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 .
Status of Claims
This action is responsive to the application filed on November 6, 2023. Claims 1-20 were presented, and are pending examination.
Drawings
The drawings filed on November 6, 2023 are accepted.
Examiner’s Note about the Format of 35 U.S.C. 102/103 Rejections
Generally, limitations of a claim are reproduced identically and followed by examiner’s explanation with citation from prior art in Italic enclosed by a parenthesis, (), for each limitation. In examiner’s explanation, the mapping of the key elements of a limitation to the disclosed elements of prior art is shown by stating the disclosed element immediately followed by the claimed element inside a parenthesis. Specific quotation from prior art is delineated with quotation mark, ““. If primary art fails to teach a limitation or part of the limitation, the limitation or the part of the limitation is placed inside double square brackets, [[ ]], for better understandability, and appropriate secondary art(s) is/are applied later addressing the deficiency of the primary art.
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, 5-7, 9-11, and 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haidar et al. (US PGPUB No. US 20170078398 A1), hereinafter, Haidar.
Regarding claim 1:
Haidar teaches:
A data storage device in a vehicle comprising (Fig. 1 shows computing device 11 in a vehicle V1 as stated in paragraph 0053 “In one embodiment, each vehicle V1, V2, and V3 can represent an electronic computing device 11 in or connected to a vehicle. In one embodiment, each vehicle V1, V2, and V3 can include a dongle, mobile device, mobile phone, plug, IoT device, dashboard, or other device (generally referred to as a computing device 11) which connects to a port or communication channel in each respective, vehicle.”):
a storage medium for data (paragraph 0053 discloses the computing device 11 has memory devices); and
an interface for data transfer (paragraph 0055 discloses the computing device 11 has communication interface for data transfer);
the data storage device is installed in the vehicle and the storage medium is a network-connected storage, wherein the data storage device extends a home network and/or an office internal network to the vehicle and the data storage device is accessible from outside the vehicle after a user has been authenticated (paragraph 0055 discloses vehicle infotainment platform resides on the memory in the vehicle and accessible from outside the vehicle using communication channel. Paragraph 0082 discloses person can gain access to the vehicle infotainment platform through authentication).
As to claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Haidar teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Haidar further teaches wherein the data storage device is connectable to a plurality of external data sources (Fig. 1 shows the computing devices 11 is connectable to client-side VIT application, server-side VIT application 10).
As to claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Haidar teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Haidar further teaches wherein the data storage device is usable as an extension of an external data storage or as a backup of external data (paragraph 0054 discloses the computing device 11 act as storage for various data).
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Haidar teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Haidar further teaches wherein multiple users can access the data storage device simultaneously (Fig. 1 shows VIT can be accessed from multiple users. Also see paragraph 0070).
As to claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Haidar teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Haidar further teaches wherein the data storage device is controllable via a digital application (Fig. 1 shows the computing device 11 is controllable via the VIT application as explained in paragraph 0050).
As to claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Haidar teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Haidar further teaches wherein the data storage device comprises a synchronization function (paragraph 0065 discloses real-time viewing via VIT).
Regarding claim 9:
Claim 8 is directed towards a method performed by the data storage device of claim 1. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
As to claim 10, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated. Haidar teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as shown above.
Haidar further teaches a motor vehicle having a data storage system (Fig. 1 shows computing device 11 in a motor vehicle V1).
Claim 11 is directed towards a method performed by the data storage device of claim 3. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 14 is directed towards a method performed by the data storage device of claim 5. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 15 is directed towards a method performed by the data storage device of claim 5. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 17 is directed towards a method performed by the data storage device of claim 6. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 18 is directed towards a method performed by the data storage device of claim 6. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 20 is directed towards a method performed by the data storage device of claim 6. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
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, 12, 13, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haidar in view of Wang et al. (US PGPUB No. US 20210146785 A1), hereinafter, Wang.
As to claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Haidar teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Haidar does not teach wherein the data storage device comprises an interface for a charging station.
Wang teaches wherein the data storage device comprises an interface for a charging station (paragraph 0027 discloses controller with interface for charging station as stated “The controller 26 may also interface or communicate with the charging station 20 to, for example, and without limitation, coordinate delivery of power to the vehicle 10.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Haider to incorporate the teaching of Wang about controller with interface for charging station. One would be motivated to do that to coordinate delivery of power to the vehicle (see paragraph 0027 of Wang).
Claim 12 is directed towards a method performed by the data storage device of claim 4. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 13 is directed towards a method performed by the data storage device of claim 4. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 16 is directed towards a method performed by the data storage device of claim 5. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 19 is directed towards a method performed by the data storage device of claim 6. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haidar in view of Jang et al. (US PGPUB No. US 20150200825 A1), hereinafter, Jang.
As to claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Haidar teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Haidar does not teach wherein the data storage device comprises a wake-up function.
Jang teaches wherein the data storage device comprises a wake-up function (paragraph 0033 discloses vehicle with wake-up function).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Haider to incorporate the teaching of Jang about wake-up function. One would be motivated to do that to activate electronic control units for necessary operation (see paragraph 0033 of Jang).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMAL M HOSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3070. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 M-F.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571)272-3964. 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.
July 22, 2026
/KAMAL M HOSSAIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights