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, and 10-19 are pending and have been examined in this Office Action. Claims 2, 9, and 20 have been canceled since the last Office Action.
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 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. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0035632 to Silvernail et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0007323 to Botusescu 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 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 data enhances the security.
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 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 data enhances the security.
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 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 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 data enhances the security. The steps are linear and one would have to occur after the other. It would be within the skill of one in the art to determine the optimal order.
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 data enhances the security.
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 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 data enhances the security.
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 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 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 Botusescu 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-7, filed 04/28/2026, with respect to the claim objections, double patenting rejections, and 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections, double patenting rejections, and 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s comments, see page 6, filed 04/28/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation are acknowledged.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 8-10, filed 04/28/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to Applicant's arguments that Botusescu teaches encrypting data stored in a data recorder and not in a cyclic buffer, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Botusescu teaches that data can be encrypted when stored and doing so provides enhanced security. Based on the teachings of Botusescu, it would be within the skill of and obvious to one in the art that any data can be encrypted and stored. Therefore, it would be obvious that the data stored in the cyclic buffer could be encrypted.
Conclusion
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 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
Prosecution Insights