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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 10/24/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 8, 10-13, 18, 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea accomplishable by mental processes without significantly more. The claims recite the abstract idea of collecting and manipulating data, which is analogous to mental work with the aid of generic computer equipment. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1: Is the claim directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes, The claims are directed to a method (1, 3, 8, 10, 21-22) and a system (11-13, 18, 20, and 23-24).
Step 2A; is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
Yes, claims 1-3, 8, 10-13, 18, 20-24 are directed to the abstract idea of collecting, organizing and manipulating data. In essence, the independent claims recite; collecting and manipulating data to determine which user profile to load.
Prong One; Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
Yes, as understood in their broadest reasonable interpretation, the independent claims are directed to collecting data and analyzing data to determine which user profile to load, by the way of establishing and broadcasting communication channels to mobile devices. In addition, the remaining claim limitations either work to develop the abstract idea further, such as what may be included in loading a user profile, or to implement the idea onto generic computer components, such as by collecting data by broadcasting/communication channels set up by generic communication equipment.
Prong Two; Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the elements are generically recited. In particular, elements of a vehicle controller and sensors merely use generically recited features as tools to perform the abstract idea.
The vehicle controller and mobile devise are recited generically, such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize their well known implementation for the functions recited.
Establishing communication channels and broadcasting data by a controller, essentially receiving or transmitting data over a network, is considered insignificant extra solution activity. Loading user profiles, as recited in the claim language, also does not involve any active control over a vehicle [loading does not require implementing, for example, a change in seat height, and can be limited to mere notification or display options that are considered insignificant extra solution activity].
Therefore, this abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because there are no meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 1-3, 8, 10-13, 18, 20-24 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Claims 1-3, 8, 10-13, 18, 20-24 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For the same reasons as described above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, Claims 1-3, 8, 10-13, 18, 20-24 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Using similar reasoning to above, Claims 1-3, 8, 10-13, 18, 20-24 do not add any significant structure or elements that qualify as significantly more, and instead merely further detail/define aspects of the abstract idea, and thus do not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, Claims 1-3, 8, 10-13, 18, 20-24 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, 10-13, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penilla (US11396244B2) as modified by Gould (US20170369071A1).
Regarding claim 1, Penilla teaches;
A method comprising: broadcasting a first signal, using a first communication protocol (taught as a pairing request, column 17 line 66-column 18 line 8), that may be detected by one or more mobile devices (taught as a portable device used to access a profile, column 4 lines 37-42 located by a vehicle (taught as a vehicle and mobile device detecting within a proximity zone, column 17 lines 57-60)
establishing communication channels between the vehicle and one or more mobile devices using the first communication protocol (taught as the vehicle sending and receiving data wirelessly to establish a peer-to-peer connection, column 25 lines 3-5);
when a communication channel is established between the vehicle and one mobile device, determining whether a user profile is associated with the one mobile device (taught as detecting a user to enable a custom configuration [such as by a user profile column 10 lines 49-53], column 11 lines 2-6, from multiple user/individualized profiles, column 17 lines 12-19):
upon determination that the user profile is associated with the one mobile device, loading the user profile associated with the one mobile device (taught as detecting a user to enable a custom configuration [such as by a user profile column 10 lines 49-53], column 11 lines 2-6, from multiple user/individualized profiles, column 17 lines 12-19):
upon determination that the user profile is not associated with the one mobile device, loading a guest profile (taught as, when an unvalidated user account requests access to the vehicle, remotely grant a guest profile for the vehicle, Column 4 line 59- column 5 line 5):
upon determination that no user profiles are associated with any of the plurality of mobile devices, loading the guest profile (taught as, when an unvalidated user account requests access to the vehicle, remotely grant a guest profile for the vehicle, Column 4 line 59- column 5 line 5; this would indicate that, even if multiple accounts/devices are detected, the guest profile would be chosen if none are validated):
However, Penilla does not explicitly teach; when communication channels are established between the vehicle and a plurality of mobile devices, determining whether user profiles are associated with each mobile device of the plurality of mobile devices:
upon determination that the user profile exists for exactly one mobile device among the plurality of mobile devices, loading the user profile associated with the exactly one mobile device.
upon determination that a plurality of user profiles are associated with the plurality of mobile devices, accessing a profile log comprising a record indicating each time that user profiles were previously loaded on the vehicle, and loading a user profile of the plurality of user profiles that was most recently loaded on the vehicle based on the profile log.
Gould teaches; when communication channels are established between the vehicle and a plurality of mobile devices, determining whether user profiles are associated with each mobile device of the plurality of mobile devices (taught as detecting multiple user profiles based on more than one device with a driver ID being detected, paragraph 0036):
upon determination that the user profile exists for exactly one mobile device among the plurality of mobile devices, loading the user profile associated with the exactly one mobile device (taught as selecting the device associated with a driver ID, paragraph 0036, which is distinct from the case where more than one device with a driver id/user profile is detected later in paragraph 0036),
upon determination that a plurality of user profiles of the plurality of user profiles are associated with the plurality of mobile devices, and loading a user profile that was most recently loaded on the vehicle based on the profile log (taught as, when multiple devices associated to user profiles are detected, selecting the most recent used driver ID/profile, paragraph 0036, where decisions include weighing the profile users based on calendar day, paragraph 0041).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the ID/profile selection from Gould in the system taught by Penilla in order to improve the process of designating the correct driver ID. As taught by Gould, this chosen driver ID will ideally, accurately correspond to the person driving the vehicle (paragraph 0036).
Regarding claim 2, Penilla as modified by Gould teaches;
The method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Penilla further teaches; wherein each of the plurality of user profiles and the guest profile comprises one or more settings preferred by a user associated with one or more components of the vehicle (taught as the profile enabling a custom configuration [user profile column 10 lines 49-53], column 12 lines 32-45, examples of which include fuel, lighting, entertainment, comfort and tracking settings, column 14 lines 5-26).
Regarding claim 3, Penilla as modified by Gould teaches;
The method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Penilla further teaches; wherein the guest profile comprises one or more default settings associated with one or more components of the vehicle (taught as the custom configuration for a guest providing predetermined limited user of certain systems, column 11 lines 22-25).
Regarding claim 8, Penilla as modified by Gould teaches;
The method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Penilla further teaches; further comprising: determining a device ID associated with each of the plurality of mobile devices (taught as vehicle operator profiles individually logging in through a fob, column 13 lines 10-12).
Regarding claim 10, Penilla as modified by Gould teaches;
The method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Penilla does not explicitly teach; further comprising: after loading a user profile of the plurality of user profiles that was most recently loaded on the vehicle, updating the profile log based on the user profile that was loaded.
Gould teaches; further comprising: after loading a user profile of the plurality of user profiles that was most recently loaded on the vehicle, updating the profile log based on the user profile that was loaded (implied in selecting the most recent used driver ID for the devices present, paragraph 0036, which requires knowledge of what the last profile was and would update the profile used to the one last used for subsequent determinations).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the ID/profile selection from Gould in the system taught by Penilla in order to improve the process of designating the correct driver ID. As taught by Gould, this chosen driver ID will ideally, accurately correspond to the person driving the vehicle (paragraph 0036).
It has been determined that claims 11-13 and 18 and 20 have no further limitations apart from those addressed in claims 1-3, 8 and 10. Therefore, claims 11-13, 18 and 20 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1-3, 8 and 10 respectively.
Regrading claim 21, Penilla as modified by Gould teaches;
The method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Penilla further teaches; further comprising:
detecting a previously paired mobile device (wherein vehicle settings are saved to a key fob [an assigned/established mobile device] to interact with the vehicle’s login system, column 13 lines 10-19); and
establishing a communication channel between the vehicle and the previously paired mobile device (taught as the vehicle locally communicating with mobile devices to allow synchronization, column 12 line 64-column 13 line 6, include a mobile device such as a key fob, column 13 lines 10-19).
Regarding claim 22, Penilla as modified by Gould teaches;
The method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Penilla further teaches; further comprising broadcasting the first signal [interpreted to be a profile reception period as cited in the specification, paragraph 0047] for a predetermined time period (taught as determining to use a guest profile, column 4 line 61-column 5 line 5, which indicates that, after some period of time for searching for a validated profile, none are found and it defaults to the notification to grant the guest profile; were this search to continue indefinitely, the system would never arrive to the notification to grant a guest profile. Gould similarly indicates a point where a search for profiles ends by indicating that, if the system does not identify the driver, the most recent profile is selected, paragraph 0036. Choosing a time period duration then merely amounts to simple experimentation/optimization).
Regarding claims 23-24, it has been determined that no further limitations exist apart from those previously addressed in claims 21-22. Therefore, claims 23-24 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 21-22 respectively.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. In particular, the arguments do not specify which parts of the claims are missing from the recited prior art, and instead cite the whole amended claim as not being taught or suggested in pages 6-7 of the remarks.
Applicant argues that new dependent claims 21-24 are allowable based on the allowability of the independent claims.
In light of the rejection above, this argument is rendered moot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
For further user profile information and detection relating to vehicles settings and personalization;
US-20210204115-A1, US-20200247337-A1, US-20180170292-A1, US-20140379169-A1.
For further use of a time period to monitor location of a user [such as to load a reservation], relating to claims 22 and 24; US20170308817A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL ANFINRUD whose telephone number is (571)270-3401. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached on (571)270-3969. 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.
/GABRIEL ANFINRUD/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662