DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending. This is in response to the application filed on 6/5/2024 which is a continuation of Patent Application No. 16/738,183, filed on January 9, 2020, granted as Patent No. 11,677,568, which claims the benefit of the Korean Patent Application No. 10-2019-0002568, filed on January 9, 2019. This application is also a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/309,928, filed on May 1, 2023, granted as Patent No. 12,132,845.
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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11677568. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both recite similar features as follows:
Claim 1 claim 1 of Patent 11677568
transmitting a first message containing a first certificate and vehicle-recorded data to a first database server associated with a first database so as to store the vehicle-recorded data anonymously in the first database, wherein the first certificate is one of a plurality of short-term certificates assigned to the vehicle to enable an anonymization of the vehicle; and
transmitting a second message containing the first certificate and a second certificate to a second database server associated with a second database so as to store an association of the first certificate with the vehicle in the second database, wherein the second certificate is a long-term certificate assigned to the vehicle and enables an identification of the vehicle
transmitting the event data and the first certificate to a first database server associated with the first database…the event data having been recorded by an event data recorder equipped in the vehicle and the first certificate being one of a plurality of short-term certificates assigned to the vehicle; anonymizing the event data with a pseudonym extracted from the first certificate; and
transmitting the first certificate and the second certificate to a second database server associated with the second database; wherein the first message and the second message are received from the vehicle by an acquisition server and wherein the acquisition server transmits the event data and the first certificate to the first database server and transmits the first certificate and the second certificate to the second database server…
the second certificate being a long-term certificate assigned to the vehicle; associating the first certificate with the second certificate by associating a unique identifier of the vehicle contained in the second certificate
Claims 2-8 are rejected as being dependent to claim 1.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11677568. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both recite similar features as presented in the above rejection.
Claims 10-16 are rejected as being dependent to claim 9.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11677568. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both recite similar features as presented in the above claim 1 rejection.
Claims 18-20 are rejected as being dependent to claim 17.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12132845. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both recite similar features as follows:
Claim 1 claim 1 of Patent 12132845
transmitting a first message containing a first certificate and vehicle-recorded data to a first database server associated with a first database so as to store the vehicle-recorded data anonymously in the first database, wherein the first certificate is one of a plurality of short-term certificates assigned to the vehicle to enable an anonymization of the vehicle; and
transmitting a second message containing the first certificate and a second certificate to a second database server associated with a second database so as to store an association of the first certificate with the vehicle in the second database, wherein the second certificate is a long-term certificate assigned to the vehicle and enables an identification of the vehicle
transmitting, by the data collection server, the anonymized event data to a first database server associated with a first database so as to store the anonymized event data in the first database… and the first certificate being one of a plurality of short-term certificates assigned to the vehicle; anonymizing, by the data collection server, the event data with a pseudonym extracted from the first certificate; and
transmitting, by the data collection server, the first certificate and the second certificate to a second database server associated with a second database so as to store the first certificate and the second certificate associated with the first certificate in the second database, wherein the first certificate is associated with the second certificate by associating a unique identifier of the vehicle contained in the second certificate and the pseudonym contained in the first certificate
Claims 2-8 are rejected as being dependent to claim 1.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12132845. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both recite similar features as presented in the above claim 1 rejection.
Claims 10-16 are rejected as being dependent to claim 9.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12132845. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both recite similar features as presented in the above claim 1 rejection.
Claims 18-20 are rejected as being dependent to claim 17.
This is an anticipatory rejection.
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, 4-5 and 7-9, 12-13 and 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pub CN111200495A (hereinafter Zhu) in view of Pub 20170187994 (hereinafter Tatourian)
Regarding claim 1, Zhu discloses a method performed by a vehicle, the method comprising:
transmitting a first message containing a first certificate and vehicle-recorded data to a first database server associated with a first database so as to store the vehicle-recorded data anonymously in the first database, wherein the first certificate is one of a plurality of short-term certificates assigned to the vehicle to enable an anonymization of the vehicle (par. [0133], [0144]-[0145] discloses an abnormal behavior detection server receives a message from a vehicle, the location of the vehicle. The abnormal behavior detection server obtains a plurality of short term certificates for the vehicle from the short-term certificate issuing server). Zhu does not disclose about anonymization of the vehicle using short-term certificates. Tatourian discloses this feature (par, [0030]). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhu with Tatourian to further teach the claimed feature. One would have done so to maintain the privacy of the in-vehicle compute system as disclosed in Tatourian; and
transmitting a second message containing the first certificate and a second certificate to a second database server associated with a second database so as to store an association of the first certificate with the vehicle in the second database, wherein the second certificate is a long-term certificate assigned to the vehicle and enables an identification of the vehicle (par. [0157] and [0202] discloses a relationship between a long-term certificate and a short-term certificate for a vehicle and the short-term certificate saved in an AA server (e.g. second database)). Zhu discloses the long-term certificate is used for identification.
Regarding claims 4-5, Tatourian discloses wherein the first message further contains a geographical location at which the vehicle records the vehicle-recorded data
wherein the vehicle-recorded data includes event data having been recorded by an event data recorder equipped in the vehicle (Fig. 6 and related text discloses a vehicle can send requested metadata such as location time). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhu with Tatourian to further teach the claimed features. One would have done so to arrive at the claimed invention using known process of sending data during a traffic accident to arrive at the claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 7-8, Zhu discloses wherein the first database server and the second database server are under managed by different operators wherein the first database server is managed by a vehicle manufacturer, and the second server is managed by a service provider different from the vehicle manufacturer (recalling the citation of Zhu in claim 1 teaches the short-term certificate obtained by an abnormal behavior detection server and the long-term certificate in an AA server which is well-known as a separate entity to provide authorization and authentication. Furthermore, par. [0154]-[0203] disclose the abnormal behavior detection server and the AA server are different entities in different regions).
Claims 9, 12-13 and 15-16 are rejected in view of claims 1, 4-5 and 7-8 rejections respectively.
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected in view of claims 1 and 8 rejections respectively.
Claims 2-3, 10-11 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Tatourian and further in view of Patent 10771265 (hereinafter Simplicio)
Regarding claim 2, Zhu and Tatourian do not disclose wherein the first message further contains an electronic signature to be verified with a public key related to the first certificate. Simplicio discloses this feature (col. 5, line 65 to col.6 , line 10). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhu and Tatourian with Simplicio to further teach the claimed feature. One would have done so to arrive at the claimed invention using known technique of signature validation to improve pseudonym certificate management as discussed in Simplicio.
Regarding claim 3, Simplicio discloses wherein the second message further contains an electronic signature to be verified with a public key related to the second certificate. As presented in claim 2 rejection, a message comprises a certificate and a signature for validation for vehicle communication which can be used for both long-term and short-term certificates.
Claims 10-11 are rejected in view of claims 2-3 rejections respectively.
Claims 18-19 are rejected in view of claims 2-3 rejections respectively.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Tatourian and further in view of Patent 11416942 (hereinafter Leise)
Regarding claim 6, Zhu and Tatourian do not disclose wherein the vehicle-recorded data includes interaction data representing timestamped interactions that have occurred between an autonomous driving system of the vehicle and a driver of the vehicle. Leise discloses accident data obtained from a vehicle can comprise telematics data from processor analysis of the telematics, sensor, image, and/or audio, an operational mode of the vehicle before, during, and/or after the vehicle collision, such as determining whether the vehicle (e.g., autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle), or human driver was driving or otherwise in control of the vehicle) . Note that telematics data comprises time (Fig. 14 and related text). Thus, Leise teaches data can depict interaction between the driver and autonomous driving operation. For example, the driver can turn on smart cruise control (e.g. as called autopilot in Tesla cars), or applies the brake prior to an accident. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhu and Tatourian with Leise to further teach the claimed feature. One would have done so to obtain accurate information of the percentage of fault for accident evidence as taught in Leise.
Claim 14 is rejected in view of claim 6 rejection.
Inquiry communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI M TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1994. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9am-5pm.
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, Jeffrey Nickerson can be reached at (469)295-9235. 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.
/TRI M TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2432
Prosecution Insights