DETAILED ACTION
This is the final Office action and is responsive to the papers filed 02/26/2026. The amendments filed on 02/26/2026 have been entered and considered by the examiner. Claims 11-12, 15-18 and 20-29 are currently pending and examined below. Claim 29 has been added.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 7-9, filed 02/26/2026, with respect to claims 11-18 and 20-28 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In particular, the Applicant argues the Office Action improperly rejects Claim 11 based on Goldman-Shenhar, as the reference fails to disclose the affirmative step of "determining" a correlation and the affirmative step of determining no correlation exist, instead assuming correlation exists based on conflicting requests. These arguments are not persuasive. The cited portions [0156], [0167]-[0169] of Goldman-Shenhar discloses a system that learns user climate preference and user flexibility by observing that the user does not request changes, express disapproval, or otherwise indicates he is comfortable with a temperature different from his usual preference. The system is actively learning and making a correlation in user’s requests ([0156] “very flexible, and agreeable to variance, or perhaps even large variance, from their preferred temperature”, which is a statistical measure correlating processes), whether the temperature/function requests are same, similar, or conflict/compete with one another, and then using the correlation thresholds to offer a solution. Goldman-Shenhar discloses whether two function requests have a correlation or no correlation in the cited portions.
Furthermore, the Applicant argues the Office Action improperly rejects Claim 11 as Goldman-Shenhar fails to teach the required execution of both requests upon determining a correlation, as the cited examples only describe a compromise setting rather than independent execution of both actions. Finally, the reference does not disclose the specific, independent action taken when no correlation is determined. These arguments are not persuasive. The claim does not claim “both” functions must be executed in the order of priority. From the Examiner’s understanding of the claim, which should be consistent with the specification (claim 11: “…such that prioritization is required with regard to execution of the first vehicle function and execution of the second vehicle function”, see as-filed specification page 9, lines 1-12 “The prioritization to be used with regard to the execution of the first vehicle function and the execution of the second vehicle function can be carried out, for example, in such a way that the first vehicle function and the second vehicle function are executed consecutively. Alternatively, only the first vehicle function may be executed. Alternatively, only the second vehicle function may be executed. Alternatively, the execution of the first vehicle function can be started first and the execution of the second vehicle function may in some cases be started during the execution of the first vehicle function, temporally overlapping it.”), the claim indicates that a function of functions may be prioritized or take precedence for execution due to a correlation or no correlation between the functions, and Goldman-Shenhar discloses this in the cited portions.
For at least the reasons provided above, the Examiner maintains her rejections.
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.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 29, the recitation “wherein the first vehicle function is different from the second vehicle function” unclear. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reasonably appraise at what degree is considered “different” or what exactly is meant by different. The scope of the invention is thus indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret as vehicle functions requested specifically by different occupants based on claim 1.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 11-12 and 15-18, 20-27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goldman-Shenhar et al. (US 20170349027 A1; hereinafter Goldman-Shenhar).
Regarding claim 11, Goldman-Shenhar discloses:
A method for operating a vehicle (vehicle 10; Fig. 1), comprising:
capturing first personal information which is representative of a first occupant of the vehicle ([0146] input data includes user profile data, from respective user profiles or accounts of autonomous vehicle service users),
capturing second personal information which is representative of a second occupant of the vehicle ([0146] input data includes user profile data, from respective user profiles or accounts of autonomous vehicle service users),
providing vehicle information which is representative of a predefined set of vehicle functions and dependencies between the vehicle functions that exist when they are executed ([0146] real-time requests for change in climate, or changes or settings for vehicle functions that affect climate, such as rolling down the windows, turning down the temperature, or turning up an HVAC fan, can be received by a vehicle-user interface such as a vehicle microphone or touch-sensitive screen),
when first request information, which is representative of a first request by the first occupant for a first vehicle function from the predefined set of vehicle functions ([0146] real-time requests from passengers, for change to vehicle climate, during a shared ride), and second request information, which is representative of a second request by the second occupant for a second vehicle function from the predefined set of vehicle functions, are captured ([0146] real-time requests from passengers, for change to vehicle climate, during a shared ride),
then, based at least in part on the vehicle information, the first request information and the second request information, determining whether the first request for the first vehicle function and the second request for the second vehicle function have a correlation such that prioritization is required with regard to execution of the first vehicle function and execution of the second vehicle function ([0156] A user can have an expressly-preferred temperature, for instance, but the system may determine that when they are sharing an autonomous vehicle they are very flexible, and agreeable to variance, or perhaps even large variance, from their preferred temperature.),
when it is determined that the correlation exists ([0156] agreeable variance from their preferred temperature, [0168] both passengers voted medium speed [Wingdings font/0xE0] output medium speed),
then ascertaining, based at least in part on the first personal information and the second personal information, first proposal information ([0167] a group setting that will maximize riders' group comfort satisfaction in any suitable manner), which is representative of a way in which the priority is to be given to the execution of the first vehicle function according to the first request information relative to the execution of the second vehicle function according to the second request information ([0156] agreeable variance from their preferred temperature), and executing the first vehicle function and the second vehicle function for operating the vehicle depending on the first proposal information ([0156] A user can have an expressly-preferred temperature, for instance, but the system may determine that when they are sharing an autonomous vehicle they are very flexible, and agreeable to variance, or perhaps even large variance, from their preferred temperature; [0167] the social HVAC manager agent 322, based on the inputs, computes a group setting that will maximize riders' group comfort satisfaction in any suitable manner; [0168] both passengers voted medium speed [Wingdings font/0xE0] output medium speed); and
when it is determined that no correlation exists ([0168] Inputs might be received in a fuzzy manner; [0168] one passenger votes high fan speed vs others vote medium speed),
then ascertaining, based at least in part on the first personal information and the second personal information, a second proposal information, which is representative of a way in which the first vehicle function and the second vehicle function should be executed, and executing the first vehicle function and the second vehicle function for operating the vehicle depending on the second proposal information ([0168] one passenger votes high fan speed vs others medium speed [Wingdings font/0xE0] output medium speed because more for medium speed).
Regarding claim 12, Goldman-Shenhar discloses:
wherein the first personal information comprises first personal prioritization information which is representative of a prioritization of the first occupant (The target temperature and fan levels in the vehicle are determined based on a vote, whereby each user contributes a vote for a certain variable, such as fan speed.; [0167]-[0169]), and the second personal information comprises second personal prioritization information which is representative of a prioritization of the second occupant (The target temperature and fan levels in the vehicle are determined based on a vote, whereby each user contributes a vote for a certain variable, such as fan speed.; [0167]-[0169]).
Regarding claim 15, Goldman-Shenhar discloses:
wherein:
the first personal information includes one or more of;
a first physical assignment of the first occupant within the vehicle (where various passengers are determined to be sitting; [0212]), and
a first user history of the first occupant (The system may assign different authority based on price paid for a ride ticket, for instance, (e.g., premium rider level paid for instead of a standard level), and the higher-level riders preference may be multiplied by some weight or otherwise give more strength or sway in determining a value for the climate-related variable; [0167]-[0169]), and
the second personal information includes one or more of;
a second physical assignment of the second occupant within the vehicle (where various passengers are determined to be sitting; [0212]), and
a second user history of the second occupant (The system may assign different authority based on price paid for a ride ticket, for instance, (e.g., premium rider level paid for instead of a standard level), and the higher-level riders preference may be multiplied by some weight or otherwise give more strength or sway in determining a value for the climate-related variable; [0167]-[0169]).
Regarding claim 16, Goldman-Shenhar discloses:
wherein:
the first proposal information is provided to at least one of the first occupant and the second occupant ((2) integrate individual requests into one group request from the actual climate control system; [0179]),
a first user input by at least one of the first occupant and second occupant is captured ((3) get real-time requested changes from individuals to the climate control system; [0179]), and
at least one of the first vehicle function and the second vehicle function is executed for operating the vehicle depending on the first user input ((4) process these requests and compute a result to control the actual climate control system and related systems; [0179]).
Regarding claim 17, Goldman-Shenhar discloses:
wherein executing at least one of the first vehicle function and the second vehicle function for operating the vehicle further comprises executing the first vehicle function depending on the first personal information and executing the second vehicle function depending on the second personal information ((4) process these requests and compute a result to control the actual climate control system and related systems depends on (1) get individual preferences from riders; [0179]).
Regarding claim 18, Goldman-Shenhar discloses:
wherein:
the first personal information includes one or more of;
a first physical assignment of the first occupant within the vehicle (where various passengers are determined to be sitting; [0212]), and
a first user history of the first occupant (The system may assign different authority based on price paid for a ride ticket, for instance, (e.g., premium rider level paid for instead of a standard level), and the higher-level riders preference may be multiplied by some weight or otherwise give more strength or sway in determining a value for the climate-related variable; [0167]-[0169]), and
the second personal information includes one or more of;
a second physical assignment of the second occupant within the vehicle (where various passengers are determined to be sitting; [0212]), and
a second user history of the second occupant (The system may assign different authority based on price paid for a ride ticket, for instance, (e.g., premium rider level paid for instead of a standard level), and the higher-level riders preference may be multiplied by some weight or otherwise give more strength or sway in determining a value for the climate-related variable; [0167]-[0169]).
Regarding claim 20, Goldman-Shenhar discloses:
wherein:
the second proposal information is provided to at least one of the first occupant and the second occupant ((2) integrate individual requests into one group request from the actual climate control system; [0179]),
a second user input by at least one of the first occupant and the second occupant is captured ((3) get real-time requested changes from individuals to the climate control system; [0179]), and
the first vehicle function and the second vehicle function are executed for operating the vehicle depending on the second user input ((4) process these requests and compute a result to control the actual climate control system and related systems; [0179]).
Regarding claim 21, Goldman-Shenhar discloses:
A device (system 20; Fig. 1) for operating a vehicle (vehicle 10; Fig. 1), which is configured to carry out the method as claimed in claim 11.
Regarding claim 22, Goldman-Shenhar discloses:
wherein the device is further configured such that:
the first personal information comprises first personal prioritization information which is representative of a prioritization of the first occupant (The target temperature and fan levels in the vehicle are determined based on a vote, whereby each user contributes a vote for a certain variable, such as fan speed.; [0167]-[0169]); and
the second personal information comprises second personal prioritization information which is representative of a prioritization of the second occupant (The target temperature and fan levels in the vehicle are determined based on a vote, whereby each user contributes a vote for a certain variable, such as fan speed.; [0167]-[0169]).
Regarding claim 23, Goldman-Shenhar discloses:
wherein the device is further configured such that:
the first proposal information is provided to at least one of the first occupant and the second occupant ((2) integrate individual requests into one group request from the actual climate control system; [0179]),
a first user input by at least one of the first occupant and second occupant is captured ((3) get real-time requested changes from individuals to the climate control system; [0179]), and
at least one of the first vehicle function and the second vehicle function is executed for operating the vehicle depending on the first user input ((4) process these requests and compute a result to control the actual climate control system and related systems; [0179]).
Regarding claim 24, Goldman-Shenhar discloses:
A computer program stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium (computer-readable code or instructions executable by the processing unit 106 to perform the functions of the controller system 20 described herein), wherein the computer program comprises instructions, which, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method as claimed in claim 11.
Regarding claim 25, Goldman-Shenhar discloses:
wherein the instructions further cause the computer to carry out the method wherein:
the first personal information comprises first personal prioritization information which is representative of a prioritization of the first occupant (The target temperature and fan levels in the vehicle are determined based on a vote, whereby each user contributes a vote for a certain variable, such as fan speed.; [0167]-[0169]); and
the second personal information comprises second personal prioritization information which is representative of a prioritization of the second occupant (The target temperature and fan levels in the vehicle are determined based on a vote, whereby each user contributes a vote for a certain variable, such as fan speed.; [0167]-[0169]).
Regarding claim 26, Goldman-Shenhar discloses:
wherein the instructions further cause the computer to carry out the method wherein:
the first proposal information is provided to at least one of the first occupant and the second occupant ((2) integrate individual requests into one group request from the actual climate control system; [0179]),
a first user input by at least one of the first occupant and second occupant is captured ((3) get real-time requested changes from individuals to the climate control system; [0179]), and
at least one of the first vehicle function and the second vehicle function is executed for operating the vehicle depending on the first user input ((4) process these requests and compute a result to control the actual climate control system and related systems; [0179]).
Regarding claim 27, Goldman-Shenhar discloses:
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium (data storage device 104; Fig. 1), on which the computer program as claimed in claim 24 is stored.
Regarding claim 29, Goldman-Shenhar discloses:
wherein the first vehicle function is different from the second vehicle function ([0168] fan speeds are different functions requested specifically from different passengers).
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.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldman-Shenhar in view of Golston et al. (US 20180251122 A1; hereinafter Golston).
Regarding claim 28, Goldman-Shenhar discloses:
wherein the predefined set of vehicle functions comprises:
a vehicle function for controlling a seat heating (seat heating; [0173], [0179]);
a vehicle function for controlling an air conditioning system (AC in HVAC; [0164]-[0170], [0217]);
a vehicle function for controlling a heating system (heating in HVAC; [0164]-[0170], [0217]).
Goldman-Shenhar does not specifically disclose:
wherein the predefined set of vehicle functions comprises:
a vehicle function for controlling a lighting device; and
a vehicle function for controlling an entertainment system.
However, Goldston discloses:
wherein the predefined set of vehicle functions comprises:
a vehicle function for controlling a lighting device (lighting; [0087]); and
a vehicle function for controlling an entertainment system (music selection, music volume, etc.; [0087]).
Goldman-Shenhar and Goldston are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle operations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Goldman-Shenhar’s method for prioritizing vehicle operation for multiple occupants to further incorporate Goldston’s method of prioritization for the advantage of including method of prioritizing lighting and entertainment control which results in improvement of experience for the occupants (Goldston’s [0027]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAYSUN WU whose telephone number is (571)272-1528. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571)272-7298. 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.
/PAYSUN WU/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/DONALD J WALLACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights