DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to the application, filed December 31, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA
The present application was filed on March 20, 2024 which is on or after March 16, 2013, and thus is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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. Therefore, claims 15-20 are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 of this title, 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golov (US 2020/0156651 A1) in view of Beulshausen et al. (US 2017/0351456 A1) and further in view of Glendinning et al. (US 2023/0125616 A1) and further in view of Kojima et al. (US 2016/0070336 A1).
As per claim 1: A memory device, comprising:
a sensor configured to capture sensor data; and
Golov discloses [Fig. 1; 0037] a plurality of sensor modules that capture sensor data.
one or more components configured to:
obtain the sensor data;
Golov discloses [Fig. 1; 0037] the one or more sensors provide sensor data to a central processing device.
compare the sensor data to a threshold;
Golov discloses [0099] the vehicle uses sensor modules to detect various events and comparing sensor data to see if it exceeds a threshold.
detect, based on a comparison of the sensor data and the threshold, a potential incident associated with one or more of the memory device or a vehicle associated with the memory device; and
Golov discloses [0075] data from an accelerometer of the vehicle can indicate a rapid deceleration of the vehicle that exceeds a threshold. The data associated with the foregoing events of the vehicle can be collected by the memory device (detecting an incident associated with a vehicle associated with a memory device).
initiate, based on a detection of the potential incident, an emergency power shutdown of the memory device to prevent a loss of telemetry data associated with the memory device,
Golov discloses detecting potential incidents, but fails to explicitly disclose power shutdown of the memory device to prevent loss of data. Beulshausen discloses a similar system, which further teaches [0018, 0030] the memory receives data from the temperature sensor and can receive an interrupt form the temperatures sensors when a certain threshold temperature is reached. If the temperature data exceeds the threshold, the control unit sends a shutdown signal to the memory device to enter a write protect mode to preserve the data stored on the memory. The shutdown signal can also include causing the memory module to enter an off mode in which the memory module shuts down or powers down.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Golov with that of Beulshausen. One would have been motivated to initiate a shutdown of the memory device based on potential incident because it allows to preserve the data stored on the memory [Beulshausen; 0030].
the emergency power shutdown comprising initiating storage of the telemetry data to non-volatile memory of the memory device.
Golov and Beulshausen disclose initiating power shutdown of the memory to prevent loss of data, but fail to explicitly disclose the power shutdown initiating storage of the telemetry data. Glendinning discloses a similar system, which further teaches [0068] when a trigger condition is received, such as a power shutdown or restart event, it is checked whether the telemetry data is already collected. If the telemetry data has not been collected, the telemetry data is collected then.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Golov and Beulshausen with that of Glendinning. One would have been motivated to initiate storage of the telemetry data because it allows to capture the current state of the computer system before the trigger event [Glendinning; 0025].
Golov, Beulshausen, and Glendinning disclose initiating power shutdown of the memory to prevent data loss and initiating storage of the telemetry data, but fail to explicitly disclose power interruption initiates storage of data to non-volatile memory (from volatile memory) of the memory device. Kojima discloses a similar system, which further teaches [0002-0004; 0085-0086; Fig. 3] data residing in a volatile write buffer before a case where sudden power shut down has occurred. In the memory system, therefore, data in volatile memory is written into nonvolatile memory by using a backup power source.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Golov, Beulshausen, and Glendinning with that of Kojima. One would have been motivated to initiate data to non-volatile memory after emergency power interruption because it allow to provide data protection when sudden power shutdown has occurred [Kojima; 0016].
As per claim 2: The memory device of claim 1, wherein the sensor is an accelerometer integrated with the memory device, and wherein the sensor data is accelerometer data.
Golov discloses [Fig. 2; 0004] combining a plurality of sensors into multi-sensor combinations with on-board processing and memory.
As per claim 3: The memory device of claim 1, wherein the threshold is one or more of a first threshold or a second threshold, wherein the first threshold is associated with an acceleration of the vehicle, and wherein the second threshold is associated with a deceleration of the vehicle.
Golov discloses [0083] one or more sensor modules configured to collect information such as speed, vehicle acceleration, braking force, braking deceleration, and the like. Golov further discloses [0099] the sensor modules detect various events that could exceed a threshold. Therefore, it is clear that each sensor module would have its own threshold to detect an event.
As per claim 4: The memory device of claim 1, wherein the sensor is a temperature sensor integrated with the memory device, and wherein the sensor data is temperature data.
Beulshausen discloses [Fig. 2; 0030] the temperature sensor is integrated with the memory module.
As per claim 5: The memory device of claim 1, wherein the one or more components are configured to initiate the emergency power shutdown of the memory device without waiting for a power loss signal from a power loss protection circuit associated with the memory device.
Beulshausen discloses [0030] the shutdown signal can also include causing the memory module to enter an off mode in which the memory module shuts down or powers down.
As per claim 6: The memory device of claim 1, wherein the telemetry data includes one or more of audio data or video data associated with the vehicle.
Golov discloses [0084] capturing video data from camera sensors associated with the vehicle.
As per claim 7: The memory device of claim 1, wherein the one or more components, to initiate the emergency power shutdown of the memory device, are configured to: terminate an ongoing memory operation to prevent the loss of data; or complete the ongoing memory operation prior to an expected occurrence of an actual incident.
Beulshausen discloses [0030] the memory receives data from the temperature sensor and can receive an interrupt form the temperatures sensors when a certain threshold temperature is reached. If the temperature data exceeds the threshold, the control unit sends a shutdown signal to the memory device to enter a write protect mode to preserve the data stored on the memory. The shutdown signal can also include causing the memory module to enter an off mode in which the memory module shuts down or powers down.
As per claims 8-14: Although claims 8-14 are directed towards a method claim, they are rejected under the same rationale as the device claims 1-7 above.
As per claims 15-20: Although claims 15-20 are directed towards an apparatus claim, they are rejected under the same rationale as the device claims 1-7 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is cited to establish the level of skill in the applicant’s art and those arts considered reasonably pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See MPEP 707.05(c).
· US 2016/0284402 A1 – Kanai discloses the controller detects abnormality in power supplied from the power supply to the memory device and writes the data into nonvolatile memory using the power supplied from the power storage.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIGAR P PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-5067. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 10AM-6PM.
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, Ashish Thomas, can be reached on 571-272-0631. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/JIGAR P PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114