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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/2025 regarding the prior art rejections of Claims 1-3
have been fully considered, and are persuasive. Claim 4 has been cancelled.
The Examiner agrees the amended claim overcomes prior art rejections using the combined teachings of JP 630 and Hoffberg. However, SUZUKI in view of HASEGAWA in view of TSUYUNASHI teaches amended claim 1.
For at least the same reasons discussed with respect to amended claim 1, all claims are considered but also rejected.
Claims 2 & 3 which depend from amended claim 1, have been considered and rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUZUKI (US 2021/0035038 A1) in view of HASEGAWA (US 2021/0409434 A1) in view of TSUYUNASHI (US 2020/0076895 A1).
With regards to claim 1, SUZUKI teaches:
A system comprising a in-vehicle device and a second device, wherein the first device is configured to transmit data to the server, wherein the in-vehicle device includes a processor and a first database that holds vehicle information, (0070 & 0025, the control apparatus 22 transmits the vehicle information to the information processing apparatus 25, and also transmits the vehicle information to the server 10 through the communication apparatus 21. The server 10 acquires information about the user, from at least one of the databases 15 and the terminal apparatus 30 used by the user.), location data indicating a location of the vehicle on the date and time; and speed data indicating a speed value of the vehicle on the date and time, one of the location data and the speed data is set as consent data by a user of the vehicle, (0042, the server controller 13 is capable of receiving driving information about the vehicle 20 (such as position information and the traveling speed of the vehicle 20) from the vehicle 20 through the server communication interface 11). display a screen requesting the user to give a response as to whether to consent to the use of the first data by the server, in a case where the first data is not the consent data, transmit the first data to the server in a case where the user gives the response consenting to the use of the first data by the server, and when retransmission of the first data is requested from the second device server, transmit the first data stored in the first database to the second device server. (0079 & 0095, terminal apparatus 30 displays the request screen transmitted from the server 10 in response to the transmission of the display request. Through input by the user on the request screen, the terminal apparatus 30 can receive the input related to a health checkup desired by the user. Data may also be provided to manufacturers of supplements or medical supplies with the user's consent).
SUZUKI fails to teach:
the vehicle information includes: vehicle ID data for identifying a vehicle; date and time data indicating date and time when the processor acquired the vehicle information;
However, HASEGAWA teaches:
the vehicle information includes: vehicle ID data for identifying a vehicle; date and time data indicating date and time when the processor acquired the vehicle information; (HASEGAWA: 0055, The vehicle ID is identification information of the vehicle 20. The control log includes date and time, vehicle ID);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the system of an in-vehicle device and server of SUZUKI with the teaching of HASEGAWA which teaches an in-vehicle storage processing unit in order to minimize cyber-attacks. (HASEGAWA: 0005, rather than handling cyber-attacks by using a vehicle alone, a technology to handle cyber-attacks by using both cloud computing and a vehicle and using server-client cooperation).
SUZUKI in view of HASEGAWA fails to teach:
the consent data being data for which the user consents to use by the server, the server is configured to request (i) transmission of first data which is one of the location data and the speed data and (ii) response as to whether to consent to use of the first data by the server, and the first device processor is configured to transmit the first data to the second device and store the data in a first database server in a case where the first data is the consent data,
However, TSUYUNASHI teaches:
the consent data being data for which the user consents to use by the server, the server is configured to request (i) transmission of first data which is one of the location data and the speed data and (ii) response as to whether to consent to use of the first data by the server, and the first device processor is configured to transmit the first data to the second device and store the data in a first database server in a case where the first data is the consent data, (TSUYUNASHI: 0089, The data collection apparatus 1A is a data collection server that receives a data collection request from a user of data, and collects real data R (vehicle acquisition data) from the on-vehicle device 50A based on the received collection request);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the system of an in-vehicle device and server of SUZUKI with the teaching of TSUYUNASHI which teaches a data collection apparatus in order to collect vehicle information. (TSUYUNASHI: abstract, The reception unit receives a collection request for vehicle acquisition data obtained by each vehicle).
With regards to claim 2, SUZUKI in view of HASEGAWA in view of TSUYUNASHI teaches the system of claim 1. SUZUKI teaches:
wherein: the server includes a second database; (0025, The server 10 acquires information about the user, from at least one of the databases 15);
SUZUKI in view of HASEGAWA fails to teach:
server is further configured to when the first data is received from the [[first]]in-vehicle device, store the first data in the second database, access the second database when executing a process using the data, and when, as a result of the access, the first data in the second database is found corrupted or deleted, request the [[first]] in-vehicle device to retransmit the first data.
However, TSUYUNASHI teaches:
server is further configured to when the first data is received from the [[first]]in-vehicle device, store the first data in the second database, access the second database when executing a process using the data, and when, as a result of the access, the first data in the second database is found corrupted or deleted, request the [[first]] in-vehicle device to retransmit the first data.(TSUYUNASHI: 0164, when tag data is updated (newly generated, deleted) on the on-vehicle device 50A side, such information needs to be promptly transmitted to the data collection apparatus 1A such that tag data on the data collection apparatus 1A is updated in synchronization);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the system of an in-vehicle device and server of SUZUKI with the teaching of TSUYUNASHI which teaches a data collection apparatus in order to collect vehicle information. (TSUYUNASHI: abstract, The reception unit receives a collection request for vehicle acquisition data obtained by each vehicle).
With regards to claim 3, SUZUKI in view of HASEGAWA in view of TSUYUNASHI teaches the system of claim 1. SUZUKI teaches:
wherein: the server is further configured to execute a process using the first data received from the [[first]] in-vehicle device, (0025 & 0070, The server 10 acquires information about the user, from at least one of the databases 15 and the terminal apparatus 30 used by the user. The control apparatus 22 transmits the vehicle information to the information processing apparatus 25, and also transmits the vehicle information to the server 10 through the communication apparatus 21.);
SUZUKI in view of HASEGAWA fails to teach:
discard the first data after the process is completed, and request the [[first]]in-vehicle device to retransmit the first data when executing the process again after discarding the first data.
However, TSUYUNASHI teaches:
discard the first data after the process is completed, and request the [[first]]in-vehicle device to retransmit the first data when executing the process again after discarding the first data. (TSUYUNASHI: 0177, The collection condition data is transmitted in response to a collection condition file and an instruction command. The collection condition file includes a new collection condition file and a change collection condition file, and an update instruction command indicates new registration or change of the files, and a deletion instruction command indicates a file to be deleted. The data collection apparatus 1A grasps collection condition file information from the past transmission history of a target vehicle, and hence can respond by a method for replacing all collection condition files in the target vehicle);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the system of an in-vehicle device and server of SUZUKI with the teaching of TSUYUNASHI which teaches a data collection apparatus in order to collect vehicle information. (TSUYUNASHI: abstract, The reception unit receives a collection request for vehicle acquisition data obtained by each vehicle).
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art mode of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
Applicant’s disclosure:
DOGISHI (US 2020/0234238 A1): An information processing apparatus includes a control unit configured to execute: acquiring information regarding a request of a user making a product while riding on a mobile object; acquiring information regarding an article used in making the product; acquiring information regarding a location of the article; and generating an operation command of the mobile object such that the mobile object carrying the user travels via the location of the article.
Cardona (US 11526711 B1): Techniques for collecting, synchronizing, and displaying various types of data relating to a road segment enable, via one or more local or remote processors, servers, transceivers, and/or sensors, (i) enhanced and contextualized analysis of vehicle events by way of synchronizing different data types, relating to a monitored road segment, collected via various different types of data sources; (ii) enhanced and contextualized analysis of filed insurance claims pertaining to a vehicle incident at a road segment; (iii) advantageous machine learning techniques for predicting a level of risk assumed for a given vehicle event or a given road segment; (iv) techniques for accounting for region-specific driver profiles when controlling autonomous vehicles; and/or (v) improved techniques for providing a GUI to display collected data in a meaningful and contextualized manner.
Response to Arguments
The Remarks argue that:
Response to Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. 103
The Office Action rejects claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combined teachings of JP 2022-522630 A (hereinafter "JP 630") and Hoffberg, US 6850252 B1 (hereinafter "Hoffberg").
As an initial matter, in view of the cancellation of claim 4, the rejection with respect to the cancelled claim has been rendered moot.
The Applicant submits that the subject matter of amended claim 1 would not have been obvious over the teachings of JP 630 and Hoffberg for at least the reasons discussed below.
Claim 1 is amended to include the features recited in claim 4 and paragraphs [0022]- [0027], [0032], and [0037]-[0038]:
the vehicle information includes:
vehicle ID data for identifying a vehicle;
date and time data indicating date and time when the processor acquired the vehicle
information;
location data indicating a location of the vehicle on the date and time; and
speed data indicating a speed value of the vehicle on the date and time,
one of the location data and the speed data is set as consent data by a user of the vehicle,
the consent data being data for which the user consents to use by the server,
the server is configured to request (i) transmission of first data which is one of the
location data and the speed data and (ii) response as to whether to consent to use of the first data by the server, and
the processor is configured to
transmit the first data to the server in a case where the first data is the consent
data,
display a screen requesting the user to give a response as to whether to consent to
the use of the first data by the server, in a case where the first data is not the consent data,
transmit the first data to the server in a case where the user gives the response
consenting to the use of the first data by the server, and
when retransmission of the first data is requested from the server, transmit the first
data stored in the first database to the server.
JP 630 teaches that the first device 110 and the second device 115 exchange signals (paragraph [1195] and Fig. 174). Hoffberg teaches transmitting missing data to a set top box (Column 221, lines 21-22). However, JP 630 and Hoffberg are silent on the above features of amended claim 1.
Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been able to derive the claimed subject matter based on the combined teachings of JP 630 and Hoffberg, because the cited art, taken either alone or in combination with each other, fails to teach or suggest the claimed subject matter. Thus, the subject matter of amended claim 1 is a distinction over the combined teachings of JP 630 and Hoffberg.
A proper prima facie case of obviousness requires that the asserted combination of references teaches or suggests each and every element in the claims. Because at least one claimed element is not present in the asserted combination of JP 630 and Hoffberg, the subject matter of amended claim 1 would not have been obvious over the cited art.
Claims 2 and 3 depend from independent claim 1, and thus incorporate all the features of the independent claim from which they depend. Therefore, the subject matter of claims 2 and 3 would not have been obvious over the teachings of JP 630 and Hoffberg for at least the same reasons as discussed above.
In view of the amendments to the claims, and for the reasons discussed above, the
Applicant submits that the rejection of claims 1-3 are overcome, and respectfully requests the reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/2025 regarding the prior art rejections of Claims 1-3
have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to VICTOR PERRY whose telephone number is (571)272-6319. The examiner can
normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 5:00.
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,
Mark Featherstone can be reached on (571) 270-3750. 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.
/V.P./Examiner, Art Unit 2111
/GUERRIER MERANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2111
3/9/2026