DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
Introduction
Claims 1, 3-8, 10, 11, and 13-19 are pending and have been examined in this Office Action.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/27/2026 has been entered.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
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 limitation(s) is/are: “data compression unit” in claim 10. The “data compression unit” is interpreted as, for example, software running on a processor, or structural equivalent thereof, similar to that described in at least paragraph(s) 15 of the specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them 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, 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, 3-7, 13-15, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0035632 to Silvernail et al. in view of “Privacy-Aware Event Data Recorders: Cryptography meets the Automotive Industry Again” to Patsakis et al.
As per claim 1, Silvernail discloses a data recorder (Silvernail; At least the abstract) comprising:
a cyclic buffer configured to store vehicle sensor data received from one or more vehicle sensors (Silvernail; At least paragraph(s) 3 and 53); and
a non-volatile storage configured to store the vehicle sensor data from the cyclic buffer in response to an event (Silvernail; At least paragraph(s) 55).
Silvernail discloses encrypting data streamed from the event recorder (Silvernail; At least paragraph(s) 45), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the vehicle sensor data is encrypted prior to being stored in the cyclic buffer.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Patsakis (Patsakis; At least page 126). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Patsakis into the invention of Silvernail with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Encrypting data enhances the privacy of the driver.
As per claim 3, Silvernail discloses wherein the event comprises a collision involving a vehicle in which the one or more vehicle sensors are installed, and wherein the data recorder receives a signal indicative of the event from a controller of the vehicle (Silvernail; At least paragraph(s) 11 and 126).
As per claim 4, Silvernail discloses wherein in response to the event, the data recorder is configured to store the vehicle sensor data from the cyclic buffer into the nonvolatile storage (Silvernail; At least paragraph(s) 11 and 55).
As per claim 5, Silvernail discloses wherein the data recorder receives a signal indicative of the event from a controller of a vehicle, the signal further indicative of a measurement from an inertia sensor being above a predetermined threshold and/or an application of an emergency braking system (Silvernail; At least paragraph(s) 11, 23, 26, and 29).
As per claim 6, Silvernail discloses a data recorder (Silvernail; At least the abstract) comprising:
a non-volatile memory (Silvernail; At least paragraph(s) 10 and 88), wherein:
at least a portion of the non-volatile memory is configured to operate as a cyclic buffer (Silvernail; At least paragraph(s) 10); and
the cyclic buffer is configured to store vehicle sensor data received from one or more sensors of a vehicle (Silvernail; At least paragraph(s) 10).
Silvernail discloses encrypting data streamed from the event recorder (Silvernail; At least paragraph(s) 45), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the vehicle sensor data is encrypted prior to being stored in the cyclic buffer.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Patsakis (Patsakis; At least page 126). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Patsakis into the invention of Silvernail with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Encrypting data enhances the privacy of the driver.
As per claim 7, Silvernail discloses wherein the non-volatile memory is configured to receive a signal indicative of an event from a controller of the vehicle (Silvernail; At least paragraph(s) 11 and 126).
As per claim 13, Silvernail discloses a data recorder (Silvernail; At least the abstract) comprising:
a cyclic buffer configured to store raw vehicle sensor data received from one or more vehicle sensors (Silvernail; At least paragraph(s) 53); and
a non-volatile storage configured to store the raw vehicle sensor data in response to an event (Silvernail; At least paragraph(s) 55).
Silvernail discloses encrypting data streamed from the event recorder (Silvernail; At least paragraph(s) 45), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the vehicle sensor data is encrypted prior to being stored in the cyclic buffer.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Patsakis (Patsakis; At least page 126). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Patsakis into the invention of Silvernail with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Encrypting data enhances the privacy of the driver.
As per claim 14, Silvernail discloses further comprising a non-volatile memory to store compressed data received from the one or more vehicle sensors (Silvernail; At least paragraph(s) 54).
As per claim 15, Silvernail discloses wherein the event comprises a collision involving a vehicle in which the one or more vehicle sensors are installed (Silvernail; At least paragraph(s) 11).
As per claim 17, Silvernail discloses wherein the one or more vehicle sensors comprise at least one of a camera, an infrared camera, a sonar, a radar, or a lidar (Silvernail; At least paragraph(s) 9).
As per claim 18, Silvernail discloses wherein the cyclic buffer comprises volatile memory (Silvernail; At least paragraph(s) 35; a volatile memory is used prior to saving to the HCS).
As per claim 19, Silvernail discloses wherein the cyclic buffer comprises non-volatile memory (Silvernail; At least paragraph(s) 10).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silvernail, in view of Patsakis as applied to claim 7, and in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0302758 to Wright.
As per claim 8, Silvernail discloses storing the vehicle sensor data in response to the event (Silvernail; At least paragraph(s) 11), but does not explicitly disclose further comprising a non-volatile storage configured to store the vehicle sensor data in response to the event.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Wright (Wright; At least paragraph(s) 23). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Wright into the invention of Silvernail with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Sending the data and storing in a remote storage would provide a more robust storage system and the data could be accessed by third parties, such as emergency or insurance services, as discussed in at least paragraph(s) 32 of Wright.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 10, 11, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silvernail, in view of Patsakis as applied to claim 6 or 13, and in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0007323 to Botusescu et al.
As per claim 10, Silvernail discloses further comprising a data compression unit configured to compress the vehicle sensor data (Silvernail; At least paragraph(s) 54),
Silvernail discloses that the video can be compressed into low, medium, and high quality (Silvernail; At least paragraph(s) 54), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the vehicle sensor data stored in the cyclic buffer comprises the compressed vehicle sensor data.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Botusescu (Botusescu; At least paragraph(s) 20). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Botusescu into the invention of Silvernail with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Compressing the data in the cyclic buffer, for example using a medium compression in the buffer, would reduce the storage capacity needed and, thus, reduce space and cost.
As per claim 11, Silvernail does not explicitly disclose wherein the data compression unit is further configured to encrypt the vehicle sensor data in response to compression of the vehicle sensor data, wherein the vehicle sensor data stored in the cyclic buffer is compressed and encrypted.
However, the above feature(s) are taught as discussed above; the data is compressed and encrypted. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to and within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined which operation to perform first. One of the operations needs to occur prior to the other and it would be within the art during normal design to test and determine which order to perform the operations in. Compressing the data first would save processing time since the later operations would be performed on less data.
As per claim 16, Silvernail discloses wherein the event comprises receiving a signal from an inertial sensor (Silvernail; At least paragraph(s) 11, 22, and 23).
Silvernail does not explicitly disclose and an application of an emergency braking system. However, the above feature(s) are taught by Botusescu (Botusescu; At least paragraph(s) 16 and 17). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Botusescu into the invention of Silvernail with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Using both accelerations and braking signals would provide more information to achieve a more accurate representation of the situation. Further, the exact types of signals used to determine an event would be a design choice and within the skill of one in the art during design.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 07/14/2026 and 08/27/2026, with respect to the claims 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.
Applicant’s remarks acknowledging the 112(f) interpretation are acknowledged.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892. The prior art shows the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P MERLINO whose telephone number is (571)272-8362. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30am-3:30pm ET.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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.
/David P. Merlino/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
