DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The status of the claims is as follows:
(a) Claims 1-20 remain pending.
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 Amendments
The Examiner accepts the amendments received on 06/03/2026.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner has considered the Applicant’s submitted Remarks, filed on 06/03/2026. The Examiner below proceeds with a bona fide attempt to respond properly to each argument raised by the Applicant.
Applicant asserts that Hiroki fails to teach or suggest “determine, based on a time point at which a trigger signal was generated while collecting the data, priority of collected data” and “store, based on the determined priority, the collected data, wherein data collected prior to the time point is given a priority higher than data collected after the time point.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Hiroki discloses a data collection trigger execution unit that collects sensor data and vehicle data according to a trigger. Hiroki further discloses that the collected data includes identification of the executed trigger, the trigger execution time, and an amount of collected data which includes data collected during a predetermined period before and after a trigger execution timing. (Hiroki, Paragraphs [0013], [0030], and [0032]).
Additionally, Hiroki discloses that the trigger execution history can identify the type of trigger and the date and time at which the trigger was executed. Furthermore, the storage priority acquisition unit transmits the trigger execution history to a server to inquire about the storage priority of the target data. (Hiroki, Paragraphs [0038] and [0040]). The storage priority may then be determined based on the trigger execution history collected from the vehicles. (Hiroki, Paragraph [0042]). Accordingly, the Examiner finds Hiroki determines the priority of the collected data based on information identifying the trigger execution and the collection timing of the data relative to a time point.
Furthermore, Hiroki discloses storing the collected data based on the determined priority. In particular, the data selection unit compares the storage priority of previously stored data with the storage priority of newly collected data. When the previously stored data has a lower priority, Hiroki discards the previously stored data and stores the newly collected data. Conversely, when the previously stored data does not have a lower priority than the newly collected data, Hiroki discards the newly collected data and retains the previously stored data. Hiroki, paragraph [0042]. Thus, Hiroki teaches retaining data collected prior to the later trigger time point when that data has a higher priority than data collected after the time point.
Applicant’s argument that Hiroki’s server, rather than the vehicle, determines the priority is not persuasive. Claim 1 does not require that the priority be calculated exclusively within the vehicle or prohibit the apparatus from obtaining priority information from an external server. Hiroki discloses that the in-vehicle storage priority acquisition unit acquires the storage priority from the server and that the in-vehicle data selection unit uses the acquired priority to select which data will remain stored in the vehicle storage. (Hiroki, Paragraphs [0012], [0013], [0040], and [0042]).
Applicant further argues that Hiroki determines priority only according to data type or trigger conditions. This argument does not account for Hiroki’s full disclosure. Although Hiroki states that the acquired priority may be used to rank priority according to data type, Hiroki also expressly discloses that the priority may be determined based on the trigger execution history. (Hiroki, Paragraph [0042]). The trigger execution history includes the trigger execution date and time and allows the collection time and the most recently collected data to be identified. (Hiroki, Paragraphs [0038] and [0040]).
Accordingly, Hiroki teaches or suggests determining the priority of collected data based on the time point at which the trigger signal was generated and storing the collected data according to the determined priority, including retaining higher-priority data collected before the time point over lower-priority data collected after the time point. Naka is therefore not required to cure the alleged deficiency.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroki et al. JP2025039077A (hereinafter, Hiroki), in view of Naka et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 20200294329A1 (hereinafter, Naka).
Regarding Claim 1, Hiroki discloses an apparatus for controlling autonomous driving of a vehicle (apparatus (e.g., processor) for controlling an autonomous vehicle, Hiroki, Paragraphs 0002 0012, and 0082-0083 and Figure 1), the apparatus comprising:
-a processor operatively connected to a storage (processor connected to storage, Hiroki, Paragraph 0012 and Figure 1); the storage configured to store one or more instructions (storage configured to store one or more instructions, Hiroki, Paragraphs 0009-0013 and Figure 1), when executed by the processor, cause the apparatus to:
-collect data associated with controlling autonomous driving of the vehicle (collect data associated with controlling the autonomous driving of the vehicle (e.g., sensor data), Hiroki, Paragraphs 0012-0014 and Figure 1);
-determine, based on a time point at which a trigger signal was generated while collecting the data, priority of collected data (system can determine at a time when a trigger signal is generated (e.g., flag triggered which helps controller determine a point in time), Hiroki, Paragraphs 0029-0040 and Figures 3, 7, and 8);
-store, based on the determined priority, the collected data, wherein data collected prior to the time point is given a priority higher than data collected after the time point (determining a storing priority of the collected data, Hiroki, Paragraphs 0015, 0034, 0039-0045 and Figures 8 and 9); and …
Hiroki does not specifically disclose the apparatus to include chang[ing], based on the stored data, controlling method of autonomous driving of the vehicle.
Naka discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Naka describes changing the controlling method of the autonomous vehicle based on the stored data (Naka, Paragraphs 0037-0041).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the apparatus of Hiroki to include changing, based on the stored data, controlling method of autonomous driving of the vehicle, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Naka.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because being efficient with the data collected and controlling the autonomous vehicle based on the stored data allows for adjusting vehicle control in an advantageous manner (Naka, Paragraphs 0037-00401).
Regarding Claim 2, Hiroki, as modified, discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the apparatus to: store data collected from the time point to a second time point that is earlier than the time point, wherein older data is stored before more recent data; and store data collected from the time point to a third time point that is later than the time point, wherein more recent data is stored before older data (able to store data that is before and after the trigger, thus able to collect data that is before, during, and after the trigger, Naka, Paragraphs 0028 and 0013).
Regarding Claim 3, Hiroki, as modified, discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the apparatus to set, based on at least one of a functional safety (ASIL) level or a data size, a storage priority for the collected data (storing data passed on priority or data size, Hiroki, Paragraph 0042).
Regarding Claim 4, Hiroki, as modified, discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the apparatus to: store at least some of the collected data in a first memory included in the storage during autonomous driving of the vehicle, and move, based on the trigger signal, the data stored in the first memory to a second memory of the storage (store the data in a first memory (e.g., on-board storage), then based on a trigger signal (e.g., transfer command) send the data to a server (i.e., second memory), Hiroki, Paragraphs 0028, 0042, and 0051-0052 and Figures 1 and 2).
Regarding Claim 5, Hiroki, as modified, discloses the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the apparatus to: determine a priority of data stored in the first memory at the time point; and store, based on the determined priority, a highest priority data in the second memory, wherein the highest priority data is data collected from the time point to another time point that is earlier than the time point (moving data to the second memory per highest priority (e.g., emergency, thus highest priority), Hiroki, Paragraphs 0041-0042).
Regarding Claim 6, Hiroki, as modified, discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the apparatus to extract, based on a temporal order, data from a memory, wherein the temporal order is different from an order by which data was stored (extracting data (e.g., transmitting data to a server) in a temporal order (e.g., FIFO), which can be different than the priority storage, Hiroki, Paragraphs 0041-0042).
Regarding Claim 7, Hiroki, as modified, discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Hiroki does not specifically disclose the apparatus to include that the one or more instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the apparatus to determine, based on a change amount of data collected over a period from the time point to a second time point, a priority of the data collected over the period.
Naka discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Naka describes changing the priority of data based on the amount of data collected over a period (Naka, Paragraphs 0037-0041).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the apparatus of Hiroki to include that the one or more instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the apparatus to determine, based on a change amount of data collected over a period from the time point to a second time point, a priority of the data collected over the period., as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Naka.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because being efficient with the data collected and changing the priority of data based on data collected allows for efficient storage of data (Naka, Paragraphs 0037-00401).
Regarding Claim 8, Hiroki, as modified, discloses the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the apparatus to: determine, based on an increment of an average value of the change amount of data, a weight; and determine, based on at least one of the weight or a functional safety level, the priority by determining urgency or importance of data collected over the period (moving data to the second memory per highest priority (e.g., emergency, thus highest priority), Hiroki, Paragraphs 0041-0042).
Regarding Claim 9, Hiroki, as modified, discloses the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the apparatus to: receive, based on the urgency or importance of data, feedback on priority information; and use, based on the weight, the priority information (determining urgency or importance of data, wherein data becomes a priority based on the information being critical (e.g., emergency, thus highest priority), Hiroki, Paragraphs 0041-0042).
Regarding Claim 10, Hiroki, as modified, discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the apparatus to determine, based on whether a signal strength of data collected during a period from the time point to a second time point exceeding a threshold or based on whether the signal comprises a predetermined value or a predetermined pattern, a priority of data collected over the period (determining a storing trigger which can be a pre-determined value or threshold, Hiroki, Paragraphs 0015, 0034, 0039-0045 and Figures 8 and 9)
Regarding Claim 11, Hiroki, as modified, discloses the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the apparatus to: receive, based on the urgency or importance of data, feedback on priority information; and use, based on the weight, the priority information (can receive information based on importance of data (i.e., emergency), Hiroki, Paragraph 0052).
Regarding Claim 12, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 13, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 2 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 14, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 2 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 15, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 3 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 16, Hiroki, as modified, discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the storing data comprises: storing at least some of the collected data in a first memory during autonomous driving of the vehicle; and moving, based on the trigger signal, the data stored in the first memory to a second memory(store the data in a first memory (e.g., on-board storage), then based on a trigger signal (e.g., transfer command) send the data to a server (i.e., second memory), Hiroki, Paragraphs 0028, 0042, and 0051-0052 and Figures 1 and 2) …
Hiroki does not specifically disclose the method to include that the trigger signal comprises at least one of: a collision detection signal, a lane departure warning signal, a pedestrian detection signal, an obstacle detection signal, a sudden braking event signal, a driver monitoring system alert signal, a sensor malfunction detection signal, or an emergency vehicle detection signal.
Naka discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Naka describes a trigger condition such as driving condition like a sudden braking event (Naka, Paragraph 0065).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the method of Hiroki to include that the trigger signal comprises at least one of: a collision detection signal, a lane departure warning signal, a pedestrian detection signal, an obstacle detection signal, a sudden braking event signal, a driver monitoring system alert signal, a sensor malfunction detection signal, or an emergency vehicle detection signal, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Naka.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because being selecting data and controlling the autonomous vehicle based on the collected and stored data allows for adjusting vehicle control in an advantageous manner (Naka, Paragraphs 0037-00401).
Regarding Claim 17, Hiroki, as modified, discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the storing data comprises determining, based on a change amount of data collected over a period from the time point to a second time point, a priority of the data collected over the period, wherein the data collected over the period is divided into a plurality of sections, and wherein a priority for a section of the plurality of sections is determined based on a data signal in the section of the plurality of sections (trigger conditions can generate a plurality of sections, Hiroki, Paragraph 0044).
Regarding Claim 18, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 5 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 19, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claims 1-11 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claims.
Regarding Claim 20, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claims 1 and 10 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANDREW J CROMER whose telephone number is (313)446-6563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: ~ 8:15 A.M. - 6:00 P.M..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/ANDREW J CROMER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights