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 Application
Claims 1-5 are pending.
Claims 1, 4, and 5 are independent.
Claims 1, 4, and 5 have been amended.
This NON-FINAL action is in response to “Amendments and Remarks” received on 23 January 2026.
Response to Amendment/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed 23 January 2026, Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and were not wholly persuasive. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Claims instruct a user to gather information, assign priority to information to allow writing, determine if there is sufficient space to write information, and filter data (i.e. delete data) according to assigned priority and available space. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea with no integration into a practical application.
With respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, there is a new ground(s) of rejection made in view of newly found prior art.
Non-Final Office Action
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 1-5 are 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 to an apparatus. Therefore, Claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 4 is directed to a process. Therefore, Claim 4 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 5 is directed to an apparatus (storage media). Therefore, Claim 5 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I 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 follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Claims 1, 4, and 5 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and Claim 1 will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections.
Claim 1 recites: An information processing device configured to control writing of data to a storage mounted on a vehicle by multiple applications, the device comprising:
processing circuitry, wherein
a storage area of the storage includes a shared area shared by multiple applications,
a priority for allowing writing of data to the shared area is set for each of the applications,
data of each of the applications includes transfer data to be transmitted to a data center and normal data different from the transfer data,
and the processing circuitry is configured to:
set a priority of writing of the transfer data to the shared area to be higher than a priority of writing of the normal data to the shared area so that the transfer data is stored in the shared area in preference to the normal data;
assign priorities for writing the normal data by adding a prescribed value to priorities for writing the transfer data, so that the priorities for writing the transfer data and the priorities for writing the normal data do not conflict with each other;
determine, in response to receiving a transfer data write request, whether an amount of available storage in the shared area is less than or equal to a prescribed value;
and delete data of the application having lowest priority from the shared area in response to determining that the amount of available storage of the shared area is less than or equal to the prescribed value.
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. Specifically, the “set a priority”, “determine”, and “delete steps encompass a user gather information, assign priority to information to allow writing, determine if there is sufficient space to write information, and filter data (i.e. delete data) according to assigned priority and available space. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II 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 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”):
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 limitations of “processing circuitry”, the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the “processing circuitry” is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the setting, determining, and deleting steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. Additionally, the circuitry is claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity and do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using processing circuitry. Furthermore, the examiner submits that the recitations of transfer data to be transmitted to a data center and normal data different from the transfer data, set a priority, determine if there is sufficient space to write information, and deleting information is a mere definition that does not necessarily impose any meaningful limits on performing the steps in the human mind, as it only compares data where a user could in fact perform this mentally or using paper and pencil. In addition to that, the examiner submits that writing of data and using processing circuitry, are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a processing circuitry to perform the process. In particular, the writing of data step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the determining step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
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. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a controller or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). 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.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent Claim 1 does 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 the apparatus, the processing circuitry amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of transfer data to be transmitted to a data center and normal data different from the transfer data and set a priority, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of priorities and data transfer are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the memory/storage devices from which the data is transferred are all conventional. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Further Claims 4 and 5 are not patent eligible for the same reasons.
Dependent Claims 2 and 3 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, if any, in the dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with Claims 1, 4, and 5.
Office Note: In order to overcome this rejection, the Office suggests further defining the limitations of the independent claims, for example linking the claimed subject matter to a non-generic device and controlling a vehicle with the transferred data. Limitations such as these suggested above would further bring the claimed subject matter out of the realm of abstract idea and into the realm of a statutory category.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagumo et al. (US 20210297521 A1), hereinafter Nagumo, in view of Kajiwara (US 20160023663 A1), and further in view of Hayes et al. (US 20160004479 A1), hereinafter Hayes.
Regarding claim 1, Nagumo discloses:
An information processing device configured to control writing of data to a storage mounted on a vehicle by multiple applications, the device comprising (Abstract, hands-free apparatus includes a memory and a hardware processor coupled to the memory, the hardware processor is configured to connect to a plurality of mobile phones; Fig. 1; [0002], hands-free apparatus, a method of data transfer, and a computer-readable medium):
processing circuitry, wherein (Fig. 2; Fig. 3; [0205], the reception unit, the hands-free telephone conversation connection unit, the data transfer control unit, the hands-free telephone conversation execution unit, and the display control unit are implemented by reading the computer program from the storage memory and executing it by the control unit, these functions may be implemented by a hardware circuit)
a storage area of the storage includes a shared area shared by multiple applications (Fig. 2; Abstract, hands-free apparatus includes a memory and a hardware processor coupled to the memory, the hardware processor is configured to connect to a plurality of mobile phones; [0047], the working memory is an outgoing call history data storage means, an incoming call history data storage means, and a data storage means referred to in the present embodiment and includes a volatile memory, the working memory stores therein the outgoing call history data, the incoming call history data, the missed call history data, and the phonebook data automatically transferred from the mobile phone without involving any user operation, the working memory can store therein five pieces each of the outgoing call history data, the incoming call history data, and the missed call history data, for example, the working memory is a random access memory (RAM); [0048], The storage memory includes a non-volatile memory and stores therein various kinds of data, the storage memory is a read only memory (ROM), the storage memory may be a writable storage medium such as a hard disk drive (HDD) or a flash memory),
a priority for allowing writing of data to the shared area is set for each of the applications (Fig. 6; Fig. 8; [0064], the data transfer control unit gives priority to data reception from the mobile phone that has started data transfer processing that had been started earlier; [0101], the reception unit receives registration of priorities of the data transfer of the mobile phones from the user),
and the processing circuitry is configured to (Fig. 2; Fig. 3; [0205], the reception unit, the hands-free telephone conversation connection unit, the data transfer control unit, the hands-free telephone conversation execution unit, and the display control unit are implemented by reading the computer program from the storage memory and executing it by the control unit, these functions may be implemented by a hardware circuit):
set a priority of writing of the transfer data to the shared area to be higher than a priority of writing of the normal data to the shared area so that the transfer data is stored in the shared area in preference to the normal data (Fig. 6; Fig. 8; [0064], the data transfer control unit gives priority to data reception from the mobile phone that has started data transfer processing that had been started earlier; [0101], the reception unit receives registration of priorities of the data transfer of the mobile phones from the user);
However, Nagumo does not specifically state:
data of each of the applications includes transfer data to be transmitted to a data center and normal data different from the transfer data,
assign priorities for writing the normal data by adding a prescribed value to priorities for writing the transfer data, so that the priorities for writing the transfer data and the priorities for writing the normal data do not conflict with each other;
determine, in response to receiving a transfer data write request, whether an amount of available storage in the shared area is less than or equal to a prescribed value;
and delete data of the application having lowest priority from the shared area in response to determining that the amount of available storage of the shared area is less than or equal to the prescribed value.
Kajiwara teaches:
data of each of the applications includes transfer data to be transmitted to a data center and normal data different from the transfer data (Kajiwara: Fig. 2; [0048], action information management server receives request information transmitted from the determination MCU; [0049], data server retains information used by the vehicle-mounted control system; [0037], communication module transmits information transmitted from the ECU to outside of the vehicle-mounted control system; [0053], storage means includes information indicating ID, time until facing situation, a factor, and a priority),
determine, in response to receiving a transfer data write request, whether an amount of available storage in the shared area is less than or equal to a prescribed value ([0177], In addition, a value of a "result" is used to manage data. For example, when the value of a "result" is below a prescribed threshold, the data server 41 may delete the data from the non-volatile storage means 30. Accordingly, the probability of data that is not used by the driver being stored in the volatile storage means 13 and the non-volatile storage means 30 can be reduced);
and delete data of the application having lowest priority from the shared area in response to determining that the amount of available storage of the shared area is less than or equal to the prescribed value ([0177], In addition, a value of a "result" is used to manage data. For example, when the value of a "result" is below a prescribed threshold, the data server 41 may delete the data from the non-volatile storage means 30. Accordingly, the probability of data that is not used by the driver being stored in the volatile storage means 13 and the non-volatile storage means 30 can be reduced).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kajiwara into the invention of Nagumo to include data to be transmitted to a data center as Kajiwara discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that optimizes the data stored in the volatile and non-volatile storage means (Kajiwara: [0144]). Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of priority-queued data transfer as disclosed by Nagumo and transmittal of data to a data center/server as taught by Kajiwara. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
However, Nagumo in view of Kajiwara does not specifically state:
assign priorities for writing the normal data by adding a prescribed value to priorities for writing the transfer data, so that the priorities for writing the transfer data and the priorities for writing the normal data do not conflict with each other;
Hayes teaches:
assign priorities for writing the normal data by adding a prescribed value to priorities for writing the transfer data, so that the priorities for writing the transfer data and the priorities for writing the normal data do not conflict with each other;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Hayes into the invention of Nagumo in view of Kajiwara to include assign priority to data by including a tag as Hayes discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that identifies data with high importance to transfer. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of priority-queued data transfer as disclosed by Nagumo in view of Kajiwara and assigning priority tags to data in a transfer queue taught by Hayes. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 2, Nagumo in view of Kajiwara and Hayes teaches:
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to execute writing of the transfer data to the shared area at specified intervals during operation of the processing circuitry (Nagumo: Fig. 16; [0194], upon completing PBAP connection, the control unit sets a timer value, decrements the timer value at prescribed time intervals and, upon determining that time is up according to the timer value, acquires the outgoing call history, incoming call history, missed call history, and phonebook data).
Regarding claim 3, Nagumo in view of Kajiwara and Hayes teaches:
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to execute writing of the transfer data to the shared area when an ignition switch of the vehicle is turned off (Nagumo: [0052], The hands-free apparatus described above is configured to start up and stop in conjunction with the on and off of an ACC switch (a switch turning on and off power supply to vehicle devices), when the ACC switch is switched from on to off in accordance with an operation by the user, for example, power supply to the hands-free apparatus is stopped, and consequently, its apparatus power supply shifts from on to off, various kinds of data stored in the storage memory immediately therebefore is not deleted (is stored)).
Regarding claim 4, Nagumo discloses:
An information processing method for controlling writing of data to a storage mounted on a vehicle by multiple applications, wherein (Abstract, hands-free apparatus includes a memory and a hardware processor coupled to the memory, the hardware processor is configured to connect to a plurality of mobile phones; Fig. 1; [0002], hands-free apparatus, a method of data transfer, and a computer-readable medium)
a storage area of the storage includes a shared area shared by multiple applications (Fig. 2; Abstract, hands-free apparatus includes a memory and a hardware processor coupled to the memory, the hardware processor is configured to connect to a plurality of mobile phones; [0047], The working memory is an outgoing call history data storage means, an incoming call history data storage means, and a data storage means referred to in the present embodiment and includes a volatile memory, the working memory stores therein the outgoing call history data, the incoming call history data, the missed call history data, and the phonebook data automatically transferred from the mobile phone without involving any user operation, the working memory can store therein five pieces each of the outgoing call history data, the incoming call history data, and the missed call history data, for example, the working memory is a random access memory (RAM); [0048], The storage memory includes a non-volatile memory and stores therein various kinds of data, the storage memory is a read only memory (ROM), the storage memory may be a writable storage medium such as a hard disk drive (HDD) or a flash memory),
a priority for allowing writing of data to the shared area is set for each of the applications (Fig. 6; Fig. 8; [0064], the data transfer control unit gives priority to data reception from the mobile phone that has started data transfer processing that had been started earlier; [0101], the reception unit receives registration of priorities of the data transfer of the mobile phones from the user),
and the information processing method comprises (Fig. 2; Fig. 3; [0205], the reception unit, the hands-free telephone conversation connection unit, the data transfer control unit, the hands-free telephone conversation execution unit, and the display control unit are implemented by reading the computer program from the storage memory and executing it by the control unit, these functions may be implemented by a hardware circuit.):
setting a priority of writing of the transfer data to the shared area to be higher than a priority of writing of the normal data to the shared area so that the transfer data is stored in the shared area in preference to the normal data (Fig. 6; Fig. 8; [0064], the data transfer control unit gives priority to data reception from the mobile phone that has started data transfer processing that had been started earlier; [0101], the reception unit receives registration of priorities of the data transfer of the mobile phones from the user);
However, Nagumo does not specifically state:
data of each of the applications includes transfer data to be transmitted to a data center and normal data different from the transfer data,
assign priorities for writing the normal data by adding a prescribed value to priorities for writing the transfer data, so that the priorities for writing the transfer data and the priorities for writing the normal data do not conflict with each other;
determining, in response to receiving a transfer data write request, whether an amount of available storage in the shared area is less than or equal to a prescribed value;
and deleting data of the application having lowest priority from the shared area in response to determining that the amount of available storage of the shared area is less than or equal to the prescribed value.
Kajiwara teaches:
data of each of the applications includes transfer data to be transmitted to a data center and normal data different from the transfer data (Fig. 2; [0048], action information management server receives request information transmitted from the determination MCU; [0049], data server retains information used by the vehicle-mounted control system; [0037], communication module transmits information transmitted from the ECU to outside of the vehicle-mounted control system; [0053], storage means includes information indicating ID, time until facing situation, a factor, and a priority),
determining, in response to receiving a transfer data write request, whether an amount of available storage in the shared area is less than or equal to a prescribed value ([0177], In addition, a value of a "result" is used to manage data. For example, when the value of a "result" is below a prescribed threshold, the data server 41 may delete the data from the non-volatile storage means 30. Accordingly, the probability of data that is not used by the driver being stored in the volatile storage means 13 and the non-volatile storage means 30 can be reduced);
and deleting data of the application having lowest priority from the shared area in response to determining that the amount of available storage of the shared area is less than or equal to the prescribed value ([0177], In addition, a value of a "result" is used to manage data. For example, when the value of a "result" is below a prescribed threshold, the data server 41 may delete the data from the non-volatile storage means 30. Accordingly, the probability of data that is not used by the driver being stored in the volatile storage means 13 and the non-volatile storage means 30 can be reduced).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kajiwara into the invention of Nagumo to include data to be transmitted to a data center as Kajiwara discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that optimizes the data stored in the volatile and non-volatile storage means (Kajiwara: [0144]). Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of priority-queued data transfer as disclosed by Nagumo and transmittal of data to a data center/server as taught by Kajiwara. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
However, Nagumo in view of Kajiwara does not specifically state:
assigning priorities for writing the normal data by adding a prescribed value to priorities for writing the transfer data, so that the priorities for writing the transfer data and the priorities for writing the normal data do not conflict with each other;
Hayes teaches:
assigning priorities for writing the normal data by adding a prescribed value to priorities for writing the transfer data, so that the priorities for writing the transfer data and the priorities for writing the normal data do not conflict with each other;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Hayes into the invention of Nagumo in view of Kajiwara to include assign priority to data by including a tag as Hayes discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that identifies data with high importance to transfer. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of priority-queued data transfer as disclosed by Nagumo in view of Kajiwara and assigning priority tags to data in a transfer queue taught by Hayes. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 5, Nagumo discloses:
A non-transitory storage medium storing an information processing program, the program being configured to cause a computer to execute a process of controlling writing of data to a storage mounted on a vehicle by multiple applications, wherein (Abstract, hands-free apparatus includes a memory and a hardware processor coupled to the memory, the hardware processor is configured to connect to a plurality of mobile phones; Fig. 1; [0002], hands-free apparatus, a method of data transfer, and a computer-readable medium; [0201], computer program executed by the hands-free apparatus may be recorded and provided on a computer readable storage recording medium)
a storage area of the storage includes a shared area shared by multiple applications (Fig. 2; Abstract, hands-free apparatus includes a memory and a hardware processor coupled to the memory, the hardware processor is configured to connect to a plurality of mobile phones; [0047], The working memory is an outgoing call history data storage means, an incoming call history data storage means, and a data storage means referred to in the present embodiment and includes a volatile memory, the working memory stores therein the outgoing call history data, the incoming call history data, the missed call history data, and the phonebook data automatically transferred from the mobile phone without involving any user operation, the working memory can store therein five pieces each of the outgoing call history data, the incoming call history data, and the missed call history data, for example, the working memory is a random access memory (RAM); [0048], The storage memory includes a non-volatile memory and stores therein various kinds of data, the storage memory is a read only memory (ROM), the storage memory may be a writable storage medium such as a hard disk drive (HDD) or a flash memory),
a priority for allowing writing of data to the shared area is set for each of the applications (Fig. 6; Fig. 8; [0064], the data transfer control unit gives priority to data reception from the mobile phone that has started data transfer processing that had been started earlier; [0101], the reception unit receives registration of priorities of the data transfer of the mobile phones from the user),
data of each of the applications includes transfer data to be transmitted to a data center and normal data different from the transfer data (Kajiwara: Fig. 2; [0048], action information management server receives request information transmitted from the determination MCU; [0049], data server retains information used by the vehicle-mounted control system; [0037], communication module transmits information transmitted from the ECU to outside of the vehicle-mounted control system; [0053], storage means includes information indicating ID, time until facing situation, a factor, and a priority),
and the information processing program is configured to (Fig. 2; Fig. 3; [0205], the reception unit, the hands-free telephone conversation connection unit, the data transfer control unit, the hands-free telephone conversation execution unit, and the display control unit are implemented by reading the computer program from the storage memory and executing it by the control unit, these functions may be implemented by a hardware circuit.):
set a priority of writing of the transfer data to the shared area to be higher than a priority of writing of the normal data to the shared area so that the transfer data is stored in the shared area in preference to the normal data (Fig. 6; Fig. 8; [0064], the data transfer control unit gives priority to data reception from the mobile phone that has started data transfer processing that had been started earlier; [0101], the reception unit receives registration of priorities of the data transfer of the mobile phones from the user);
However, Nagumo does not specifically state:
data of each of the applications includes transfer data to be transmitted to a data center and normal data different from the transfer data,
assign priorities for writing the normal data by adding a prescribed value to priorities for writing the transfer data, so that the priorities for writing the transfer data and the priorities for writing the normal data do not conflict with each other;
determine, in response to receiving a transfer data write request, whether an amount of available storage in the shared area is less than or equal to a prescribed value;
and delete data of the application having lowest priority from the shared area in response to determining that the amount of available storage of the shared area is less than or equal to the prescribed value.
Kajiwara teaches:
data of each of the applications includes transfer data to be transmitted to a data center and normal data different from the transfer data (Fig. 2; [0048], action information management server receives request information transmitted from the determination MCU; [0049], data server retains information used by the vehicle-mounted control system; [0037], communication module transmits information transmitted from the ECU to outside of the vehicle-mounted control system; [0053], storage means includes information indicating ID, time until facing situation, a factor, and a priority),
determine, in response to receiving a transfer data write request, whether an amount of available storage in the shared area is less than or equal to a prescribed value ([0177], In addition, a value of a "result" is used to manage data. For example, when the value of a "result" is below a prescribed threshold, the data server 41 may delete the data from the non-volatile storage means 30. Accordingly, the probability of data that is not used by the driver being stored in the volatile storage means 13 and the non-volatile storage means 30 can be reduced);
and delete data of the application having lowest priority from the shared area in response to determining that the amount of available storage of the shared area is less than or equal to the prescribed value ([0177], In addition, a value of a "result" is used to manage data. For example, when the value of a "result" is below a prescribed threshold, the data server 41 may delete the data from the non-volatile storage means 30. Accordingly, the probability of data that is not used by the driver being stored in the volatile storage means 13 and the non-volatile storage means 30 can be reduced).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kajiwara into the invention of Nagumo to include data to be transmitted to a data center as Kajiwara discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that optimizes the data stored in the volatile and non-volatile storage means (Kajiwara: [0144]). Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of priority-queued data transfer as disclosed by Nagumo and transmittal of data to a data center/server as taught by Kajiwara. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
However, Nagumo in view of Kajiwara does not specifically state:
assign priorities for writing the normal data by adding a prescribed value to priorities for writing the transfer data, so that the priorities for writing the transfer data and the priorities for writing the normal data do not conflict with each other;
Hayes teaches:
assign priorities for writing the normal data by adding a prescribed value to priorities for writing the transfer data, so that the priorities for writing the transfer data and the priorities for writing the normal data do not conflict with each other;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Hayes into the invention of Nagumo in view of Kajiwara to include assign priority to data by including a tag as Hayes discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that identifies data with high importance to transfer. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of priority-queued data transfer as disclosed by Nagumo in view of Kajiwara and assigning priority tags to data in a transfer queue taught by Hayes. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Documents Considered but Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Kim (US 20230120263 A1) discloses an electronic system including a host and a memory system wherein information is requested and transferred according to schedulers and priority data. Monta et al. (US 20230305719 A1) discloses a data storage system mounted on a moving body wherein the storage system includes a plurality of ECUs, a shared storage device, and a priority controller that controls an order of priority in which data is written into the shared storage device from each of the plurality of ECUs.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IZCALLI ANDRE RIOS-AGUIRRE whose telephone number is (571)272-0790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30 - 17:00 EST.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/I.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666