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 (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.
Response to Amendment
The examiner received supplemental response including amendments to the specification, abstract, drawings, and claims dated 04 August 2026 in response to the interview dated 30 July 2026 which took place following the non-final rejection office action dated 15 April 2026 (hereinafter the document of concern when referencing “outstanding rejections”, “outstanding objections”, “prior office action”, and the like). No new matter was entered and the supplemental response is being fully considered.
Regarding outstanding specification and drawing objections, the examiner notes that all objections have been remedied by way of amendment. All specification and drawing objections are withdrawn.
Regarding outstanding claim objections, the examiner notes that all instances of “each unit” have been removed via amendment, remedying the noted issue. All outstanding claim objections are withdrawn.
Regarding the outstanding claim objections for "each unit", the examiner notes that the problematic language has been removed from the noted claims. Thus, all outstanding claim objections are withdrawn.
Regarding outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation of the "units" of note, the examiner notes that all claim terms previously examined under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been amended to remove instances of "unit". Thus, the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation is withdrawn.
Regarding outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, the examiner has noted that all outstanding concerns of indefiniteness have been addressed. Regarding PART I-35 U.S.C. 112(f) terms, all instances of the previously-noted 35 U.S.C. 112(f) terms have been removed. Therefore, the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections corresponding to 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation are withdrawn. Regarding PART II, Issue 1 has been remedied as applicant has reasonably provided a list of alternatives to provide a person having ordinary skill in the art with the requisite of understanding what may be considered a "type". Regarding Issue 2, applicant has reasonably provided a list of alternatives to provide a person having ordinary skill in the art with the requisite of understanding what may be considered a "characteristic value". Regarding Issue 3, applicant has amended the claim language to clearly convey the one or more characteristic values. Therefore, all outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Regarding outstanding prior art (35 U.S.C. 102/103) rejections, the examiner notes that the independent claims are no longer anticipated by the prior art of note (US 2019/0080526 A1; Shin et al., hereinafter Shin, previously presented by the examiner). Applicant argues on pages 19-20 of the remarks dated 04 August 2026 that Shin fails to explicitly disclose attachment of a characteristic value to the time series of data, wherein the characteristic value pertains to a statistic being at least one of a maximum, minimum, average, median, variance, standard deviation, or mode of the data. The examiner notes that arguments are moot as applicant has amended the claim language, however the examiner notes for the record that the examiner agrees that Shin does not disclose the aforementioned claim element. Thus, all outstanding prior art rejections are withdrawn. However, first, the examiner notes that claim 11 was not amended with the above-noted claim limitation and as a result, Shin continues to read upon the language. Second, the examiner has determined that while independent claims 1, 9, 10, and 12 are not anticipated by Shin, they are unpatentable over the prior art of note in reasonable obvious combination. New grounds of rejection, necessitated by amendment, are provided below.
Status of Claims
The most recent revision of the claim set is dated 04 August 2026, received with supplemental response. Claims 1-15 are pending. Claims 13-15 are new claims. Claims 1 and 9-12 are independent claims. Claims 1-15 are rejected for the reasons provided below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
ISSUE 1: Claim 10 currently states "…the server is further configured to attach at least one characteristic value to the instantaneous data to the at least one application…"; the examiner notes that the phrase is generally unclear and appears to be missing a phrase and/or linking element prior to "to the at least one application". As the claim language is not clear, it is rendered indefinite.
ISSUE 2: Claim 11 currently states "…and includes a statistic calculated based on a time series of the instantaneous data."; the terminology is broad to the point of indefiniteness. Paragraph [0060] states "The statistics may include maximum…", providing an exemplary list of alternatives; this indicates that it is not limited to the examples provided, and a "statistic" is not necessarily limited to statistical groups such as those provided. For example, a mere single value of any piece of information is a "statistic" or a mere collection status could read as a "statistic". Ultimately, as a "statistic" is not definitively defined, nor would a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing reasonably have understood what may or may not constitute a "statistic", the term renders the claim indefinite.
ISSUE 3: Claim 13 currently states "…the at least one application uses the variance to determine a reliability of the request data, and replaces the request data with the mode when the reliability is low."; put plainly, what constitutes "low"? Applicant has provided a term of relative degree (low) falling under the guidance of MPEP 2173.05(b).I. without providing the basis for understanding what may or may not constitute "low". As the term is not properly defined, it renders the claim indefinite. The examiner recommends a clarifying amendment to state that when a predetermined variance threshold is exceeded, the request data is determined to be unreliable, and when this condition is met, to replace the request data with the mode, in the event that this is the intent.
ISSUE 4: Claim 14 currently states "…the at least one application uses the variance to determine whether the vehicle is in an unstable state or a stable state"; put plainly, what constitutes "stable" versus "unstable"? Applicant has provided a term of relative degree (stability) falling under the guidance of MPEP 2173.05(b).I. without providing the basis for understanding what may or may not constitute "stable". As the term is not properly defined, it renders the claim indefinite. The examiner recommends a clarifying amendment stating that when a predefined variance threshold is exceeded, the vehicle is determined to be in an unstable state, and when at or below a variance threshold, the vehicle is determined to be in a stable state, in the event that this is the intent. Further, the language "uses the variance" adds ambiguity as to whether the examiner should interpret the language as mere intended use; the examiner recommends removal of "use" and rewording to "…the at least one application [[uses]] compares the variance to a predetermined variance threshold…", as an example.
ISSUE 5: Claim 15 states "…the at least one application uses the maximum value " and is generally unclear. The examiner believes that the intent is to compare the maximum value to a predetermined allowable value, however the claim broadly states that the request data is compared to the allowable value, lacking a tie to the maximum value. Further, the language "uses the maximum value" adds ambiguity as to whether the examiner should interpret the language as mere intended use. The examiner recommends a clarifying amendment to state "…the at least one application [[uses]] compares the maximum value to [[monitor whether the request data exceeds an]] a predetermined allowable value to determine if the allowable value is exceeded." if this is the intent.
Therefore, the examiner notes that the above-noted phrases are indefinite and fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention of the instant application. Consistent with USPTO examination practices, for purposes of compact prosecution, the claim limitations will be treated as best understood by the Examiner, which according to broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), would mean that the examiner could follow any one or more of the interpretations discussed above.
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shin et al. (US 2019/0080526 A1; published 14 Mar 2019, hereinafter Shin).
Regarding independent claim 11 (method): Shin discloses A data provision method comprising: (Paragraph [0100] and Figure [5], Shin discloses a method of data collection/provision)
repeatedly acquiring instantaneous data that is an instantaneous value of vehicle data transmitted from a vehicle; (Paragraph [0008, 0043, 0067], Shin discloses receiving data periodically (repeatedly) and in real time (instantaneous))
storing a time-series of the instantaneous data in a data storage; (Paragraph [0009, 0043], Shin discloses storing the real time vehicle data with a corresponding time period/collection period (time based))
when accepting a data acquisition request from at least one application configured to execute a process using the vehicle data, extracting the instantaneous data of a request data that is the vehicle data indicated by the data acquisition request, the instantaneous data being stored in the data storage; providing the instantaneous data to the at least one application; and (Paragraph [0009, 0015, 0095, 0099, 0104] and Figure [5], Shin discloses obtaining (extracting) and providing the data. Regarding “request”, the examiner notes that Shin discloses a plurality of cases where data is transmitted from the data storage, the prompting of each may reasonably be considered a “request”)
attaching at least one characteristic value to the instantaneous data provided to the at least one application, the at least one characteristic value being: specified in advance according to the request data and generated based on the time-series of the instantaneous data stored in the data storage, (Paragraph [0009, 0018, 0048-0050, 0074] and Claim [1], Shin discloses that the controller sets field values (a characteristic value) and update collection status tables (also a characteristic value) when the data collector transmits. Regarding pre-established (in advance) rules, Shin discloses establishing either of the aforementioned “characteristic values” in advance, such as in paragraph [0074] where “The controller 23 may change a CAN ID field value and a collection period field value in the collection information tabled stored in the first memory of the data collector 22 at the user’s request” and the table comprises pre-established criteria (“O” and “X”, for instance). Both of the aforementioned cases are dependent upon the data received)
wherein the time-series of the instantaneous data includes the instantaneous data acquired in a period from a previous data acquisition request to a current data acquisition request; and (Paragraph [0016, 0078], Shin discloses a segment between vehicle data collected in a previous period and vehicle data collected in a current period (thus disclosing tracking of data from a previous to a current period))
the at least one characteristic value represents a change state of the request data that occurred between the previous data acquisition request and the current data acquisition request, and includes a statistic calculated based on a time series of the instantaneous data. (per claim 11) (Paragraph [0009, 0018, 0048-0050, 0074] and Claim [1], Shin discloses that the controller sets field values (a characteristic value) and update collection status tables (also a characteristic value) when the data collector transmits. Regarding pre-established (in advance) rules, Shin discloses establishing either of the aforementioned “characteristic values” in advance, such as in paragraph [0074] where “The controller 23 may change a CAN ID field value and a collection period field value in the collection information tabled stored in the first memory of the data collector 22 at the user’s request” and the table comprises pre-established criteria (“O” and “X”, for instance). Both of the aforementioned cases are dependent upon the data received and the “O” and “X”, at least, depend upon a changing state of the data occurring between a previous request and a current request, as it changes from “collected” to “not collected” and the reverse. The multiple interpretations discussed could all reasonably constitute a “statistic”, as a “statistic” is not particularly limiting, the “O” and “X” as a status reasonably constituting a “statistic”)
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.
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 1-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin in view of Takenaka et al. (US 2016/0140779 A1; published 19 May 2016, hereinafter Takenaka).
Regarding independent claims 1 (apparatus), 9 (system), and 12 (apparatus, non-transitory memory): Shin discloses A data provision platform comprising: a processor; a memory coupled to the processor and storing program instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to at least (per claim 1) (Paragraph [0006-0009, 0040-0043, 0066, 0073-0076] and Figure [1, 3], Shin discloses a system/apparatus for data handling/provisioning including a processor (CPU) and memory. Further, a controller is disclosed and is well-known in the art to comprise a processor and memory; as the controller is disclosed to both receive data and process it, it then reasonably comprises a processor and memory) / A data provision system comprising: (per claim 9) (Paragraph [0040-0041] and Figure [1], Shin discloses a system/apparatus for data handling/provisioning) / A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program causing a computer to: (per claim 12) (Paragraph [0097-0106], Shin discloses storage housing and processing data (performing steps of the method described))
a data collection device communicably connected to an electronic control unit of a vehicle; and a server communicably connected to the vehicle, wherein the data collection device includes: a processor and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing program instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to at least (per claim 9) (Paragraph [0006-0009, 0040-0043, 0066, 0073-0076] and Figure [1, 3], Shin discloses a system/apparatus for data handling/provisioning including a processor (CPU) and memory. Further, a controller is disclosed and is well-known in the art to comprise a processor and memory; as the controller is disclosed to both receive data and process it, it then reasonably comprises a processor and memory. Further, Shin discloses a vehicle data collection device communicatively coupled to a plurality of ECUs (electronic control units) and a data server)
repeatedly acquire instantaneous data that is an instantaneous value of vehicle data transmitted from a vehicle; and (per claim 1) / repeatedly acquire instantaneous data that is an instantaneous value of vehicle data transmitted from the vehicle, and (per claim 9) / repeatedly acquire instantaneous data that is an instantaneous value of vehicle data transmitted from a vehicle and (per claim 12) (Paragraph [0008, 0043, 0067], Shin discloses receiving data periodically (repeatedly) and in real time (instantaneous))
transmit the acquired instantaneous data to the server; (per claim 9) (Paragraph [0060, 0064, 0099], Shin discloses transmitting the data to the server)
a data storage configured to store a time-series of the instantaneous data acquired by the processor; (per claim 1) / a data storage configured to store a time-series of the instantaneous data acquired by the processor; (per claim 9) / storing a time-series of the instantaneous data in a data storage; (per claim 12) (Paragraph [0009, 0043], Shin discloses storing the real time vehicle data with a corresponding time period/collection period (time based))
wherein: the processor is further caused to: when accepting a data acquisition request from at least one application configured to execute a process using the vehicle data, extract the instantaneous data of a request data that is the vehicle data indicated by the data acquisition request, the instantaneous data being stored in the data storage, and provide the instantaneous data to the at least one application; and (per claim 1) / the processor is further caused to: when accepting a data acquisition request from at least one application configured to execute a process using the vehicle data, extract the instantaneous data of a request data that is the vehicle data indicated by the data acquisition request, the instantaneous data being stored in the data storage, and provide the instantaneous data to the at least one application; and (per claim 9) / when accepting a data acquisition request from at least one application configured to execute a process using the vehicle data, extract the instantaneous data of a request data that is the vehicle data indicated by the data acquisition request, the instantaneous data being stored in the data storage, and provide the instantaneous data to the at least one application; and (per claim 12) (Paragraph [0009, 0015, 0095, 0099, 0104] and Figure [5], Shin discloses obtaining (extracting) and providing the data. Regarding “request”, the examiner notes that Shin discloses a plurality of cases where data is transmitted from the data storage, the prompting of each may reasonably be considered a “request”)
attach at least one characteristic value to the instantaneous data provided to the at least one application, the at least one characteristic value being: specified in advance according to the request data and generated based on the time-series of the instantaneous data stored in the data storage, (per claim 1) / attach at least one characteristic value to the instantaneous data provided to the at least one application, the at least one characteristic value being: specified in advance according to the request data and generated based on the time-series of the instantaneous data stored in the data storage, (per claim 9) / attach at least one characteristic value to the instantaneous data provided to the at least one application, the at least one characteristic value being: specified in advance according to the request data and generated based on the time-series of the instantaneous data stored in the data storage, (per claim 12) (Paragraph [0009, 0018, 0048-0050, 0074] and Claim [1], Shin discloses that the controller sets field values (a characteristic value) and update collection status tables (also a characteristic value) when the data collector transmits. Regarding pre-established (in advance) rules, Shin discloses establishing either of the aforementioned “characteristic values” in advance, such as in paragraph [0074] where “The controller 23 may change a CAN ID field value and a collection period field value in the collection information tabled stored in the first memory of the data collector 22 at the user’s request” and the table comprises pre-established criteria (“O” and “X”, for instance). Both of the aforementioned cases are dependent upon the data received)
the server includes a server data storage configured to store the time-series of the instantaneous data transmitted from the vehicle, (per claim 9) (Paragraph [0060, 0064, 0099], Shin discloses that the server receives the data)
the time-series of the instantaneous data includes the instantaneous data acquired in a period from a previous data acquisition request to a current data acquisition request; and (per claim 1) / the time-series of the instantaneous data includes the instantaneous data acquired in a period from a previous data acquisition request to a current data acquisition request, and (per claim 9) / wherein the time-series of the instantaneous data includes the instantaneous data acquired in a period from a previous data acquisition request to a current data acquisition request; and (per claim 12) (Paragraph [0016, 0078], Shin discloses a segment between vehicle data collected in a previous period and vehicle data collected in a current period (thus disclosing tracking of data from a previous to a current period))
the at least one characteristic value represents a change state of the request data that occurred between the previous data acquisition request and the current data acquisition request, [and includes a statistic calculated based on a time series of the instantaneous data, the statistic being at least one of a maximum, a minimum, an average, a median, a variance, a standard deviation, or a mode]. (per claims 1 and 9) / the at least one characteristic value represents a change state of the request data that occurred between the previous data acquisition request and the current data acquisition request, [and includes a statistic calculated based on a time series of the instantaneous data, the statistic is at least one of a maximum, a minimum, an average, a median, a variance, a standard deviation, or a mode]. (per claim 12) (Paragraph [0009, 0018, 0048-0050, 0074] and Claim [1], Shin discloses that the controller sets field values (a characteristic value) and update collection status tables (also a characteristic value) when the data collector transmits. Regarding pre-established (in advance) rules, Shin discloses establishing either of the aforementioned “characteristic values” in advance, such as in paragraph [0074] where “The controller 23 may change a CAN ID field value and a collection period field value in the collection information tabled stored in the first memory of the data collector 22 at the user’s request” and the table comprises pre-established criteria (“O” and “X”, for instance). Both of the aforementioned cases are dependent upon the data received and the “O” and “X”, at least, depend upon a changing state of the data occurring between a previous request and a current request, as it changes from “collected” to “not collected” and the reverse)
The disclosure of Shin then differs from the independent claims noted above in that Shin does not perform post-processing on the time-series data set. However, the examiner submits that this is an obvious modification of Shin.
Takenaka, in a similar field of endeavor of vehicle data logging and processing, teaches and includes a statistic calculated based on a time series of the instantaneous data, the statistic being at least one of a maximum, a minimum, an average, a median, a variance, a standard deviation, or a mode (per claims 1 and 9) / and includes a statistic calculated based on a time series of the instantaneous data, the statistic is at least one of a maximum, a minimum, an average, a median, a variance, a standard deviation, or a mode (per claim 12) (Paragraph [0042-0043, 0049, 0063], Takenaka teaches post-processing the time series data to obtain and attach an average value to be transmitted with the time series data)
Shin and Takenaka are in a similar field of endeavor of vehicle data logging and processing. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Shin to include a post-processing data element as taught by Takenaka in the interest of classifying data and associating the data with certain driving scenarios, for example (Takenaka, Paragraph [0063]). Merely modifying the disclosure of Shin to perform post-processing on the time-series data steam disclosed is an obvious modification of Shin, and was known in the art at the time of effective filing through the disclosure of Takenaka. This constitutes the combination of known elements according to known methods to produce predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Shin in view of Takenaka. Shin further discloses wherein [a type of the vehicle data includes at least one of a position of the vehicle, a speed of the vehicle, an acceleration of the vehicle, a steering angle, or an engine rotation speed]; and the data storage is configured to store the instantaneous data for a certain period determined for each type of the vehicle data. (Paragraph [0008-0009, 0018, 0042-0043, 0046-0047, 0068], Shin discloses storing information/data for a certain period, the time period correspondingly set for each vehicle data (thus, the type of data). Further, Shin discloses that the data collected from the vehicle ECUs includes data from the steering ECU and engine ECU, the data including a status value and an output signal value)
By disclosing that steering and engine output signal values are obtained in Shin, it is implicit that steering angle and engine rotational speed, respectively, are obtained. However, Shin does not explicitly state this.
Takenaka, in a similar field of endeavor of vehicle data logging and processing, teaches a type of the vehicle data includes at least one of a position of the vehicle, a speed of the vehicle, an acceleration of the vehicle, a steering angle, or an engine rotation speed (Paragraph [0029, 0043], Takenaka teaches obtaining type of vehicle data including steering angle)
Shin and Takenaka are in a similar field of endeavor of vehicle data logging and processing. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Shin to explicitly state what variables are received and included in the ECUs, as taught by Takenaka, as this is implicit in Shin. As Shin explicitly discloses that the data includes “a status value, a status change value, an output signal value, and the like of the corresponding signal” immediately following “ECU 1 may be a controller for vehicle engine system, … and ECU n may be a controller for vehicle steering wheel” (Shin, Paragraph [0042]), a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have understood that the “output signal value” of “a controller for vehicle steering wheel”, for instance, would reasonably pertain to a steering angle. Takenaka is merely relied upon to show that it was known in the art to collect at time series of data including, specifically, steering angle. Merely clarifying that the generic “output signal value” of Shin is a steering angle is an obvious modification of Shin, as this is implicit.
Regarding claim 3: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Shin in view of Takenaka. Shin further discloses wherein one of the at least one characteristic value is a data generation cycle that is a cycle in which the vehicle data is generated by a generation source of the vehicle data. (Paragraph [0008-0009, 0018, 0043, 0046-0047, 0097], Shin discloses storing information/data for a certain period based on data source, and provides examples of data sources having differing frequencies/sampling rates)
Regarding claim 4: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Shin in view of Takenaka. Shin further discloses wherein [a type of the vehicle data includes at least one of a position of the vehicle, a speed of the vehicle, an acceleration of the vehicle, a steering angle, or an engine rotation speed], and one of the at least one characteristic value is the statistic calculated based on the time series of the instantaneous data accumulated within a time range set for each type of the vehicle data. (Paragraph [0009, 0042, 0049-0050, 0068], Shin discloses a collection status table update (one of the interpretations of “characteristic value” per the above) that occurs within a time range for each data received. Further, Shin discloses that the data collected from the vehicle ECUs includes data from the steering ECU and engine ECU, the data including a status value and an output signal value)
By disclosing that steering and engine output signal values are obtained in Shin, it is implicit that steering angle and engine rotational speed, respectively, are obtained. However, Shin does not explicitly state this.
Takenaka, in a similar field of endeavor of vehicle data logging and processing, teaches a type of the vehicle data includes at least one of a position of the vehicle, a speed of the vehicle, an acceleration of the vehicle, a steering angle, or an engine rotation speed (Paragraph [0029, 0043], Takenaka teaches obtaining type of vehicle data including steering angle)
Shin and Takenaka are in a similar field of endeavor of vehicle data logging and processing. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Shin to explicitly state what variables are received and included in the ECUs, as taught by Takenaka, as this is implicit in Shin. As Shin explicitly discloses that the data includes “a status value, a status change value, an output signal value, and the like of the corresponding signal” immediately following “ECU 1 may be a controller for vehicle engine system, … and ECU n may be a controller for vehicle steering wheel” (Shin, Paragraph [0042]), a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have understood that the “output signal value” of “a controller for vehicle steering wheel”, for instance, would reasonably pertain to a steering angle. Takenaka is merely relied upon to show that it was known in the art to collect at time series of data including, specifically, steering angle. Merely clarifying that the generic “output signal value” of Shin is a steering angle is an obvious modification of Shin, as this is implicit.
Regarding claim 5: Parent claim 4 is unpatentable over Shin in view of Takenaka. Shin further discloses wherein the time range is set to a period equal to or more than the period between the previous data acquisition request and the current data acquisition request. (Paragraph [0016, 0078], Shin discloses a time period including an overlap from a previous period to a current period (thus, at least equal to the time between a previous and current request))
Regarding claim 6: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Shin in view of Takenaka. Shin further discloses wherein the processor is further caused to attach the at least one characteristic value to the instantaneous data when a request interval is longer than a data generation cycle that is a cycle for generating the vehicle data requested by the data acquisition request, the request interval being an interval for receiving the data acquisition request from the at least one application. (Paragraph [0049-0055], Shin discloses an instance where an “X” is applied (characteristic) when it has already been collected (generation cycle) within an acquisition cycle (request interval))
Regarding claim 7: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Shin in view of Takenaka. Shin further discloses further comprising: an attachment policy storage configured to store a data attachment policy indicating information related to generation of the at least one characteristic value in association with the vehicle data; (Paragraph [0044-0047], Shin discloses storing a collection period (a collection period may be considered a “data attachment policy indicating information related to generation of the characteristic value”))
wherein the processor is further caused to generate the at least one characteristic value associated with the request data in the data attachment policy based on the time- series of the instantaneous data stored in the data storage. (Paragraph [0009, 0018, 0048-0050, 0074] and Claim [1], Shin discloses that the controller sets field values (a characteristic value) and update collection status tables (also a characteristic value))
Regarding claim 8: Parent claim 7 is unpatentable over Shin in view of Takenaka. Shin further discloses wherein the processor is further caused to: determine a vehicle state, and switch the data attachment policy used for generating the at least one characteristic value according to the vehicle state. (The examiner notes that “a vehicle state” is not particularly limiting and may be considered any variable or condition pertaining to the vehicle. Paragraph [0074], The examiner in parent claim 7 used the collection period as the basis for a “data attachment policy”. Shin further discloses that the collection period may be modified, such as by a user (the state entered by the user reasonably reads upon a “vehicle state”))
Regarding independent claim 10: Shin discloses A data provision system comprising: (Paragraph [0040-0041] and Figure [1], Shin discloses a system/apparatus for data handling/provisioning)
a data collection device communicably connected to an electronic control unit of a vehicle; and a server communicably connected to the vehicle, (Paragraph [0008-0009, 0040-0043] and Figure [1], Shin discloses a vehicle data collection device communicatively coupled to a plurality of ECUs (electronic control units) and a data server)
wherein the data collection device includes a processor and a memory coupled to the process, the memory storing program instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to at least (Paragraph [0006-0009, 0040-0043, 0066, 0073-0076] and Figure [1, 3], Shin discloses a system/apparatus for data handling/provisioning including a processor (CPU) and memory. Further, a controller is disclosed and is well-known in the art to comprise a processor and memory; as the controller is disclosed to both receive data and process it, it then reasonably comprises a processor and memory)
repeatedly acquire instantaneous data that is an instantaneous value of vehicle data transmitted from the vehicle, and (Paragraph [0008, 0043, 0067], Shin discloses receiving data periodically (repeatedly) and in real time (instantaneous))
transmit the acquired instantaneous data to the server, [the server includes:] (Paragraph [0060, 0064, 0099], Shin discloses transmitting the data to the server)
a vehicle data storage configured to store a time-series of the instantaneous data received by the data collection device; (Paragraph [0009, 0043], Shin discloses storing the real time vehicle data with a corresponding time period/collection period (time based))
[the server is] configured to, when accepting a data acquisition request from at least one application configured to execute a process using the vehicle data, extract the instantaneous data of a request data that is the vehicle data indicated by the data acquisition request, the instantaneous data being stored in the vehicle data storage, and provide the instantaneous data to the at least one application; (Paragraph [0009, 0015, 0095, 0099, 0104] and Figure [5], Shin discloses obtaining (extracting) and providing the data. Regarding “request”, the examiner notes that Shin discloses a plurality of cases where data is transmitted from the data storage, the prompting of each may reasonably be considered a “request”)
[the server is] further configured to attach at least one characteristic value to the instantaneous data to the at least one application, the at least one characteristic value being: specified in advance according to the request data and generated based on the time-series of the instantaneous data stored in the vehicle data storage, (Paragraph [0009, 0018, 0048-0050, 0074] and Claim [1], Shin discloses that the controller sets field values (a characteristic value) and update collection status tables (also a characteristic value) when the data collector transmits. Regarding pre-established (in advance) rules, Shin discloses establishing either of the aforementioned “characteristic values” in advance, such as in paragraph [0074] where “The controller 23 may change a CAN ID field value and a collection period field value in the collection information tabled stored in the first memory of the data collector 22 at the user’s request” and the table comprises pre-established criteria (“O” and “X”, for instance). Both of the aforementioned cases are dependent upon the data received)
the time-series of the instantaneous data includes the instantaneous data acquired in a period from a previous data acquisition request to a current data acquisition request, and (Paragraph [0016, 0078], Shin discloses a segment between vehicle data collected in a previous period and vehicle data collected in a current period (thus disclosing tracking of data from a previous to a current period))
the at least one characteristic value represents a change state of the request data that occurred between the previous data acquisition request and the current data acquisition request, [and includes a statistic calculated based on a time series of the instantaneous data, the statistic being at least one of a maximum, a minimum, an average, a median, a variance, a standard deviation, or a mode]. (Paragraph [0009, 0018, 0048-0050, 0074] and Claim [1], Shin discloses that the controller sets field values (a characteristic value) and update collection status tables (also a characteristic value) when the data collector transmits. Regarding pre-established (in advance) rules, Shin discloses establishing either of the aforementioned “characteristic values” in advance, such as in paragraph [0074] where “The controller 23 may change a CAN ID field value and a collection period field value in the collection information tabled stored in the first memory of the data collector 22 at the user’s request” and the table comprises pre-established criteria (“O” and “X”, for instance). Both of the aforementioned cases are dependent upon the data received and the “O” and “X”, at least, depend upon a changing state of the data occurring between a previous request and a current request, as it changes from “collected” to “not collected” and the reverse)
The disclosure of Shin then differs from independent claim 10 in two ways: (1) the mere description that the processing of the data is performed remotely by the server rather than the on-board computing equipment, and (2) Shin does not explicitly perform post-processing on the time-series data set. However, the examiner submits that both of the aforementioned differences are obvious modifications of Shin.
Regarding the first difference (1), the examiner submits that merely outsourcing processing of the method from an on-board processor to a remote system is an obvious variant using well-known, routine, and conventional computing systems known in the art at the time of effective filing.
Takenaka, in a similar field of endeavor of vehicle data processing, teaches and the server includes: (Paragraph [0091], Takenaka teaches that the processing may occur remotely from the vehicle by a separate device)
Shin and Takenaka are in a similar field of endeavor of vehicle data processing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Shin to include cloud computing/remote processing as taught by Takenaka in the interest of outsourcing processing power to a system or component that has a sufficient or abundant amount of processing power (Takenaka, Paragraph [0091]). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have found it obvious to merely outsource the processing performed on the local vehicle in the event that more demanding processing was needed from a more powerful/capable cloud computer. Merely performing an analogous series of steps from a remote computer versus an on-board computer is an obvious variant of the disclosure of Shin, and one that may be considered implicit through Shin’s teaching of using the data stored in the server for various services (Paragraph [0064], indicating that the server may not only exist for storage, but for further processing as well).
Regarding the second difference (2), Takenaka, in a similar field of endeavor of vehicle data logging and processing, teaches and includes a statistic calculated based on a time series of the instantaneous data, the statistic being at least one of a maximum, a minimum, an average, a median, a variance, a standard deviation, or a mode (Paragraph [0042-0043, 0049, 0063], Takenaka teaches post-processing the time series data to obtain and attach an average value to be transmitted with the time series data)
Shin and Takenaka are in a similar field of endeavor of vehicle data logging and processing. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Shin to include a post-processing data element as taught by Takenaka in the interest of classifying data and associating the data with certain driving scenarios, for example (Takenaka, Paragraph [0063]). Merely modifying the disclosure of Shin to perform post-processing on the time-series data steam disclosed is an obvious modification of Shin, and was known in the art at the time of effective filing through the disclosure of Takenaka. This constitutes the combination of known elements according to known methods to produce predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER / PRIOR ART REJECTIONS NOT BEING MADE
Claims 13-15 are currently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b); however, they are not being rejected by prior art.
The following is an examiner's reasoning for why there are no prior art rejections:
The prior art of record does not disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious each and every limitation in such a way that would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to have arrived at the claimed invention. A hypothetical prior art rejection would require impermissible hindsight reasoning to construct. A brief summary of each claim and the rationale for no prior art rejections is provided below, with elements not disclosed, taught, suggested, or rendered obvious by prior art shown as underlined:
The data provision platform according to claim 1, wherein
the statistic includes the variance and the mode, and
the at least one application uses the variance to determine a reliability of the request data, and replaces the request data with the mode when the reliability is low.
The data provision platform according to claim 1, wherein
the statistic includes the variance, and
the at least one application uses the variance to determine whether the vehicle is in an unstable state or a stable state.
The data provision platform according to claim 1, wherein
the statistic includes the maximum value, and
the at least one application uses the maximum value to monitor whether the request data exceeds an allowable value.
The examiner rejected parent claim 1 as being unpatentable over Shin in view of Takenaka. However, Takenaka does not teach variance, mode, or a maximum as the statistic of concern, nor does Takenaka disclose further use of the statistic to compare against predetermined thresholds for reliability and/or stability determinations. In order to arrive at a hypothetical rejection of the aforementioned claims 13-15, not only would Shin need to be modified with the post-processing of Takenaka, but Takenaka would need to be further modified in order to disclose the statistic of concern and comparison of the statistic to a predetermined threshold, the hypothetical rejection requiring impermissible hindsight to reconstruct. The prior art of note does not disclose, suggest, teach, or render obvious the claimed invention in claims 13-15 when the claims are considered as a whole. However, the examiner notes that claims 13-15 are currently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for matters related to indefiniteness; mere inclusion of one or more of claims 13-15 into the independent claims in their current state would not necessarily result in an allowable claim as correction of indefiniteness-related issues is also required.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 BENJAMIN J BROSH whose telephone number is (571)270-0105. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1700.
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, THOMAS WORDEN can be reached at (571)272-4876. 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.
/B.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/THOMAS E WORDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights