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 .
Claim Interpretation
"Run-time data" is interpreted, consistent with the definition known in the art, as any
data collected during a time period when a function, program, system, etc. is operating (i.e.
during run-time).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 21, 23-24, 26-28, and 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansel et al. US 20190318555 A1 (hereinafter Hansel) in view of Della Penna US 20190220011 A1 (hereinafter Della).
Regarding claim 1,
Hansel teaches
A device comprising:
non-volatile memory (Figure 1 non-volatile memory 106); and
a controller configured to, in response to detecting a predetermined event, download data from volatile memory to the non-volatile memory (Abstract “The controller is configured to initiate a transfer of the vehicle data stored in the volatile memory module to the non-volatile memory module in response to receiving an indication from the collision-detector module that a collision has occurred”).
Hansel does not explicitly teach that
the controller is further configured to send the data to a server.
Hansel does teach sending data to a server (¶ 0033 “the autonomous vehicles 440 may… transmit data to the transportation management system 460”; ¶ 0028 “transportation management system 460 may include one or more server computers”), but it is not clear if the controller performs this function after collision occurrence, so for the purpose of clarity of record, Della is relied upon for this rejection.
Della teaches that
the controller is further configured to send the data to a server (¶ 0023 “autonomy controller 150 may be configured to transmit event data…to event-adaptive computing platform 109”; see also ¶ 0017 and claim 8 where event data is initially stored in a repository before transmission).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Hansel to incorporate the teachings of Della such that the communication with the server of Hansel can be done using the controller after collision occurrence as taught by Della. This modification would require only a routine and mundane rearrangement of software functions such that these functions are performed by the controller. It has been held that rearranging the location of elements (i.e. software functions) without affecting operation of the elements involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C) and the court cases cited therein. Further, this modification would thus be made with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce production costs by allowing one component to perform multiple functions. Further, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Hansel to incorporate the teachings of Della such that the downloaded event data of Hansel can be included in data that is able to be transmitted to the server of Hansel as taught by Della. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for post incident analysis by a more powerful computer than can be found on board a vehicle to understand how to improve self-driving software and prevent recurrence of the incident.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Hansel reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Hansel further teaches that
the downloaded data is run-time data (claim 14 “the vehicle data stored in the volatile memory module comprises… navigation decision data”; ¶ 0009 “decision data (e.g., computational logs, intermediate computation results, object detection result, etc.)”; examiner understands this as equivalent to run time data as logs and results would be collected during run time; see Abstract regarding data download).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Hansel reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Hansel further teaches
further comprising a sensor (¶ 0009 “one or more sensors”), wherein the data is obtained from the sensor (¶ 0012 “the vehicle data may include raw sensor data”).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Hansel reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Hansel further teaches
updating software in response to receiving a communication from the server (¶ 0033 “the autonomous vehicles 440 may receive data from… the transportation management system 460… Example of received data may include… software updates”; ¶ 0028 “transportation management system 460 may include one or more server computers”).
Hansel does not explicitly teach that
the controller is further configured to update software in response to receiving a communication.
Della further teaches that
the controller is further configured to update software in response to receiving a communication (¶ 0024 discloses the controller receiving updates and being updated).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Hansel to incorporate the teachings of Della such that the updating of the software of Hansel can be done using the controller as taught by Della. This modification would require only a routine and mundane rearrangement of software functions such that these functions are performed by the controller. It has been held that rearranging the location of elements (i.e. software functions) without affecting operation of the elements involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C) and the court cases cited therein. Further, this modification would thus be made with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce production costs by allowing one component to perform multiple functions.
Regarding claim 6, the modified Hansel reference teaches all of claim 5 as detailed above.
Hansel does not teach that
the server is configured to send the communication based on identifying that software is unsafe.
Della further teaches that
the server is configured to send the communication based on identifying that software is unsafe (¶ 0080-0082 discloses sending an updated software to a vehicle after analyzing event data to determine a type of event such as software failing to stop due to an occluded stop sign; examiner understands at least this example to be equivalent to identifying unsafe software; see also ¶ 0023-0024 regarding more detail on updates).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Hansel to incorporate the further teachings of Della such that the server of Hansel can analyze the received data to determine unsafe operations that require logic updates as taught by Della. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve safety of an autonomously driving vehicle and prevent future occurrences of the collision event.
Regarding claim 8, the modified Hansel reference teaches all of claim 5 as detailed above.
Hansel does not teach that
the updated software controls a navigation system of a vehicle.
Della further teaches that
the updated software controls a navigation system of a vehicle (¶ 0082, for example, discloses the updated software updating time/distance at which brakes are applied; examiner understands this as control of an autonomous navigation system including brakes).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Hansel to incorporate the further teachings of Della such that the updated software can control vehicle navigation as taught by Della. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve safety of an autonomously driving vehicle and prevent future occurrences of the collision event.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Hansel reference teaches all of claim 8 as detailed above.
Hansel does not teach that
the updated software causes the vehicle to avoid unsafe functions.
Della further teaches that
the updated software causes the vehicle to avoid unsafe functions (¶ 0082, for example, discloses the updated software updating time/distance at which brakes are applied).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Hansel to incorporate the further teachings of Della such that the updated software improves autonomous driving practices to avoid reoccurrence of the event as taught by Della. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve safety of an autonomously driving vehicle.
Regarding claim 21,
Hansel teaches
A system comprising:
volatile memory configured to store data used by software during operation of a vehicle (Abstract “a volatile memory module configured to store vehicle data”; ¶ 0012 “the vehicle data may include data used for vehicle navigation (e.g.., assisted or autonomous)”); and
one or more processors configured to, in response to detecting a predetermined event, download the data stored in the volatile memory to non-volatile memory (Abstract “The controller is configured to initiate a transfer of the vehicle data stored in the volatile memory module to the non-volatile memory module in response to receiving an indication from the collision-detector module that a collision has occurred”; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the controller of Hansel would conventionally include a processor since it is detailed as a hardware component comprising a computing system in at least ¶ 0022).
Hansel does not teach
one or more processors further configured to extract event data from the non-volatile memory.
Hansel does teach extraction of event data from memory to transmit to a server (¶ 0033 “the autonomous vehicles 440 may… transmit data to the transportation management system 460”; ¶ 0028 “transportation management system 460 may include one or more server computers”), but it is not clear if the processor(s) perform(s) this function after collision occurrence, so for the purpose of clarity of record, Della is relied upon for this rejection.
Della teaches
one or more processors further configured to extract event data from the non-volatile memory (¶ 0023 “autonomy controller 150 may be configured to transmit event data…to event-adaptive computing platform 109”; see also ¶ 0017 and claim 8 where event data is initially stored in a repository before transmission).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Hansel to incorporate the teachings of Della such that the communication with the server of Hansel can be done using the controller as taught by Della. This modification would require only a routine and mundane rearrangement of software functions such that these functions are performed by the controller. It has been held that rearranging the location of elements (i.e. software functions) without affecting operation of the elements involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C) and the court cases cited therein. Further, this modification would thus be made with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce production costs by allowing one component to perform multiple functions. Further, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Hansel to incorporate the teachings of Della such that the downloaded event data of Hansel can be included in data that is able to be transmitted to the server of Hansel as taught by Della. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for post incident analysis by a more powerful computer than can be found on board a vehicle to understand how to improve self-driving software and prevent recurrence of the incident.
Regarding claim 23, the modified Hansel reference teaches all of claim 21 as detailed above.
Hansel further teaches
the predetermined event is identified based on a rate of deceleration of the vehicle exceeding a predetermined threshold (¶ 0016 “collision-detection module 112 detects a collision (e.g., through a spontaneous spike in deceleration over a pre-determined threshold)”).
Regarding claim 24, the modified Hansel reference teaches all of claim 21 as detailed above.
Hansel further teaches
the predetermined event comprises accelerometer data indicating that deceleration of the vehicle exceeds a threshold (¶ 0015 “ a collision may be detected… through an accelerometer”; ¶ 0016 “collision-detection module 112 detects a collision (e.g., through a spontaneous spike in deceleration over a pre-determined threshold)”).
Regarding claim 26, the modified Hansel reference teaches all of claim 21 as detailed above.
Hansel further teaches that
the data is downloaded to the non-volatile memory (Abstract “initiate a transfer of the vehicle data stored in the volatile memory module to the non-volatile memory module in response to receiving an indication… that a collision has occurred”), the extracted event data is communicated to a central server (¶ 0033 “the autonomous vehicles 440 may… transmit data to the transportation management system 460”; ¶ 0028 “transportation management system 460 may include one or more server computers”).
Hansel does not teach that
the extracted event data is communicated to a central server configured to analyze the event data.
Della further teaches that
the extracted event data is communicated to a central server (¶ 0023 “transmit event data 138… to event-adaptive computing platform 109”; see also ¶ 0017 and claim 8 where event data is initially stored in a repository before transmission) configured to analyze the event data (¶ 0080 discloses analysis of the received data by the computing platform).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Hansel to incorporate the teachings of Della such that the data sent to a server as taught by Hansel can be the event data stored in memory wherein the server can analyze the event data as taught by Della. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to allow remote identification of software faults on a computer that is undamaged from the event to improve safety of the vehicle and reliability of the completion of the diagnostic process.
Regarding claim 27, the modified Hansel reference teaches all of claim 21 as detailed above.
Hansel further teaches that
the data is run-time data (claim 14 “the vehicle data stored in the volatile memory module comprises… navigation decision data”; ¶ 0009 “decision data (e.g., computational logs, intermediate computation results, object detection result, etc.)”; examiner understands this as equivalent to run time data as logs and results would be collected during run time) including sensor data (¶ 0012 “the vehicle data may include raw sensor data”) and data regarding an operational state of a control system for the vehicle (¶ 0016 “the sensor data stored in volatile memory module 104 may include… status information of the vehicle”).
Regarding claim 28, the modified Hansel reference teaches all of claim 27 as detailed above.
Hansel further teaches that
downloading the data comprises downloading at least a predetermined portion of the data stored in the volatile memory (Abstract “transfer of the vehicle data stored in the volatile memory module to the non-volatile memory module”).
Regarding claim 30,
Hansel teaches
A method comprising:
storing data used by software in volatile memory (Abstract “a volatile memory module configured to store vehicle data”; ¶ 0012 “the vehicle data may include data used for vehicle navigation (e.g.., assisted or autonomous)”); and
in response to detecting a predetermined event associated with a vehicle, downloading the data stored in the volatile memory to non-volatile memory (“Abstract “The controller is configured to initiate a transfer of the vehicle data stored in the volatile memory module to the non-volatile memory module in response to receiving an indication from the collision-detector module that a collision has occurred”) and sending the data to a server (¶ 0033 “the autonomous vehicles 440 may… transmit data to the transportation management system 460”; ¶ 0028 “transportation management system 460 may include one or more server computers”).
While Hansel does explicitly teach
sending the data to a server,
it is not clear if the transmission is performed after collision occurrence, so for the purpose of clarity of record, Della is relied upon for this rejection.
Della teaches
sending the data to a server (¶ 0023 “autonomy controller 150 may be configured to transmit event data…to event-adaptive computing platform 109”; see also ¶ 0017 and claim 8 where event data is initially stored in a repository before transmission).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Hansel to incorporate the teachings of Della such that the downloaded event data of Hansel can be included in data that is able to be transmitted to the server of Hansel as taught by Della. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for post incident analysis by a more powerful computer than can be found on board a vehicle to understand how to improve self-driving software and prevent recurrence of the incident.
Regarding claim 31, the modified Hansel reference teaches all of claim 30 as detailed above.
Hansel further teaches that
detecting the predetermined event comprises identifying an extent of movement as compared to a predetermined threshold (¶ 0016 “collision-detection module 112 detects a collision (e.g., through a spontaneous spike in deceleration over a pre-determined threshold)”).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansel and Della as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Warren US 20150356795 A1 (hereinafter Warren).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Hansel reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Hansel further teaches that
the data is downloaded from the volatile memory (Abstract “initiate a transfer of the vehicle data stored in the volatile memory module to the non-volatile memory module”).
Hansel does not explicitly teach that
the volatile memory provides system memory for the controller, and the data is downloaded from the system memory.
Warren teaches that
the volatile memory provides system memory for the controller (¶ 0049 “major subsystems of controller 700, such as… a system memory 715 (typically RAM, but which may also include ROM, flash RAM, or the like)”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Hansel to incorporate the teachings of Warren such that the volatile memory may be system memory as taught by Warren such that, since data is downloaded from volatile memory according to Hansel and the entire volatile memory is system memory according to Warren, data would consequentially be downloaded from the system memory thanks to this modification. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to allow memory to be provided fast read/write times to the controller for any processing tasks that requires it. Further, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Hansel to incorporate the teachings Warren such that the volatile memory of Hansel can be rearranged to be included within the controller of Hansel according to the teachings of Warren since it has been held that rearranging the location of elements without affecting operation of the elements involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C) and the court cases cited therein.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansel and Della as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of “Classification of Software Behaviors for Failure Detection” by Lo et al. (hereinafter Lo).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Hansel reference teaches all of claim 6 as detailed above.
Hansel does not teach that
the server is further configured to identify that the software is unsafe based on pattern recognition.
Lo teaches that
the server is further configured to identify that the software is unsafe based on pattern recognition (Abstract discloses using a pattern based approach to detect software anomalies and failures; examiner understands software anomalies and failures as equivalent to unsafe software).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Hansel to incorporate the teachings of Lo such that the analysis of Della can further include a pattern based approach of software failure/anomalies as taught by Lo. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve classification accuracy as disclosed by Lo (Conclusion).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansel and Della as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Davidson US 2013030873 A1 (hereinafter Davidson).
Regarding claim 22, the modified Hansel reference teaches all of claim 21 as detailed above.
Hansel does not teach that
the predetermined event is identified based on a measurement of a brake pedal in the vehicle.
Davidson teaches that
the predetermined event is identified based on a measurement of a brake pedal in the vehicle (¶ 0094 discloses storing data in response to a predefined event relating to a parameter measured by one or more sensors; ¶ 0083 discloses a brake pedal position sensor).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Hansel to incorporate the teachings of Davidson. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function, but in the very combination itself, that is in the substitution of the brake pedal position based event of Davidson for the collision event of Hansel. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result of causing data collection in response to a detected event renders the claim obvious.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansel and Della as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Klug US 8229630 B2 (hereinafter Klug).
Regarding claim 25, the modified Hansel reference teaches all of claim 21 as detailed above.
Hansel does not teach that
the download of the data is performed within a specific time duration after detecting the predetermined event, the specific time duration being less than five seconds.
Klug teaches that
the download of the data is performed within a specific time duration after detecting the predetermined event, the specific time duration being less than five seconds (column 2 lines 10-62 discloses that; following detection of disconnection from a battery in, for example, and accident; accident data is collected in 250ms and transferred to non-volatile memory in approximately 2 seconds).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Hansel to incorporate the teachings of Klug such that upon a collision detection of Hansel, accident data can be collected and transferred to non-volatile memory in approximately 2.25 seconds as taught by Klug. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to ensure sufficient data exists to reconstruct the accident even if the vehicle’s battery becomes disconnected as disclosed in Klug (column 1 lines 15-25 and column 2 lines 10-31).
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansel and Della as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Zwerg et al. US 20190377404 A1 (hereinafter Zwerg).
Regarding claim 29, the modified Hansel reference teaches all of claim 28 as detailed above.
Hansel teaches that
the predetermined portion includes a program counter indicating an operational state of the software executing during the predetermined event.
Zwerg teaches that
the predetermined portion includes a program counter (¶ 0025 discloses storing program counters in memory in response to a low power event) indicating an operational state of the software executing during the predetermined event (¶ 0025 “the data stored in the NVL memory 115 during the entry into the low power mode represents a state of one or more of the CPU 105 or one or more peripherals”; Abstract discloses that normal operating is interrupted to cause data transfer indicating that the transferred data is the state at the time and consequentially during the event).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Hansel to incorporate the teachings of Zwerg such that a program counter can be included in the downloaded data as taught by Zwerg. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to enable a system state to be easily recovered following reset of the system as taught by Zwerg (¶ 0025).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4,21, 23-24, 27-28, and 30-31 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 9-10, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,507,175 B2 (hereinafter Golov) in view of Hansel and Della. Golov teaches the following.
Application 19/020,438
US Patent 11,507,175 B2 (Golov)
Claim 1
Claim 9
A device comprising:
A system comprising…
non-volatile memory; and
...non-volatile memory…
a controller configured to, in response to detecting a predetermined event, download data from volatile memory to the non-volatile memory
...at least one processing device; andmemory storing instructions configured to instruct the at least one processing device to... in response to determining that the event has occurred...initiate a transfer of data, the transfer including copying data stored in the volatile memory to the non-volatile memory…
and send the data to a server.
Claim 2
Claim 10 or Claim 18
The device of claim 1, wherein the downloaded data is run-time data.
The system of claim 9, wherein the collected data includes data indicating failure or impending failure of a power source that provides power to the volatile memory.The system of claim 9, wherein the collected dataincludes data from at least one accelerometer.
Claim 3
Claim 9
The device of claim 1, wherein the volatile memory provides system memory for the controller, and the data is downloaded from the system memory.
...wherein the first processing device utilizes thevolatile memory as system memory for the firstprocessing device…
Claim 4
Claim 18
The device of claim 1, further comprising a sensor, wherein the data is obtained from the sensor.
The system of claim 9, wherein the collected dataincludes data from at least one accelerometer.
Claim 21
Claim 9
A system comprising:
A system comprising…
volatile memory configured to store data used by software during operation of a vehicle; and
...volatile memory…
one or more processors configured to, in response to detecting a predetermined event, download the data stored in the volatile memory to non-volatile memory.
...at least one processing device; andmemory storing instructions configured to instruct the at least one processing device to... in response to determining that the event has occurred...initiate a transfer of data, the transfer including copying data stored in the volatile memory to the non-volatile memory…
and extract event data from the non-volatile memory.
Claim 23
Claim 4
The system of claim 21, wherein the predetermined event is identified based on a rate of deceleration of the vehicle exceeding a predetermined threshold.
The method of claim 1, wherein the collected data includes data from at least one accelerometer of the autonomous vehicle, and the event is a deceleration of the autonomous vehicle that exceeds a predetermined threshold.
Claim 24
Claim 4
The system of claim 21, wherein the predetermined event comprises accelerometer data indicating that deceleration of the vehicle exceeds a threshold.
The method of claim 1, wherein the collected data includes data from at least one accelerometer of the autonomous vehicle, and the event is a deceleration of the autonomous vehicle that exceeds a predetermined threshold.
Claim 27
Claim 10 and Claim 18
The system of claim 21, wherein the data is run-time data including sensor data and data regarding an operational state of a control system for the vehicle.
The system of claim 9, wherein the collected data includes data indicating failure or impending failure of a power source that provides power to the volatile memory.The system of claim 9, wherein the collected dataincludes data from at least one accelerometer.
Claim 28
Claim 9
The system of claim 27, wherein downloading the data comprises downloading at least a predetermined portion of the data stored in the volatile memory.
...initiate a transfer of data, the transfer including copying data stored in the volatile memory to the non-volatile memory…
Claim 30
Claim 1
A method comprising:
A method comprising…
storing data used by software in volatile memory; and
in response to detecting a predetermined event associated with a vehicle, downloading the data stored in the volatile memory to non-volatile memory
...initiating a transfer of data including copying data stored in the volatile memory of the autonomous vehicle to a non-volatile memory of the autonomous vehicle...
and sending the data to a server.
Claim 31
Claim 4
The method of claim 30, wherein detecting the predetermined event comprises identifying an extent of movement as compared to a predetermined threshold.
The method of claim 1, wherein the collected data includes data from at least one accelerometer of the autonomous vehicle, and the event is a deceleration of the autonomous vehicle that exceeds a predetermined threshold.
Golov does not teach a controller or that the volatile memory is configured to store data used by software during operation of a vehicle.
Hansel teaches a controller (claim 18) or that the volatile memory is configured to store data used by software during operation of a vehicle (claim 1 and 9).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Golov to incorporate the teachings of Hansel such that the volatile memory of Golov can store data for use by the vehicle as taught by Hansel. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve processing speed by using volatile memory for storing and retrieving data. Further it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Golov to incorporate the teachings of Hansel. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function, but in the very combination itself, that is in the substitution of the controller of Hansel for the processing device of Golov. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result of transferring memory renders the claim obvious.
Golov also does not teach the controller extracting and sending the data to a server.
Della teaches the controller extracting and sending the data to a server (claim 1 and ¶ 0081).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Golov to incorporate the teachings of Della such that the stored data of Golov can be sent to a server as taught by Della. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for post incident analysis by a more powerful computer than can be found on board a vehicle to understand how to improve self-driving software and prevent recurrence of the incident.
Claims 1, 4, 21, and 30 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of copending Application No. 16/263,359 (hereinafter Golov1) (reference application) in view of Hansel and Della. Golov1 teaches the following.
Application 19/020,438
Application 16/263,359 (Golov1)
Claim 1
Claim 1
A device comprising:
An autonomous vehicle, comprising…
non-volatile memory; and
...a non-volatile memory…
a controller configured to, in response to detecting a predetermined event, download data from volatile memory to the non-volatile memory.
...a controller configured to copy the first sensor data from the first cyclic buffer into the non-volatile memory in response to the accident signal, and copy the second sensor data from the second cyclic buffer to the non-volatile memory in response to the training signal.
and send the data to a server.
Claim 4
Claim 1
The device of claim 1, further comprising a sensor, wherein the data is obtained from the sensor.
…sensor data…
Claim 21
Claim 1
A system comprising:
An autonomous vehicle, comprising…
volatile memory configured to store data used by software during operation of a vehicle; and
...a first cyclic buffer having a capacity to buffer first sensor data generated by the sensors up to a first period of time; a second cyclic buffer having a capacity to buffer second sensor data generated by the sensors up to a second period of time that is longer than the first period of time...
one or more processors configured to, in response to detecting a predetermined event, download the data stored in the volatile memory to non-volatile memory.
...a controller configured to copy the first sensor data from the first cyclic buffer into the non-volatile memory in response to the accident signal, and copy the second sensor data from the second cyclic buffer to the non-volatile memory in response to the training signal.
and extract event data from the non-volatile memory.
Claim 30
Claim 1
A method comprising:
An autonomous vehicle, comprising…
storing data used by software in volatile memory; and
...a first cyclic buffer having a capacity to buffer first sensor data generated by the sensors up to a first period of time; a second cyclic buffer having a capacity to buffer second sensor data generated by the sensors up to a second period of time that is longer than the first period of time...
in response to detecting a predetermined event associated with a vehicle, downloading the data stored in the volatile memory to non-volatile memory
...a controller configured to copy the first sensor data from the first cyclic buffer into the non-volatile memory in response to the accident signal, and copy the second sensor data from the second cyclic buffer to the non-volatile memory in response to the training signal.
and sending the data to a server.
Golov1 does not teach the controller extracting and sending the data to a server.
Della teaches the controller extracting and sending the data to a server (claim 1 and ¶ 0081).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Golov1 to incorporate the teachings of Della such that the stored data of Golov1 can be sent to a server as taught by Della. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for post incident analysis by a more powerful computer than can be found on board a vehicle to understand how to improve self-driving software and prevent recurrence of the incident.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 30 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,670,123 B2 (hereinafter Sato) in view of Hansel. Sato teaches the following.
Application 19/020,438
US Patent 11,670,123 B2 (Sato)
Claim 30
Claim 1 and 6
A method comprising:
A method for an autonomous vehicle, the methodcomprising…
storing data used by software in volatile memory; and
...automatically storing the sensor data in a volatile memory independently of any control by a host controller;
in response to detecting a predetermined event associated with a vehicle, downloading the data stored in the volatile memory to non-volatile memory.
transferring at least a first portion of the sensor data stored in the volatile memory to a non-volatile memory disposed in a predetermined location within the autonomous vehicle upon detecting a predetermined event…
and sending the data to a server.
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
sending, via wireless communication, the first portion of the sensor data to a server, wherein the server is configured to analyze the data…
Sato does not teach that the volatile memory is configured to store data used by software during operation of a vehicle.
Hansel teaches that the volatile memory is configured to store data used by software during operation of a vehicle (claims 1 and 9).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Sato to incorporate the teachings of Hansel such that the volatile memory of Sato can store data for use by the vehicle as taught by Hansel. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve processing speed by using volatile memory for storing and retrieving data.
Examiner notes that Sato cannot be applied to reject claims 1 or 21 under double patenting as the limitation “wherein data of a predetermined type is extracted from the volatile memory without any knowledge of or control by the host controller” detailed in at least claim 7 of Sato appears to teach away from having a controller/processor perform the transference method.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 21, 26-28, and 30 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 21, and 26-27 of copending Application No. 18/307723 (hereinafter Sato1) in view of Hansel and Della. Sato1 teaches the following.
Application 19/020,438
US Application 18/307723 (Sato1)
Claim 1
Claims 1 and 21
A device comprising:
A device comprising…
non-volatile memory; and
...a non-volatile memory
a controller configured to, in response to detecting a predetermined event, download data from volatile memory to the non-volatile memory.
configured to download, from the volatile memory upon detecting a predetermined event of the vehicle, sensor data and the instructions…
and send the data to a server.
...send the sensor data and the instructions to a server…
Claim 2
Claim 1
The device of claim 1, wherein the downloaded data is run-time data.
...download... sensor data and the instructions…
Claim 4
Claim 1
The device of claim 1, further comprising a sensor, wherein the data is obtained from the sensor.
...at least one sensor of a vehicle configured to generate sensor data…download a first portion of the sensor data…
Claim 5
Claim 21 and 26
The device of claim 1, wherein the controller further is configured to update software in response to receiving a communication from the server.
The device of claim 21, wherein the controller is further configured to, in response to receiving the communication, update software used to control operation of the vehicle in the autonomous navigation mode.
Claim 6
Claim 27
The device of claim 5, wherein the server is configured to send the communication based on identifying that software is unsafe.
The device of claim 21, wherein the server identifies that software used to control operation of the vehicle in the autonomous navigation mode is unsafe based on pattern recognition, and the communication indicates that the software is unsafe.
Claim 7
Claim 27
The device of claim 6, wherein the server is further configured to identify that the software is unsafe based on pattern recognition.
The device of claim 21, wherein the server identifies that software used to control operation of the vehicle in the autonomous navigation mode is unsafe based on pattern recognition, and the communication indicates that the software is unsafe.
Claim 8
Claim 26
The device of claim 5, wherein the updated software controls a navigation system of a vehicle.
The device of claim 21, wherein the controller is further configured to, in response to receiving the communication, update software used to control operation of the vehicle in the autonomous navigation mode.
Claim 21
Claims 1 and 21
A system comprising:
A device comprising…
volatile memory configured to store data used by software during operation of a vehicle; and
...a volatile memory…
one or more processors configured to, in response to detecting a predetermined event, download the data stored in the volatile memory to non-volatile memory.
...a non-volatile memory configured to download, from the volatile memory upon detecting a predetermined event of the vehicle, sensor data and the instructions…
and extract event data from the non-volatile memory.
...to send the sensor data and the instructions to a server...
Claim 26
Claims 21 and 27
The system of claim 21, wherein, after the data is downloaded to the non-volatile memory, the extracted data is communicated to a central server configured to analyze the event data.
...to send the sensor data and the instructions to a server... The device of claim 21, wherein the server identifies that software used to control operation of the vehicle in the autonomous navigation mode is unsafe based on pattern recognition, and the communication indicates that the software is unsafe.
Claim 27
Claims 1
The system of claim 21, wherein the data is run-time data including sensor data and data regarding an operational state of a control system for the vehicle.
...download... sensor data and the instructions…
Claim 28
Claim 1
The system of claim 27, wherein downloading the data comprises downloading at least a predetermined portion of the data stored in the volatile memory.
...download... sensor data and the instructions…
Claim 30
Claims 1 and 21
A method comprising:
A device comprising…
storing data used by software in volatile memory; and
...a volatile memory…
in response to detecting a predetermined event associated with a vehicle, downloading the data stored in the volatile memory to non-volatile memory.
...a non-volatile memory configured to download, from the volatile memory upon detecting a predetermined event of the vehicle, sensor data and the instructions…
and sending the data to a server.
...send the sensor data and the instructions to a server…
Sato1 does not teach a controller or a processor or that the volatile memory is configured to store data used by software during operation of a vehicle.
Hansel teaches a controller (claim 18) or a processor (claim 18; one of skill in the art would recognize that the controller of Hansel would conventionally include a processor since it is detailed as a hardware component comprising a computing system in at least ¶ 0022) or that the volatile memory is configured to store data used by software during operation of a vehicle (claims 1 and 9).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Sato1 to incorporate the teachings of Hansel such that the volatile memory of Sato1 can store data for use by the vehicle as taught by Hansel and the vehicle of Sato can further include the controller of Hansel. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve processing speed by using volatile memory for storing and retrieving data and allow for repeatable performance of the method on a computer.
Sato1 does not teach the controller extracting and sending the data to a server.
Della teaches the controller extracting and sending the data to a server (claim 1 and ¶ 0081).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Sato1 to incorporate the teachings of Della such that the communication with the server of Sato1 can be done using the controller after collision occurrence as taught by Della. This modification would require only a routine and mundane rearrangement of software functions such that these functions are performed by the controller. It has been held that rearranging the location of elements (i.e. software functions) without affecting operation of the elements involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C) and the court cases cited therein. Further, this modification would thus be made with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce production costs by allowing one component to perform multiple functions. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-4, 21, 25-28, and 30-31 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 8, 11-13, and 15 of copending Application No. 16/010646 (hereinafter Sato2) (reference application) in view of Hansel and Della. Sato2 teaches the following.
Application 19/020,438
Application 16/010646 (Sato2)
Claim 1
Claim 11
A device comprising:
An autonomous vehicle comprising…
non-volatile memory; and
...a non-volatile memory device…
a controller configured to, in response to detecting a predetermined event, download data from volatile memory to the non-volatile memory.
...at least one computing device configured to control at least one operation of the vehicle; and memory storing instructions configured to instruct the at least one computing device to: detect, based on at least a portion of the sensor data, an event associated with operation of the vehicle; and in response to detecting the event, download first data from the volatile memory device to the non-volatile memory device.
and send the data to a server.
Claim 2
Claim 13
The device of claim 1, wherein the downloaded data is run-time data.
The autonomous vehicle of claim 11, wherein the data used by the software during operation of the vehicle is stored in system memory of the at least one computing device, and wherein the first data comprises... at least a portion of the data used by the software during operation of the vehicle...
Claim 3
Claim 8
The device of claim 1, wherein the volatile memory provides system memory for the controller, and the data is downloaded from the system memory.
The method of claim 1, wherein the system memory includes a volatile memory device that stores the data prior to downloading the data from the system memory to the non-volatile memory device.
Claim 4
Claims 11 and 13
The device of claim 1, further comprising a sensor, wherein the data is obtained from the sensor.
...at least one sensor...The autonomous vehicle of claim 11, wherein the data used by the software during operation of the vehicle is stored in system memory of the at least one computing device, and wherein the first data comprises... the portion of the sensor data.
Claim 21
Claims 11 and 15
A system comprising:
An autonomous vehicle comprising…
volatile memory configured to store data used by software during operation of a vehicle; and
...a volatile memory device to store data used by software during operation of the vehicle…
one or more processors configured to, in response to detecting a predetermined event, download the data stored in the volatile memory to non-volatile memory.
...at least one computing device configured to control at least one operation of the vehicle; and memory storing instructions configured to instruct the at least one computing device to: detect, based on at least a portion of the sensor data, an event associated with operation of the vehicle; and in response to detecting the event, download first data from the volatile memory device to the non-volatile memory device.
and extract event data from the non-volatile memory.
The autonomous vehicle of claim 11, wherein the non-volatile memory device is configured to provide the first data to a first computing device configured to analyze the first data.
Claim 25
Claim 12
The system of claim 21, wherein the download of the data is performed within a specific time duration after detecting the predetermined event, the specific time duration being less than five seconds.
The autonomous vehicle of claim 11, wherein downloading the first data from the volatile memory device to the non-volatile memory device is completed in less than five seconds after detecting the event.
Claim 26
Claim 15
The system of claim 21, wherein, after the data is downloaded to the non-volatile memory, the extracted data is communicated to a central server configured to analyze the event data.
The autonomous vehicle of claim 11, wherein the non-volatile memory device is configured to provide the first data to a first computing device configured to analyze the first data.
Claim 27
Claim 13
The system of claim 21, wherein the data is run-time data including sensor data and data regarding an operational state of a control system for the vehicle.
The autonomous vehicle of claim 11, wherein the data used by the software during operation of the vehicle is stored in system memory of the at least one computing device, and wherein the first data comprises at least one of: at least a portion of the data used by the software during operation of the vehicle; or the portion of the sensor data.
Claim 28
Claim 13
The system of claim 27, wherein downloading the data comprises downloading at least a predetermined portion of the data stored in the volatile memory.
The autonomous vehicle of claim 11, wherein the data used by the software during operation of the vehicle is stored in system memory of the at least one computing device, and wherein the first data comprises at least one of: at least a portion of the data used by the software during operation of the vehicle; or the portion of the sensor data.
Claim 30
Claims 1 and 8 and 15
A method comprising:
A method for an autonomous vehicle, the method comprising…
storing data used by software in volatile memory; and
The method of claim 1, wherein the system memory includes a volatile memory device that stores the data prior to downloading the data from the system memory to the non-volatile memory device.
in response to detecting a predetermined event associated with a vehicle, downloading the data stored in the volatile memory to non-volatile memory.
...in response to detecting the event, downloading data from the system memory to a non-volatile memory device of the vehicle.
and sending the data to a server.
The autonomous vehicle of claim 11, wherein the non-volatile memory device is configured to provide the first data to a first computing device configured to analyze the first data.
Claim 31
Claim 3
The method of claim 30, wherein detecting the predetermined event comprises identifying an extent of movement as compared to a predetermined threshold.
The method of claim 1, wherein detecting the event comprises at least one of: receiving first data from at least one sensor of the vehicle, and comparing the first data to a threshold; detecting activation of an emergency braking system of the vehicle; or analyzing an output from an artificial neural network.
Sato2 does not teach a controller, a processor, or a server.
Hansel teaches a controller (claim 18), a processor (claim 18; one of skill in the art would recognize that the controller of Hansel would conventionally include a processor since it is detailed as a hardware component comprising a computing system in at least ¶ 0022), or a server (¶ 0028).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Sato2 to incorporate the teachings of Hansel. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function, but in the very combination itself, that is in the substitution of the controller and server of Hansel for the computing devices of Sato2. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result of transferring memory renders the claim obvious.
Sato2 does not teach the controller extracting and sending the data to a server.
Della teaches the controller extracting and sending the data to a server (claim 1 and ¶ 0081).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Sato2 to incorporate the teachings of Della such that the communication with the server of Sato2 can be done using the controller after collision occurrence as taught by Della. This modification would require only a routine and mundane rearrangement of software functions such that these functions are performed by the controller. It has been held that rearranging the location of elements (i.e. software functions) without affecting operation of the elements involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C) and the court cases cited therein. Further, this modification would thus be made with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce production costs by allowing one component to perform multiple functions. Further, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Sato2 to incorporate the teachings of Della such that the downloaded event data of Hansel can be included in data that is able to be transmitted to the server of Sato2 as taught by Della. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for post incident analysis by a more powerful computer than can be found on board a vehicle to understand how to improve self-driving software and prevent recurrence of the incident.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 21, and 30 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of copending Application No. 17/958,915 (hereinafter Pax) in view of Hansel and Della. Pax teaches the following.
Application 19/020,438
Application 17/958,915 (Pax)
Claim 1
Claim 11
A device comprising:
A dual inline memory module (DIMM), comprising…
non-volatile memory; and
...non-volatile memory (NVM)…
a controller configured to, in response to detecting a predetermined event, download data from volatile memory to the non-volatile memory.
... a controller and register configured to perform operations, including: receiving, from a host device, a first control signal establishing a value in the register enabling saving of data in the DRAM to the NVM through use of the power source in response to power loss to the DIMM...
and send the data to a server.
Claim 21
Claim 11
A system comprising:
A dual inline memory module (DIMM), comprising…
volatile memory configured to store data used by software during operation of a vehicle; and
...dynamic random access memory (DRAM)…
one or more processors configured to, in response to detecting a predetermined event, download the data stored in the volatile memory to non-volatile memory.
... a controller and register configured to perform operations, including: receiving, from a host device, a first control signal establishing a value in the register enabling saving of data in the DRAM to the NVM through use of the power source in response to power loss to the DIMM...
and extract event data from the non-volatile memory.
Claim 30
Claim 11
A method comprising:
A method of operating a dual inline memory module (DIMM), comprising:
storing data used by software in volatile memory; and
in response to detecting a predetermined event associated with a vehicle, downloading the data stored in the volatile memory to non-volatile memory
receiving a first command at a register of the DIMM, the first command from a host device, the first command enabling saving of contents of dynamic random access memory (DRAM) of the memory module to non-volatile memory (NVM) of the memory module in an event of loss of power to the DIMM...
and sending the data to a server.
Pax does not teach that the volatile memory is configured to store data used by software during operation of a vehicle.
Hansel teaches that the volatile memory is configured to store data used by software during operation of a vehicle (claims 1 and 9).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Pax to incorporate the teachings of Hansel such that the volatile memory of Pax can store data for use by the vehicle as taught by Hansel. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve processing speed by using volatile memory for storing and retrieving data.
Pax does not teach the controller extracting and sending the data to a server.
Della teaches the controller extracting and sending the data to a server (claim 1 and ¶ 0081).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Pax to incorporate the teachings of Della such that the stored data of Pax can be sent to a server as taught by Della. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for post incident analysis by a more powerful computer than can be found on board a vehicle to understand how to improve self-driving software and prevent recurrence of the incident.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 2-9, 22-29, and 31 are (provisionally) rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Galov, Galov1, Sato, Sato1, Sato2, or Pax in view of Hansel, Warren, Della, Lo, Davidson, Zwerg, and/or Klug. See above regarding which independent claims are taught by Galov, Galov1, Sato, Sato1, Sato2, or Pax. Claim 28 is taught in Galov, Galov1, Sato, Sato1, Sato2, and Pax (see at least independent claim citations above) although claim 27 is not taught in all these references.
Any applicable dependent claims not previously discussed under double patenting regarding Galov, Galov1, Sato, Sato1, Sato2, or Pax may further be rejected using the cited sections of the prior art as detailed in the 103 rejections above. For conciseness of record, these grounds of rejection are not repeated. The same reasons to combine detailed above for Warren, Della, Lo, Davidson, Zwerg, and/or Klug may be utilized with regards to the not taught aspects of Galov, Galov1, Sato, Sato1, Sato2, or Pax. Regarding Hansel, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Galov, Galov1, Sato, Sato1, Sato2, or Pax to incorporate the teachings of Hansel such that run time data can be downloaded, sensor data can be downloaded, operational state data can be downloaded, and the event may be a sudden deceleration captured by an accelerometer. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve record keeping of the incident and allow for accurate detection of a collision event which may damage a volatile memory or power source requiring data to be saved before complete erasure.
Response to Amendment
Specification amendments filed 8/12/2026 have been received and fully considered and overcome the drawing objections of record detailed in the Office Action dated 5/12/2026. These/this objections have/has been withdrawn.
Claim amendments filed 8/12/2026 have been received and fully considered and overcome the claim of record detailed in the Office Action dated 5/12/2026. These/this objections have/has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 2-3, filed 8/12/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of claim amendments filed 8/12/2026. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hansel as modified by Della.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 3-4, filed 8/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 3, applicant argues that Hansel does not teach “a controller configured to… download data from volatile memory to non-volatile memory” (applicant’s emphasis). It is unclear to the examiner if this emphasis was added to indicate that Hansel does not teach this element individually or if it is merely to indicate one of multiple limitations that Hansel must teach in combination in order to anticipate the claimed invention. In the assumption that this is intended to indicate that Hansel does not teach this limitation alone, mere allegations without evidence and articulated arguments cannot be considered persuasive.
On pages 3-5, applicant argues that Hansel does not teach “subsequent extraction of event data from non-volatile memory after the write operation” nor “sending the data to a server as part of the claimed post-event method” (applicant’s emphasis). While the examiner agrees that the data transmission to a server of Hansel can be applied to any data set and does not merely read on data extraction/transmission subsequent to data storage, examiner disagrees that Hansel does not entirely read on the claimed operation. Since any data can be communicated at any time with the teachings of Hansel the claimed invention could be obviously arrived at using merely the teachings of Hansel by merely performing the data transmission of Hansel at a time subsequent to the incident. Since Hansel already contemplates the purposes for data storage and subsequent data transmission for further analysis as applicant astutely indicates on page 4, Hansel can be considered, if not as anticipatory as the applicant posits, as at least suggesting the limitations of the claimed invention. Examiner posits that Hansel anticipates the claimed invention as merely applying the broader data transmission would consequentially result in the claimed invention every time that the data transmitted is subsequent to an incident occurrence. However, merely for the purpose of improved clarity of record and strengthening the rejection of record, in response to the amended claim language, the 102 rejections of claims 21 and 30 have been withdrawn in favor of a 103 rejection in view of Hansel as modified by Della. Examiner asserts that this improves the clarity and strength of the rejection by relying on Della which clearly indicates data transmission subsequent to data storage and that the controller/processor performs these data extraction/transmission operations (as argued on pages 2-3 which examiner understands is persuasive as detailed above).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashley Tiffany Schoech whose telephone number is (571)272-2937. The examiner can normally be reached 4:45 am - 3:15 pm PT Monday - Thursday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/A.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights