DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the above identified application filed on January 16, 2024. The application contains claims 1-9.
Claims 1-9 are pending
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 .
Priority
The present application is a National Stage entry of PCT/JP2022/010591, International Filing Date: 03/10/2022, claiming foreign priority to 2021-123550, filed 07/28/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on January 16, 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The following limitations in claim 1 are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
“a calculation unit that calculates output data based on input data”: a generic placeholder “unit” is modified by functional language “calculates output data”, and the labeling of it a “calculation unit” does not provide any structure.
“a data management unit that manages data stored in the storage unit”: a generic placeholder “unit” is modified by functional language “manages data”, and the labeling of it a “data management unit” does not provide any structure.
“a log collection unit that collects a log in the in-vehicle processing device and outputs the log to outside”: a generic placeholder “unit” is modified by functional language “collects a log … and outputs the log”, and the labeling of it a “log collection unit” does not provide any structure.
The language of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) requires that the recited "means" for performing the specified function shall be construed to cover the corresponding "structure or material" described in the specification and equivalents thereof. Therefore, by choosing to use a means-plus-function limitation and invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant limits that claim limitation to the disclosed structure, i.e., implementation by hardware or the combination of hardware and software, and equivalents thereof.
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.
The 2019 PEG guidance for subject matter eligibility is applied in the following analyses:
At Step 1
The inventions of claims 1-5 are directed to the statutory categories of a machine. Thus, the claimed invention is directed to statutory subject matter.
At Step 2A, Prong One
Claim 1 recites abstract ideas in the following limitations:
“a calculation unit that calculates output data based on input data”. As discussed above, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f), and the recited "unit" for performing the specified function shall be construed to cover the corresponding "structure or material" described in the specification and equivalents thereof. Paragraph [0022] of the specification tells us this is an application executed on a CPU and that the actual algorithm that “calculates output data” is either a mental process “determines the execution timing … on the basis of information of the execution scheduling and the number of threads set in advance” or an actual numeric calculation based on those same parameters. Therefore, this limitation may be characterized as a mental process except for the recitation of generic computer components that are “apply it”.
“a data management unit that manages data stored in the storage unit”. As discussed above, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f), and the recited "unit" for performing the specified function shall be construed to cover the corresponding "structure or material" described in the specification and equivalents thereof. Paragraphs [0024]-[0025] of the specification tell us various aspects of what “manage data” entails, but this includes “controls data input/output between different applications”, “write and read operations described later under the ring buffer control of the data management unit 104”, and “sets input data from the sensor input unit 101 and output data to the actuator output unit 103 as targets of write and read operations of the ring buffer.” The BRI of at least the “sets … as targets” is a mental process. The generic computer components described in the specification paragraph [0096] are “apply it”.
At Step 2A, Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite the additional elements of:
“An in-vehicle processing device mounted in a vehicle” may be characterized as generally linking the abstract idea to a technological area – auto industry, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
“a storage unit that stores data” may be characterized as insignificant extra-solution activity, particularly data storing, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
“a log collection unit that collects a log in the in-vehicle processing device and outputs the log to outside” may be characterized as is insignificant data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
“wherein the data management unit inputs data stored in the storage unit to the calculation unit as the input data and stores the output data output from the calculation unit in the storage unit” further defines the management unit. Because transferring data as an intermediary unit does not meaningfully limit any of the identified abstract ideas, this limitation may be insignificant extra-solution activity, particularly data manipulation or transferring, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
“the log collection unit refers to and acquires data stored in the storage unit and outputs the data as the log to the outside” further defines the log collection unit. Because transferring data as an intermediary unit does not meaningfully limit any of the identified abstract ideas, this limitation may be insignificant extra-solution activity, particularly data manipulation or transferring, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
At Step 2B
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above the additional elements constitute a high-level recitation of a generic computer components which represent mere instructions to apply on a computer, generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and insignificant extra-solution activities including preliminary data gathering and post-solution activity.
As per MPEP 2106.05(II), at Step 2B the conclusions for these additional elements under MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h) from Step 2A Prong Two are carried over and they do not provide significantly more. The additional elements from Step 2A Prong Two considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g) are re-evaluated as follows:
“a storage unit that stores data” is claimed at a high level of generality and as insignificant extra-solution activities. The courts have found these functions as well understood and routine activities, see MPEP 2106.05(d) [Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93].
“a log collection unit that collects a log in the in-vehicle processing device and outputs the log to outside” is claimed at a high level of generality and as insignificant data gathering, and well understood, routine and conventional at Step 2B as per the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) as iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);”
“wherein the data management unit inputs data stored in the storage unit to the calculation unit as the input data and stores the output data output from the calculation unit in the storage unit” and “the log collection unit refers to and acquires data stored in the storage unit and outputs the data as the log to the outside” are claimed at a high level of generality and as insignificant data manipulation or transferring. The courts have found these functions as well understood and routine activities, see MPEP 2106.05(d) [Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)].
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements do not provide an inventive concept or significantly more.
Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-5 each recite additional elements of data storage, data gathering, or data transferring. These functions do not meaningfully limit the abstract idea recited in “calculate” and “manage” data in claim 1. They constitute insignificant extra-solution activity, in Step 2A Prong Two analysis, see MPEP 2106.05(g). In Step 2B analysis, the additional elements are well understood, routine, and conventional under 2106.05(d)(ii) as discussed with respect to independent claim 1 above.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-5 are also rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OSAWA et al. (US 20210146946 A1).
With regard to claim 1,
OSAWA teaches
an in-vehicle processing device mounted in a vehicle (Abstract; Fig. 2: the information collection device 10 corresponds to “an in-vehicle processing device”), the in-vehicle processing device comprising:
a calculation unit that calculates output data based on input data (Fig. 2; [0069]-[0074]: the selection unit 12 selects information to be transmitted to the server device 20 from various types of information acquired by the acquisition unit 11 on the basis of the priorities determined by the determination unit 15. [0070]; [0073]-[0079]; [0083]; [0085]; [0087]; [0090]; [0092]; [0094]; [0096]; [0098]; [0101]-[0102]: the determination unit 15 determines the priority for information to be acquired by the acquisition unit 11 on the basis of a priority table retained in advance and the service or the like registered in the service management unit 14 and updates the selection table retained by the selection unit 12. The selection unit 12 and the determination unit 15 together correspond to “a calculation unit”);
a storage unit that stores data (Fig. 2; [0105]; [0107]-[0108]: the storage unit 17 corresponds to "a storage unit");
a data management unit that manages data stored in the storage unit (Fig. 2; [0105]-[0110]: the information management unit 16 reads information stored in the storage unit 17 and outputs the information to the control unit 13 in response to an instruction from the control unit 13 and also stores information output from the control unit 13 in the storage unit 17 in response to an instruction from the control unit 13. The control unit 13 further instructs the determination unit 15 to determine priorities on the basis of the service or the like registered in the service management unit 14 and also determines whether or not the information transmission to the server device 20 can be performed. The information management unit 16 and the control unit 13 together correspond to “a data management unit”); and
a log collection unit that collects … (data) in the in-vehicle processing device and outputs the … (data) to outside (Fig. 2; [0105]-[0110]: the control unit 13 acquires the information that the information management unit 16 has read from the storage unit 17 and outputs the information to the communication unit 18, wherein the control unit 13 also performs the functionality of “a log collection unit”),
wherein the data management unit inputs data stored in the storage unit to the calculation unit as the input data and stores the output data output from the calculation unit in the storage unit (Fig. 2; [0105]-[0110]: the information management unit 16 reads information stored in the storage unit 17 and outputs the information to the control unit 13, which passes the information along to the determination unit 15 and the selection unit 12 (“the calculation unit”), and also stores information output from the control unit 13 in the storage unit 17, wherein the information output from the control unit 13 is the output from the determination unit 15 and the selection unit 12 (“the calculation unit”)), and
the log collection unit refers to and acquires data stored in the storage unit and outputs the data as the … (data) to the outside (Fig. 2; [0105]-[0110]: the control unit 13 acquires the information that the information management unit 16 has read from the storage unit 17 and outputs the information to the communication unit 18).
OSAWA does not explicitly teach a log.
However, these differences are only found in the nonfunctional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. All the steps recited in the claim would be performed the same regardless of the data. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply the teachings of OSAWA to a log collection because such data does not functionally relate to the steps in the method claimed and because the data does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 2,
As discussed in claim 1, OSAWA teaches all the limitations therein.
OSAWA further teaches
the in-vehicle processing device according to claim 1, wherein the log collection unit refers to and acquires data meeting a predetermined log condition from data stored in the storage unit and managed by the data management unit and outputs the data as the log to the outside (Fig. 17; [0122]: the selection unit 12 selects information with the highest priority in a case where the priorities are different. The selection unit 12 outputs the selected information to the control unit 13, which in turn outputs the information to the communication unit 18 as discussed above. The highest priority is an example of “a predetermined log condition”).
With regard to claim 3,
As discussed in claim 2, OSAWA teaches all the limitations therein.
OSAWA further teaches
the in-vehicle processing device according to claim 2, wherein the storage unit stores a log selection table indicating the log condition, and the log collection unit determines whether the data stored in the storage unit meets the log condition indicated in the log selection table and starts outputting the log when determining that the data meets the log condition (Fig. 2; [0069]: the selection unit 12 selects information on the basis of the priorities in the selection table, a table in which information to be acquired by the acquisition unit 11 and the priority of the information are associated with each other, wherein the selection table corresponds to “a log selection table”).
With regard to claim 4,
As discussed in claim 1, OSAWA teaches all the limitations therein.
OSAWA further teaches
the in-vehicle processing device according to claim 1, wherein the data management unit includes a read mode for reading data stored in the storage unit and managing the data as read data (Fig. 2; [0105]: the information management unit 16 reads information stored in the storage unit 17 and outputs the information to the control unit 13 in response to an instruction from the control unit 13, i.e., "a read mode") and a snoop mode for referring to data stored in the storage unit and managing the data as referred data (Fig. 2; [0108]: the control unit 13 acquires the information that the information management unit 16 has read from the storage unit 17 from the information management unit 16 and outputs the information to the communication unit 18, i.e., "a snoop mode").
With regard to claim 5,
As discussed in claim 4, OSAWA teaches all the limitations therein.
OSAWA further teaches
the in-vehicle processing device according to claim 4, wherein the data management unit reads data stored in the storage unit from the storage unit by using the read mode, when the data is input as the input data to the calculation unit and refers to data stored in the storage unit from the storage unit by using the snoop mode when the log collection unit refers to and obtains the data (Fig. 2; [0105]; [0108]: the claim language does not clearly differentiate the two modes. Lacking technical specifics on the difference between a read mode and a snoop mode, these citations teach this limitation as well).
Claims 6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OSAWA et al. (US 20210146946 A1), and in view of Wu et al. (US 20180018999 A1).
With regard to claim 6,
As discussed in claim 4, OSAWA teaches all the limitations therein.
OSAWA does not teach
the in-vehicle processing device according to claim 4, wherein the data management unit determines, when a request for overwriting data stored in the storage unit is made, whether or not the data is the read data, holds the data without overwriting the data when the data is not the read data, and executes overwriting of the data regardless of whether or not the data is the referred data when the data is the read data.
Wu teaches
the in-vehicle processing device according to claim 4, wherein the data management unit determines, when a request for overwriting data stored in the storage unit is made, whether or not the data is the read data, holds the data without overwriting the data when the data is not the read data, and executes overwriting of the data regardless of whether or not the data is the referred data when the data is the read data ([0038]: the distance between the write pointer wptr and the read pointer rptr reaching the threshold (e.g., wptr==rptr−1) means that the write pointer wptr will catch up the read pointer rptr, which translates to the data is not read yet. Hence, the above distance determination corresponds to "determines ... whether or not the data is the read data". When that happens, the write controller 202 stops writing data of the video bitstream into the bitstream buffer 136 (step 406), i.e., “holds the data without overwriting …”; otherwise, the write controller 202 resumes writing data of the video bitstream into the bitstream buffer 136 (steps 404 and 408), i.e., “executes overwriting of the data …”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified OSAWA to incorporate the teachings of Wu to determine, when a request for overwriting data stored in the storage unit is made, whether or not the data is the read data, hold the data without overwriting the data when the data is not the read data, and execute overwriting of the data regardless of whether or not the data is the referred data when the data is the read data. Doing so would prevent the audio/video demultiplexing circuit from overwriting encoded video data that is not processed by the video decoder yet as taught by Wu ([0038]).
With regard to claim 8,
As discussed in claim 6, OSAWA and Wu teach all the limitations therein.
Wu further teaches
the in-vehicle processing device according to claim 6, wherein the data management unit manages the data as a ring buffer on the storage unit and manages a position in the ring buffer to be operated for the data by a combination of a cycle number representing a number of cycles of the ring buffer and an index number representing a storage position of the data in the ring buffer ([0030]; [0035]; [0052]; [0065]: a storage space of a small-sized ring buffer can be reused, such that the small-sized ring buffer may act as a large-sized buffer. A cycle number and an index number are inherent characteristics of the ring buffer).
With regard to claim 9,
As discussed in claim 8, OSAWA and Wu teach all the limitations therein.
Wu further teaches
the in-vehicle processing device according to claim 8, wherein the operation for the data includes a write operation for writing the data to the ring buffer, a read operation for reading the data from the ring buffer, and a reference operation for acquiring the data by referring to the ring buffer, and the data management unit calculates a distance between a position in the ring buffer in which the read operation is performed last and a position in the ring buffer in which the write operation is performed next based on the cycle number and the index number, determines whether or not the read operation is in a same cycle as the write operation based on the calculated distance, and determines an instruction of the write operation as a request for overwriting data that is not the read data and ignores the instruction when it is determined that the read operation is not in the same cycle as the write operation ([0038]: the read pointer rptr corresponds to “a read operation” and “a reference operation”, the write pointer wptr corresponds to “a write operation”, determinining the distance between the write pointer wptr and the read pointer rptr reaching the threshold (e.g., wptr==rptr−1) corresponds to “calculates a distance between … the read operation … and the write operation …”, stopping the write operation corresponds to “ignores the instruction …” after the process “determines … the write operation as a request for overwriting data that is not the read data and).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OSAWA et al. (US 20210146946 A1), and in view of Wu et al. (US 20180018999 A1), in further view of STEVENS et al. (US 20210303375 A1).
With regard to claim 7,
As discussed in claim 6, OSAWA and Wu teach all the limitations therein.
OSAWA and Wu do not teach
the in-vehicle processing device according to claim 6, wherein if overwriting of data that is the read data and is not the referred data is executed, the data management unit invalidates the data when the log collection unit refers to the data.
STEVENS teaches
the in-vehicle processing device according to claim 6, wherein if overwriting of data that is the read data and is not the referred data is executed, the data management unit invalidates the data when the log collection unit refers to the data ([0014]: in a ring buffer, for a given consumer, after obtaining data from the queue, the consumer can assess whether the location of that data has been overrun by the producer. If overrun, the data is discarded).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified OSAWA and Wu to incorporate the teachings of STEVENS to invalidate the data when the log collection unit refers to the data if overwriting of data that is the read data and is not the referred data is executed. Doing so would make each consumer monitor its own progress in multithreaded arrangements, rather than determining whether it is appropriate for a producer to write data into the queue and stalling the producer if such a write would overtake a consumer, thereby dispersing the overhead required to perform checks of valid data across the plurality of consumers as taught by STEVENS ([0014]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAOQIN HU whose telephone number is (571)272-1792. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:00am-3:30pm.
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, Charles Rones can be reached on (571) 272-4085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/XIAOQIN HU/Examiner, Art Unit 2168
/CHARLES RONES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights