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 .
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.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 28th, 2024 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “event detector” in Claims 1 and 10, “event manager” in Claims 1 and 4-5, and “interface manager” in Claims 1 and 5-7.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-7 and 10 (along with Claims 2 and 8-9 by nature of their dependency) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
The terms “event detector” in Claims 1 and 10, “event manager” in Claims 1 and 4-5, and “interface manager” in Claims 1 and 5-7 lack definitive structure which renders these claims indefinite. The terms “event detector”, “event manager”, and “interface manager” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, standard, or structure, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the same stream identifier". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 3 is dependent upon Claim 2, which is further dependent upon Claim 1, and none of these claims introduce or define a “stream identifier”.
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.
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 1-8 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Natanzon (US Patent No. 10,909,782 B1) in view of Goldfarb et al. (EP Patent No. 3 485 421 B1), herein “Goldfarb”.
Regarding Claims 1 and 17, Natanzon discloses an electronic device and a method of operating an electronic device configured to be mounted on an autonomous vehicle (See Col. 1 Lines 49-67, “[…] provide a context and risk-based data management system for vehicle EDR data […] an information processing system comprising at least one vehicle wherein the at least one vehicle comprises an event data recorder and a data management module resident in the at least one vehicle […]”), comprising:
a first interface circuit configured to communicate with a plurality of storage devices (See Col. 4 Lines 55-60, “[…] an EDR data management system that is part of a vehicle writes data synchronously to an on-vehicle EDR, and any data written the on-vehicle EDR is replicated asynchronously over network 104 […] to the data recorder storage platform 105.”);
a second interface circuit configured to communicate with a plurality of zones of the autonomous vehicle (See Col. 6 Lines 11-15, “[…] sensors used in connection with determining vehicle characteristics, environment and/or collisions. Data from the sensors 220 is written to the EDR 230 during operation of the vehicle 202 and/or before, during and after an event, such as an accident.” Examiner notes sensors determine vehicle characteristics and collisions; therefore, the sensor data represents the zones of the vehicle);
an event detector configured to output an event signal in response to detecting event data received through the second interface circuit (See Col. 7 Lines 62-66, “The data management module 240 includes a network detection component 246 to determine whether there is an available network connection that can be maintained to transfer EDR data from the EDR 230 to the data recorder storage platform […]” See also Col. 10 Lines 50-53, “[…] evaluating comprises assigning a value to each of the plurality of data elements. The value of a data element is based on whether the data element has been determined to at least contribute to a vehicle event […]” Examiner notes the value of a data element being based on contribution to a vehicle event, and being further transferred to the storage platform from the event data recorder (EDR), is the same as an event signal being output in response to detecting event data);
an event manager configured to output a data division signal in response to the event signal (See Col. 6 Lines 32-33, “The data management module 240 includes a data evaluation component 242 […]” See also Col. 10 Lines 33-39, “[…] each of the plurality of data elements is evaluated, for example, using a data evaluation component 242 of the data management module 240, to determine which of the plurality of data elements to maintain in a memory region (e.g., storage component 234) of the event data recorder and which of the plurality of data elements to delete from the memory region […]” Examiner notes the data evaluation component determining which data elements are to be maintained and which are to be deleted is the same as dividing the initial signal).
But does not explicitly disclose an interface manager configured to: divide the event data into a plurality of data fragments in response to the data division signal, allocate the plurality of data fragments to two or more storage devices among the plurality of storage devices, respectively, and control the first interface circuit such that the plurality of data fragments are respectively transmitted to the allocated two or more storage devices.
Goldfarb, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches an interface manager configured to: divide the event data into a plurality of data fragments in response to the data division signal, allocate the plurality of data fragments to two or more storage devices among the plurality of storage devices, respectively, and control the first interface circuit such that the plurality of data fragments are respectively transmitted to the allocated two or more storage devices (See 0006, “[…] segmenting, with one or more processors, a first value in the first subset of values into a plurality of segments, each segment having a subset of information in the first value and different segments having different subsets of the information in the first value […] instructing, with one or more processors, via a network, a first computing device to store a first subset of segments among the plurality of segments in memory […] a second computing device to store a second subset of segments among the plurality of segments in memory […] the second computing device does not have access to the first subset of segments; and causing, with one or more processors, the relational database to store the second subset of the values and one or more pointers to at least some of the segments […]” Examiner notes the first and second computing devices allocate their respective subsets of data segments into their respective segments of memory, which are distinct from each other since the second computing device does not access the first subset of segments).
In view of Goldfarb’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the electronic data management system mounted on an autonomous vehicle for detecting events and managing data storage as disclosed by Natanzon, a process for fragmenting data and distributing fragments across multiple storage nodes, with a reasonable expectation of success, since the data management system already includes the necessary electronic components and communication channels to establish data fragmentation, and integrating known event-driven logic with multi-device fragment storage architecture results in predictable improvements in system reliability, throughput and fault tolerance.
Regarding Claim 2, Natanzon does not explicitly disclose the electronic device of Claim 1, wherein the plurality of data fragments are divided in units of reference data size and are written in event data spaces respectively included in the two or more storage devices.
Goldfarb, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the plurality of data fragments are divided in units of reference data size and are written in event data spaces respectively included in the two or more storage devices (See 0006 as referenced above. Examiner notes the data fragments between the first and second subset of segments are distinct and differentiated by data size, and since each computing device stores their respective data segment into a respective segment of memory, it is the same as event data spaces included in the storage devices).
In view of Goldfarb’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the electronic data management system mounted on an autonomous vehicle for detecting events and managing data storage as disclosed by Natanzon, a process for fragmenting data and distributing fragments across multiple storage nodes on the basis of reference data size, with a reasonable expectation of success, since the data management system already includes the necessary electronic components and communication channels to establish data fragmentation using reference data size, and integrating known event-driven logic with multi-device fragment storage architecture results in predictable improvements in system reliability, throughput and fault tolerance.
Regarding Claim 3, Natanzon does not explicitly disclose the electronic device of Claim 2, wherein the first interface circuit adds the same stream identifier to each of the plurality of data fragments.
Goldfarb, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the first interface circuit adds the same stream identifier to each of the plurality of data fragments (See 0026-0028, “[…] based on a prefix or suffix of a hash based on the data or identifiers of data to the appropriate computing device or host. For instance, some embodiments may implement a load balancer that routes requests to storage compute nodes 26 based on a prefix of a node identifier […] records may be mapped to the below-describe segment identifiers (or other pointers, such as other node identifiers) in the secure distributed storage 16.” See also 0069, “[…] the identifier may be a segment identifier of the type described below, or in some cases the identifier may be an identifier within a namespace of the directed acyclic graph […] the identifier may be arranged hierarchically […] the identifier of a node is content-base […]”).
In view of Goldfarb’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the electronic data management system mounted on an autonomous vehicle for detecting events and managing data storage as disclosed by Natanzon, providing identifiers across each segment of a multi-segment value, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it would enable downstream reconstruction, indexing, or grouping of related data fragments, which enhances traceability of distributed storage.
Regarding Claim 4, Natanzon does not explicitly disclose the electronic device of Claim 2, wherein the event manager is further configured to:
generate combined event data through a combination of the data fragments stored in the event data spaces; and
transmit the combined event data to a spare storage device among the plurality of storage devices.
Goldfarb, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the event manager is further configured to:
generate combined event data through a combination of the data fragments stored in the event data spaces (See 0099, “When an application or resource requests the reassembly of fragmented data, an arbiter (or other piece of middleware) is supplied with the TXID (or other node identifier) of the first byte of the data […] the arbiter or middleware respond to the application with the resultant unfragmented datum.” See also 0184, “[…] by scattering (e.g., breaking up into segments and distributing) files into one or more blockchains, some embodiments are able to provide immutable and distributed properties to files. Further, since the files are distributed, in some embodiments, there is an application that reassembles the files.”); and
transmit the combined event data to a spare storage device among the plurality of storage devices (See 0099 and 0184 as referenced above).
In view of Goldfarb’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the electronic data management system mounted on an autonomous vehicle for detecting events and managing data storage as disclosed by Natanzon, the retrieval of fragmented data from multiple storage devices and transmitting a combination of the fragmented data, with a reasonable expectation of success, since this is a well-known application of distributed-storage redundancy, and would provide predictable improvements in data reliability and recovery.
Regarding Claims 5 and 18, Natanzon further discloses the electronic device of Claim 1 and method of Claim 17, wherein the event manager is configured to output a monitoring signal based on the event signal (See Col. 7 Line 62 to Col. 8 Line 13, “[…] to determine whether there is an available network connection that can be maintained to transfer EDR data from the EDR 230 to the data recorder storage platform […] If there is an available network connection […] part of the EDR […] can serve as a buffer for the remote replication of less important data […] the data that would have been transferred is valued relatively low, and may be deleted in favor of data determined to be more valuable […] data management module 240 can make a determination to transfer data determined to be of relatively higher value […]”);
wherein the electronic device further comprises a workload analyzer configured to identify an available capacity of each of the plurality of storage devices in response to the monitoring signal (See Col. 6 Lines 41-46, “In a situation where replication is prevented due to network connectivity from the vehicle 202 to the data recorder storage platform 105 being intermittent or unavailable, and free storage space being limited or not available on the storage component 234, the data evaluation component 242 determines the relative importance of EDR data.”);
wherein the interface manager divides the event data into the plurality of data fragments based on the available capacity of each of the plurality of storage devices (See Col. 6, Col. 7 and Col. 8 as referenced above); and
(per Claim 18 only) wherein the transmitting includes transmitting the plurality of data fragments in parallel to the two or more storage devices (See Col. 6, Col. 7 and Col. 8 as referenced above. See also Col. 11 Lines 46-51, “[…] the ordering of the process steps may be varied […] or certain steps may be performed at least in part concurrently with one another rather than serially […] one or more of the process steps may be repeated periodically, or multiple instances of the process can be performed in parallel with one another.”).
Regarding Claims 6 and 19, Natanzon further discloses the electronic device of Claim 5 and method of Claim 18, wherein the workload analyzer is further configured to identify states of a plurality of queues respectively corresponding to the plurality of storage devices in response to the monitoring signal (See Col. 6, Col. 7 and Col. 8 as referenced above); and
wherein the interface manager is configured to divide the event data into the plurality of data fragments based on the available capacity of each of the plurality of storage devices (See Col. 6, Col. 7 and Col. 8 as referenced above).
Regarding Claims 7 and 20, Natanzon further discloses the electronic device of Claim 1 and method of Claim 17, wherein the interface manager is configured to: identify a type of the event data, and set a priority of the plurality of data fragments to a highest value in response to the event data being identified to be of a first type (See Col. 6, Col. 7, Col. 8 and Col. 10 as referenced above. See also Col. 12 Lines 33-30, “[…] the embodiments of the present invention advantageously provide a data management system that accounts for different data types and their effect on vehicle events […]” Examiner notes the data management module determines and sets priorities by assigning value to data segments based on contribution to a vehicle event, along with different types of data from the EDR that may determine risk and provide context to the event); and
(per Claim 20 only) changing an order of transmitting the plurality of data fragments to the two or more storage devices based on the priority (See Col. 6, Col. 7, Col. 8 and Col. 10 as referenced above. See also Col. 6 Lines 65-66, “The valuation of specific data may also change due to one or more events.”).
Regarding Claim 8, Natanzon further discloses the electronic device of Claim 7, wherein the first interface circuit is configured to change an order of data to be transmitted to each of the plurality of storage devices based on the priority (See Col. 6, Col. 7, Col. 8 and Col. 10 as referenced above. See also Col. 6 Lines 65-66, “The valuation of specific data may also change due to one or more events.” Examiner notes the order of writing or transmitting data based on priority is supported, and can also be changed in response to different event-data types that may be assigned a higher priority or value).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Natanzon (US Patent No. 10,909,782 B1) in view of Goldfarb et al. (EP Patent No. 3 485 421 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Haler (US Patent Pub. No. 2016/0236621 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, neither Natanzon nor Goldfarb explicitly teach the electronic device of Claim 1, wherein the second interface circuit includes an Ethernet interface.
Haler, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the second interface circuit includes an Ethernet interface (See 0006, “[…] a vehicle-mounted video and audio recording system using distributed processing, including encoding the video and audio at their source(s), and a high-speed, e.g., Ethernet, bus connecting the various system components and external devices.”).
In view of Haler’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the electronic data management system mounted on an autonomous vehicle for detecting events and managing data storage as disclosed by Natanzon, Ethernet-based sensor interfaces, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Ethernet is the dominant standard for high-bandwidth automotive sensor networks, and integrating this interface into the event data management system enables higher throughput and interoperability with existing vehicle sensor stacks.
Regarding Claim 10, neither Natanzon nor Goldfarb explicitly teach the electronic device of Claim 9, wherein the event detector is configured to identify the event data based on at least one of fields included in a packet received through the second interface circuit.
Haler, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the event detector is configured to identify the event data based on at least one of fields included in a packet received through the second interface circuit (See 0041, “[…] the system 10 records constantly in a loop of a selected duration of time, such as thirty seconds or sixty seconds, so that when an event triggers recording, the events occurring shortly prior to the initiation of recording are also recorded and stored.” Examiner notes the system received multiple video streams from cameras over the network link, and implies that incoming data packets, the video frames, over the network are inspected and used to trigger the recording).
In view of Haler’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the electronic data management system mounted on an autonomous vehicle for detecting events and managing data storage as disclosed by Natanzon, the reception of packet-based sensor data over Ethernet, with a reasonable expectation of success, since using packet metadata to identify event-related information is a known method for improving detection accuracy and reducing latency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Malladi et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2021/0311871 A1); Tsukada (JP Patent Pub 2006-67172 A)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bryant Tang whose telephone number is (571)270-0145. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 CST.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571)272-4876. 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.
/BRYANT TANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights