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 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this Office Action. This is the First Office Action on the Merits.
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 Objections
Claims 1, 5, and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 line(s) 4, “the cyclic memory buffer” appears to be a typo. The Office is interpreting this limitation as “the memory buffer”.
In claim 5 line(s) 2, “the from a controller” appears to be missing a word. The Office is interpreting this limitation as “the event from a controller”.
In claim 5, line(s) 2, “the vehicle” appears to be a type. The Office is interpreting this limitation as “a vehicle”.
In claim 8 line(s) 1, “non-volatiles” should be “non-volatile”.
In claim 8 line(s) 2, “the compressed vehicle sensor data” appears to be a typo. The Office is interpreting this limitation as “the vehicle sensor data”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 13, and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,260,111. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the claims are fully encompassed by the patented claim.
Claims 1-8, 10, and 13-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 5, and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 10,846,955. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the claims are fully encompassed by the patented claims.
Claims 1-8, 19, and 13-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 5, 7, and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,676,431. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the claims are fully encompassed by the patented claims.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 10, 13, 14, 18, and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,087,110. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the claims are fully encompassed by the patented claims.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 13, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,410,475. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the claims are fully encompassed by the patented claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 13-15, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0035632 to Silvernail et al.
As per claim 1, Silvernail discloses a data recorder (Silvernail; At least the abstract) comprising:
a memory 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 memory buffer in response to an event (Silvernail; At least paragraph(s) 55).
As per claim 2, Silvernail discloses wherein the memory buffer is configured to operate as a cyclic buffer (Silvernail; At least paragraph(s) 53).
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 memory 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 from a controller of the 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 device 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).
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).
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 configured to store the raw vehicle sensor data (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 configured to store the raw vehicle sensor data (Silvernail; At least paragraph(s) 10).
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silvernail in 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-volatiles storage configured to store the compressed 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) 9-12, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silvernail in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0007323 to Botusescu et al.
As per claim 9, Silvernail does not explicitly disclose wherein the portion of the non-volatile memory device configured to operate as the cyclic buffer is further configured to store encrypted vehicle sensor data.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Botusescu (Botusescu; At least paragraph(s) 18). 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. Encrypting the data enhances the security.
As per claim 10, Silvernail discloses further comprising a data compression unit configured to compress raw vehicle sensor data into compressed 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) 18). 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 compressed vehicle data, wherein the compressed vehicle sensor data stored in the cyclic buffer is also encrypted.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Botusescu (Botusescu; At least paragraph(s) 18). 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. Encrypting the data enhances the security.
As per claim 12, Silvernail discloses wherein the vehicle sensor data stored in the cyclic buffer is encrypted prior to being stored in the cyclic buffer.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Botusescu (Botusescu; At least paragraph(s) 18). 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. Encrypting the data enhances the security.
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.
As per claim 20, Silvernail does not explicitly disclose wherein the raw vehicle sensor stored in the cyclic buffer is encrypted.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Botusescu (Botusescu; At least paragraph(s) 18). 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. Encrypting the data enhances the security.
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-3:00pm F 5:30-9:00 am 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