified, teaches wherein
the data logger is configured to receive vehicle data from a sensor when the vehicle is in the ignition off state.
Regarding claim 19, Hiroyuki in view of Bourilkov, Sumcad, and Chong teaches the data logging system as claimed in claim 18. Sumcad further teaches wherein
the data logger is connected to a telematics unit of the vehicle to transmit the data received from the sensor (Sumcad, [0022] regarding the data logger being coupled to one or more sensors and the telematics unit & [0024] regarding the telematics unit sending or uploading recorded data from the data logger).
Hiroyuki and Sumcad are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data logging. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hiroyuki, as modified, to incorporate transmitting stored data using the telematics unit, as disclosed by Sumcad, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of sending the stored data.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX GRIFFIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 5:30pm.
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, ERIN BISHOP can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/ALEX B GRIFFIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665