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.
National Stage Entry / Effective Filing Date
Examiner acknowledges that the instant application is a 371 national stage entry to PCT/JP2023/023807, filed on 27 June 2023, with priority to Japanese patent application JP2022-109821 filed 07 July 2022. As such, the effective filing date of the instant claims is 07 July 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) filed on 30 December 2024 and 18 June 2025 comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract states "…provide the instantaneous data to s data use unit…", inadvertently stating "s" instead of "a" regarding the "data use unit".. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Further, the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0004] states "…provide the instantaneous data to s data use unit…", inadvertently stating "s" instead of "a" regarding the "data use unit".
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawing Note
The examiner notes that 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) provides guidance for assigning identifiers to parts shown. Figures provided in the disclosure assign the same part number for multiples of components; for example, see Figure [2] where both "VEHICLE EXTERIOR APPLICATION" are labeled as 7, both "VEHICLE INTERIOR APPLICATION" are labeled as 31, and so on. The examiner will withhold an objection at this time as they clearly show duplicates of what would be the "same" component, but the examiner notes that applicant is encouraged to label duplicates as 7a, 7b, 7c, … 7n, as an example in the case that duplicate components are intended to be shown. See MPEP 608.02(e).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, 10, 11, 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 9-12 state “each unit”, such as that found, for instance in claim 1 "…a data collection unit…transmitted from each unit of a vehicle;". "Each" unit implies that a plurality of units were previously discussed and makes reference to them. However, the units were not previously disclosed in the claims, creating a lack of antecedent basis. The examiner believes that "one or more electronic control units (ECUs) of a vehicle…" is intended rather than "each unit of a vehicle". However, the examiner notes that "units" should be provided with some form of structure to avoid lack of clarity concerns moving forward; the examiner provided the aforementioned example merely to outline that "each" was improper as the vehicle "units" were not previously discussed.
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 limitations use 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 limitations are:
"data collection unit" - claims 1, 9, 10
"data provision unit" - claims 1, 9, 10
"data use unit" - claims 1, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12
"data attachment unit" - claims 1, 6, 9, 10
"attachment data generation unit" - claims 7, 8
"state determination unit" - claim 8
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Regarding "data collection unit", paragraph [0019] merely states that the unit is contained within another generic component that lacks structure (data provision platform). Paragraph [0026] states what the unit does but not what it is. Paragraph [0114] describes an embodiment where the data collection unit resides within an ECU, but provides no further structure and additionally is merely only one embodiment and not an explicit disclosure of the structure of the unit. As the unit is not described in the specification with sufficient structure, a corresponding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is provided below.
Regarding "data provision unit", paragraph [0019] merely states that the unit is contained within another generic component that lacks structure (data provision platform). Paragraph [0027] provides an embodiment where the server includes a data provision unit, but provides no further structure and additionally is merely only one embodiment and not an explicit disclosure of the structure of the unit. As the unit is not described in the specification with sufficient structure, a corresponding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is provided below.
Regarding "data use unit", the examiner was unable to locate anywhere in the specification that corresponding structure is provided for this term. As the unit is not described in the specification with sufficient structure, a corresponding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is provided below.
Regarding "data attachment unit", paragraph [0019] merely states that the unit is contained within another generic component that lacks structure (data provision platform). Paragraph [0027] provides an embodiment where the server includes a data provision unit, but provides no further structure and additionally is merely only one embodiment and not an explicit disclosure of the structure of the unit. As the unit is not described in the specification with sufficient structure, a corresponding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is provided below.
Regarding "attachment data generation unit", specification paragraph [0049] states that the in-vehicle system (another component that lacks corresponding structure) includes an attachment data generation unit, but provides no further structure and additionally is merely only one embodiment and not an explicit disclosure of the structure of the unit. As the unit is not described in the specification with sufficient structure, a corresponding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is provided below.
Regarding "state determination unit", specification paragraph [0049] states that the in-vehicle system (another component that lacks corresponding structure) includes a state determination unit, but provides no further structure and additionally is merely only one embodiment and not an explicit disclosure of the structure of the unit. Similarly, paragraph [0114] describes that one of the ECUs includes the state determination unit, but again provides no further structure and additionally is merely only one embodiment and not an explicit disclosure of the structure of the unit. As the unit is not described in the specification with sufficient structure, a corresponding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is 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.
PART I – 35 U.S.C. 112(f) TERMS:
Claim limitations "data collection unit", "data provision unit", "data use unit", "data attachment unit", "attachment data generation unit", and "state determination unit" used in claims 1, 6, 9, 10, 11, and 12 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. To reiterate from the corresponding 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation above:
Regarding "data collection unit", paragraph [0019] merely states that the unit is contained within another generic component that lacks structure (data provision platform). Paragraph [0026] states what the unit does but not what it is. Paragraph [0114] describes an embodiment where the data collection unit resides within an ECU, but provides no further structure and additionally is merely only one embodiment and not an explicit disclosure of the structure of the unit. As the unit is not described in the specification with sufficient structure, a corresponding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is provided.
Regarding "data provision unit", paragraph [0019] merely states that the unit is contained within another generic component that lacks structure (data provision platform). Paragraph [0027] provides an embodiment where the server includes a data provision unit, but provides no further structure and additionally is merely only one embodiment and not an explicit disclosure of the structure of the unit. As the unit is not described in the specification with sufficient structure, a corresponding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is provided.
Regarding "data use unit", the examiner was unable to locate anywhere in the specification that corresponding structure is provided for this term. As the unit is not described in the specification with sufficient structure, a corresponding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is provided.
Regarding "data attachment unit", paragraph [0019] merely states that the unit is contained within another generic component that lacks structure (data provision platform). Paragraph [0027] provides an embodiment where the server includes a data provision unit, but provides no further structure and additionally is merely only one embodiment and not an explicit disclosure of the structure of the unit. As the unit is not described in the specification with sufficient structure, a corresponding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is provided.
Regarding "attachment data generation unit", specification paragraph [0049] states that the in-vehicle system (another component that lacks corresponding structure) includes an attachment data generation unit, but provides no further structure and additionally is merely only one embodiment and not an explicit disclosure of the structure of the unit. As the unit is not described in the specification with sufficient structure, a corresponding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is provided.
Regarding "state determination unit", specification paragraph [0049] states that the in-vehicle system (another component that lacks corresponding structure) includes a state determination unit, but provides no further structure and additionally is merely only one embodiment and not an explicit disclosure of the structure of the unit. Similarly, paragraph [0114] describes that one of the ECUs includes the state determination unit, but again provides no further structure and additionally is merely only one embodiment and not an explicit disclosure of the structure of the unit. As the unit is not described in the specification with sufficient structure, a corresponding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is provided.
Therefore, the claims are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
PART II – GENERAL CLARITY
Issue 1: Claims 2 and 4 reference a "type of the vehicle data". The examiner consulted the specification in order to ascertain if an explicit definition was provided for "type" in regards to vehicle data, but was unable to locate one. As the disclosure does not provide a person having ordinary skill in the art with the basis for understanding what constitutes "type" (is it metric v imperial, a certain system, a sampling rate, user or computer entered, etc. among an infinite number of options), it falls under the guidance of MPEP 2173.05(b).III.E. and renders the claims indefinite.
Issue 2: Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 7-12 reference a "characteristic value". The claims are rejected for lack of clarity with particular regards to "characteristic value". The examiner notes that the inventive concept appears to rely heavily upon what the "characteristic value" is and how it is determined, but neither the claims nor the specification provide explicit description. For example, "characteristic value" is described in specification paragraph [0057], for instance, using merely exemplary language "The characteristic value may be a physical value representing…". The same paragraph provides explicit language of "The characteristic value is data indicating features of the request data series in a predetermined period…", but does not particularly limit its meaning. For instance, the "characteristic value" may merely be a unit of measure (such as feet, meters, miles per hour, seconds, etc.), a measure of quantity of data in the data stream during the time period, general magnitude of values (as a generically "larger" value is a "feature" of the data), among any number of other definitions. Paragraph [0066] provides a single example where "For example, in a case where the request data is position information, when the vehicle state indicates traveling, the characteristic value is the current position information." This, again, does not particularly point out what the "characteristic value" is, as 1) the aforementioned excerpt is merely exemplary, and 2) current position information opens interpretation beyond merely a geographical and/or relative position, as the word "information" following "current position" implies that further data associated with position may read upon the language. Ultimately, the examiner notes that attachment of characteristic value appears to be critical to the inventive concept, but is not explicitly described in the specification, nor is particularly limited in the claims. The claims then recite a generic "characteristic value" without proper support for understanding what may or may not be understood as a "characteristic value", and this then renders the claims indefinite.
Issue 3: Claim 4 states "…wherein one of the characteristic value is a statistic…". The examiner notes that claim 4 depends upon claim 1 and that claim 1 only notes a single characteristic value. Claim 4 implies a plurality of characteristic values with recitation of "one of the". As only one characteristic was previously initiated, it is unclear if there are supposed to be a plurality of characteristic values or if the "one of the" is a typographical error.
Regarding both PART I and PART II noted above, as all independent claims (1, 9-12) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and the dependent claims do not resolve the above-noted issues, all dependent claims (2-8) are rejected due to dependency upon a rejected base claim. Thus, all pending claims (1-12) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Therefore, the examiner notes that this phrase is indefinite and fails 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.
Claims 1-9 and 11-12 are 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 claims 1 (apparatus), 9 (system), 11 (method), and 12 (apparatus, non-transitory memory): Shin discloses A data provision platform comprising: (per claim 1) (Paragraph [0040-0041] and Figure [1], Shin discloses a system/apparatus for data handling/provisioning) / A data provision system comprising: (per claim 9) (Paragraph [0040-0041] and Figure [1], Shin discloses a system/apparatus for data handling/provisioning) / A data provision method comprising: (per claim 11) (Paragraph [0100] and Figure [5], Shin discloses a method of data collection/provision) / 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: (per claim 9) (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)
a data collection unit configured to repeatedly acquire instantaneous data that is an instantaneous value of vehicle data transmitted from each unit of a vehicle; (per claim 1) / a data collection unit configured to repeatedly acquire instantaneous data that is an instantaneous value of vehicle data transmitted from each unit of a vehicle, and (per claim 9) / repeatedly acquiring instantaneous data that is an instantaneous value of vehicle data transmitted from each unit of a vehicle; (per claim 11) / repeatedly acquire instantaneous data that is an instantaneous value of vehicle data transmitted from each unit of 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 data collection unit; (per claim 1) / a data storage configured to store a time-series of the instantaneous data acquired by the data collection unit; (per claim 9) / storing a time-series of the instantaneous data in a data storage; (per claim 11) / 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))
a data provision unit configured to, when accepting a data acquisition request from at least one data use unit 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 data use unit; and (per claim 1) / a data provision unit configured to, when accepting a data acquisition request from at least one data use unit 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 data use unit; and (per claim 9) / when accepting a data acquisition request from at least one data use unit 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 data use unit; and (per claim 11) / when accepting a data acquisition request from at least one data use unit 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 data use unit; 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”)
a data attachment unit configured to attach a characteristic value to the instantaneous data provided by the data provision unit to the data use unit, the 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) / a data attachment unit configured to attach a characteristic value to the instantaneous data provided by the data provision unit to the data use unit, the 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, and (per claim 9) / attaching a characteristic value to the instantaneous data provided to the data use unit, the 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 11) / attach a characteristic value to the instantaneous data provided to the data use unit, the 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)
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. (per claim 1) / 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. (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. (per claim 11) / 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. (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))
Regarding claim 2: Shin discloses parent claim 1. Shin further discloses wherein the data storage is configured to store the instantaneous data for a certain period determined for each type of the vehicle data. (As a preliminary matter, the examiner notes that “type” is interpreted broadly. Paragraph [0008-0009, 0018, 0043, 0046-0047], Shin discloses storing information/data for a certain period, the time period correspondingly set for each vehicle data (thus, the type of data))
Regarding claim 3: Shin discloses parent claim 1. Shin further discloses wherein one of the 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: Shin discloses parent claim 1. Shin further discloses wherein one of the characteristic value is a statistic calculated based on the instantaneous data accumulated within a time range set for each type of the vehicle data. (Paragraph [0009, 0049-0050], 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)
Regarding claim 5: Shin discloses parent claim 4. Shin further discloses wherein the time range is set to a period equal to or more than a period between a previous data acquisition request and a 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: Shin discloses parent claim 1. Shin further discloses wherein the data attachment unit attaches the 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 one data use unit. (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: Shin discloses parent claim 1. Shin further discloses further comprising: an attachment policy storage configured to store a data attachment policy indicating information related to generation of the characteristic value in association with the vehicle data; and (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”))
an attachment data generation unit configured to generate the 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: Shin discloses parent claim 7. Shin further discloses further comprising a state determination unit configured to determine a vehicle state, wherein the attachment data generation unit is configured to switch the data attachment policy used for generating the characteristic value according to the vehicle state determined by the state determination unit. (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”))
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.
Claim 10 is 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 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, wherein the data collection device includes: (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)
a data collection unit configured to repeatedly acquire instantaneous data that is an instantaneous value of vehicle data transmitted from each unit of a 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, [and 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))
a data provision unit configured to, when accepting a data acquisition request from at least one data use unit 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 data use unit; 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”)
a data attachment unit configured to attach a characteristic value to the instantaneous data provided by the data provision unit to the data use unit, the 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. (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 disclosure of Shin then differs from independent claim 10 in the mere description that the processing of the data is performed remotely by the server rather than the on-board computing equipment.
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).
References
Further references that discuss prior art, but were not relied upon for creation of this office action are provided below:
#
Publication Number
Title
Inventor
Dates
Description of Relevance
1
US 2008/0147267 A1
Methods of Discretizing Data Captured at Event Data Recorders
Plante et al.
Filed: 13 Dec 2006
Pub: 19 Jun 2008
Discusses an event recording system that obtains time series data from a plurality of vehicle systems to provide it for further processing, characterizing data provided.
2
US 2017/0149900 A1
GATEWAY DEVICE AND SENSOR DATA
COLLECTION SYSTEM
Moriguchi et al.
Filed: 10 Jun 2015
Pub: 25 May 2017
Discusses a system of obtaining data from a plurality of vehicle subsystems at various frequencies, store it, and transmit the obtained data.
3
US 2016/0171789 A1
TERMINAL MOUNTED IN VEHICLE,
CONTROL METHOD THEREOF, DATA
CENTER AND CONTROL METHOD
THEREOF
Moon
Filed: 05 May 2015
Pub: 16 Jun 2016
Discusses obtaining data from a plurality of vehicle control units, generating a data package to be transmitted from the data obtained, and transmitting the data to a remote server.
Conclusion
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