Detailed Action
This Office Action is taken in response to Applicant’s Amendment and Remarks filed on 08/20/2025 regarding Application No. 17/929,195 originally filed on 09/01/2022. Claims 11-26 as filed are currently pending and have been considered as follows:
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
The applicant argues: “Watanabe does not disclose the recited "personalized event criterion." Instead, Watanabe describes for example: "The vehicle remote operation device has a fail-safe control unit that changes a fail-safe criterion in execution of the remote operation according to a distance between the user and the vehicle" (Watanabe, Abstract). Watanabe's event criterion, such as distance or an open window, is not personalized, and therefore Watanabe cannot disclose the recited "personalized event criterion"… independent claims 11 and 20 are patentable over Watanabe.”. [Remarks, p. 7-8]
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The applicant’s argument is based on Watanbe alone, but the rejection does not rely on Watanabe to teach the “personalized event criterion” or the fact that it is “determined by the learning function trained on user behavior.” As set forth in the rejection, these aspects are provided by Rao, not Watanabe. Rao discloses a deep learning engine and neural networks that learn from user interactions and behaviors to generate personalized conditions for when information/vehicle functions are provided (¶4, ¶75-¶77). Rao further discloses that the deep learning system 902 and output control logic 906 evaluate whether inputs “indicate an event or otherwise trigger a potential for output” based on context, which includes driver state and vehicle conditions (¶70). Rao further discloses that learned criteria are user-specific and change over time based on that driver’s behavior, thereby meeting the “personalized” part of the added limitation (¶72, ¶54, ¶18).
Watanabe is cited for a different matter, as Watanbe discloses using a center/server to determine when the user is outside the vehicle based on the distance between the vehicle and a mobile terminal and to remotely operate vehicle functions and send notifications to the user device (¶12, ¶82). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the portable personalization of Rao with the remote vehicle operation as taught by Watanabe to enable another standard means of providing remote operations once the user is detected as being outside the vehicle, as another standard way of tailoring remote operations to the driver’s learned preferences and behaviors. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The applicant argues: “Harichandan does not remedy the deficiencies of the combination of Rao and Watanabe… Harichandan's system requires direct communication between the user's smartphone and the microprocessor installed in the vehicle, bypassing any dedicated server for controlling functions of the vehicle… The microprocessor then relays those commands to the vehicle locally. Independent claims 11 and 20 have a function of "performing one of the determined vehicles functions by the server"… Thus, the architecture of the claimed invention and Harichandan's disclosure are fundamentally different… The Office Action does not explain as to why it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Harichandan's disclosure to create a server-based control of the vehicle instead of direct, reliable, and local control to the vehicle control system that Harichandan describes.”. [Remarks, p. 8-9]
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The applicant’s argument is based on Harichandan alone. The rejection does not rely on Harichandan to supply the server-based control architecture. The server/center-based control over vehicle functions is already provided by Rao and Watanabe. Rao discloses that the in-vehicle computing system is connected to external devices and cloud-based services, including external services applications that aggregate and analyze data, and that output control logic and deep learning may determine when and how to control vehicle systems via vehicle control system 230 and vehicle controls 261 (¶37-¶38). Watanabe discloses a center 102 (server) mediating remote vehicle operations and sending/receiving operation completion notifications (¶82, ¶95, ¶109). These teachings, broadly and reasonably speaking, provide that the server/center initiates and controls vehicle functions, while the in-vehicle controller executes the physical actuation - consistent with the interpretation of “performing one of the determined vehicle functions by the server device,”.
Harichandan is namely concerned with a vehicle-external user device sending a confirmation/command that results in vehicle functions being carried out (¶94-¶96, ¶100).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the portable personalization of Rao and the remote vehicle operation of Watanabe with the smartphone controlled vehicle components by Harichandan to implement the confirmation/command interaction of Harichandan through the existing server/center architecture (Rao and Watanabe) instead of only via a direct smartphone-to-microprocessor link. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 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 11-13 and 15-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao (US Pub. No. 20200114931) in view of Watanabe (US Pub. No. 20060197677) in further view of Harichandan (US Pub. No. 20200079397).
As per Claim 11, Rao discloses of portable personalization, comprising:
detecting, via a server device, user interactions with a motor vehicle; (as per “may be sent to an object recognition module of the in-vehicle computing system 300 and/or an off-board (e.g., server) computing device" in ¶45”, as per “to monitor the one or more behaviors of the user over time and build a database of user preferences based on the monitored one or more behaviors." in Claim 8)
learning, via the server device, a user behavior profile by a learning function using the detected user interactions (as per " Features of the in-vehicle computing system may be selectively provided based on the identified user and/or learned data relating to the user and/or conditions of the vehicle." in Abstract, as per “Based on learned behaviors of the user derived from the user's interaction with the in-vehicle computing system and/or other computing devices” in ¶56)
determining a personalized event criterion (as per “algorithms 906 may receive the data from inputs 908 and evaluate whether the inputs indicate an event or otherwise trigger a potential for output” in ¶70, as per “For example, output control logic and/or algorithms may determine whether or not information is to be provided (e.g., output, via a vehicle device or another device within the vehicle) to a driver given a current context (e.g., a driver status, a vehicle status, a detected event, etc.). The current context may be determined based on one or more inputs” in ¶69) by the learning function trained on user behavior; (as per “human-machine interactions (HMI) which aggregates inputs from user interactions, multiple vehicle inputs/inputs from multiple vehicles, and other auxiliary vehicle data in conjunction with a cloud-based deep learning engine to derive trends and personalize the in-car experience” in ¶4, as per “wherein detecting the one or more behaviors of the user includes monitoring a user state by aggregating inputs from user interactions, multiple vehicle inputs, and other auxiliary vehicle data in conjunction with a cloud-based deep learning engine of the cloud computing device, and deriving trends in the user state and reactions to adaptations of the display device and/or the vehicle device” in ¶76, as per “personalizing the experience creates a bond between the driver and the car; and the car could help ensure that the driver is optimally operating the vehicle, and help anticipate the driver's needs based on the driver's calendar, activities, personal preferences, etc., and help recommend intuitive and contextual information” in ¶18)
determining, via the server device, one or more vehicle functions from a predetermined function pool of the motor vehicle based on the learning function based on the user behavior profile; (as per "features of the in-vehicle computing system may be selectively provided based on the identified user and/or learned data relating to the user and/or conditions of the vehicle." in Abstract, as per "with a cloud-based deep learning engine of the cloud computing device to derive trends in the user state and reactions to adaptations of the display device and/or the selected vehicle device." In ¶75)
Rao fails to expressly disclose:
comparing, using the server device, a position of a user communication device relative to a position of the motor vehicle to determine if a user is outside the motor vehicle;
upon determining that the user is outside the motor vehicle, based on the personalized event criterion being present for one of the determined vehicle functions, performing, via the server device, a communication function of the server device with the vehicle-external communication device for offering one of the determined vehicle functions to be performed;
sending a confirmation to the server device, to proceed with performing one of the determined vehicle functions, via the vehicle-external communication device: and
performing one of the determined vehicle functions by the server device, in response to receiving the confirmation from the vehicle-external communication device.
Watanabe discloses of vehicle remote operation, comprising:
comparing, using the server device, a position of a user communication device relative to a position of the motor vehicle to determine if a user is outside the motor vehicle; (as per “he distance between the user and the vehicle can be calculated from detection results obtained through communications from a position detector (for example, a device using GPS) carried by the vehicle and a position detector (for example, a device using GPS) installed in a mobile terminal carried by the user” in ¶12)
upon determining that the user is outside the motor vehicle, (as per “When the current position of the vehicle 101 is approximately the same as the current position of the communication terminal 103, namely, it is determined that the user is inside the vehicle 101… Therefore, among the above fail safe operations (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e), the fail safe operations of (c),… can be omitted” in ¶102-¶104) based on the personalized event criterion being present for one of the determined vehicle functions, performing, via the server device, a communication function of the server device with the vehicle-external communication device for offering one of the determined vehicle functions to be performed; (as per “the user is reminded by the center 102 to make this request through the following series of actions. Specifically, the in-vehicle device 101 a detects that the window is open even after the IG of the vehicle 101 has been tuned off for a time period, and the in-vehicle device 101 a notifies the center 102 of this fact. Then, the center 102 sends a message to the communication terminal 103 by an email through the Internet server function unit 304 to remind the user that he or she forgot to close the window” in ¶82)
In this way, Watanabe operates to direct a vehicle to execute operations in response to a remote operation request made by a user of the vehicle (¶2). Like Rao, Watanabe is concerned with vehicle operation.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the portable personalization of Rao with the remote vehicle operation as taught by Watanabe to enable another standard means of detecting location of user and provide a vehicle remote operation device of an optimized fail-safe function (¶10-¶11).
Rao and Watanabe fail to expressly disclose:
sending a confirmation to the server device, to proceed with performing one of the determined vehicle functions, via the vehicle-external communication device: and
performing one of the determined vehicle functions by the server device, in response to receiving the confirmation from the vehicle-external communication device.
Harichandan discloses controlling vehicle components using smartphone, comprising:
sending a confirmation to the server device, to proceed with performing one of the determined vehicle functions, via the vehicle-external communication device: (as per “. The smartphone 104 further generates commands/events for sending to the microprocessor 110 to control the various parts/components of the two/three wheeled vehicle” in ¶94, as per “Once the identity of the user is confirmed on the smartphone, a signal is sent to the vehicle parameter controller 114 via the microprocessor 110 provided in the vehicle module 102 for locking/unlocking the two/three wheeled vehicle” in ¶100)
performing one of the determined vehicle functions by the server device, in response to receiving the confirmation from the vehicle-external communication device. (as per “the microprocessor 110 is further configured to receive one or more commands/events from the smartphone 104 for controlling the operation of various parts/components of the two/three wheeled vehicle 116” in ¶95)
In this way, Harichandan operates to control the operation of vehicle components in vehicles through a smartphone of the user (¶28). Like Rao and Watanabe, Harichandan is concerned with vehicle systems.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the portable personalization of Rao and the remote vehicle operation of Watanabe with the smartphone controlled vehicle components by Harichandan to enable another standard means of operating certain vehicle components via a smartphone (¶28). Such modification also allows the system to upload the data related to the vehicle parameters and commands/events on a cloud to build driver profile and allow live tracking of the vehicle parameters through a smartphone (¶15).
As per Claim 12, the combination of Rao, Watanabe, Harichandan teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 11. Rao further discloses wherein the motor vehicle is controlled by the server device via a vehicle interface to carry out the confirmed vehicle function. (as per “output control logic and/or algorithms may determine whether or not information is to be provided (e.g., output, via a vehicle device or another device within the vehicle) to a driver given a current context (e.g., a driver status, a vehicle status, a detected event, etc.)." in ¶69, “deep learning system 902 may be utilized by the output control logic and/or algorithms to determine and/or confirm one or more of the above indicators of a potential for outputting information." in ¶71, Fig. 2)
As per Claim 13, the combination of Rao, Watanabe, Harichandan teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 11. Rao further discloses wherein the user behavior profile is learned via the user interactions which the user performs with the vehicle functions that are offered. (as per "whenever a user's pupil has below a threshold diameter and ambient light is above a threshold intensity, the user may flip down a visor, put on sunglasses, and/or squint to read content on a display. Accordingly, the in-vehicle computing system may learn these behaviors and trigger actions to assist the user when such conditions are experienced.” in ¶54, Fig. 4)
As per Claim 15, the combination of Rao, Watanabe, Harichandan teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 11. Rao further discloses:
wherein a behavior of the user in the motor vehicle during operation of the motor vehicle is detected as a user interaction (as per “A driver 310 may interact with and control the camera via gestures. For example, the driver 310 may point at an object of interest 312 in order to request that the camera focuses on or otherwise processes the object.” in ¶45)
wherein a control of vehicle functions via the vehicle-external communication device is detected as a user interaction. (as per “For example, mobile device application 244 may aggregate data regarding music playlists listened to by the user on the mobile device, telephone call logs (including a frequency and duration of telephone calls accepted by the user), positional information including locations frequented by the user and an amount of time spent at each location, etc. The collected data may be transferred by application 244 to external device interface 212 over network 260." in ¶36)
As per Claim 16, the combination of Rao, Watanabe, Harichandan teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 11. Rao further discloses wherein vehicle sensor data of the motor vehicle are checked for the presence of the event criterion. (as per "For example, external devices 150 may include one or more sensors and communication link 136 may transmit sensor output from external devices 150 to in-vehicle computing system 109 and touch screen 108." in ¶24)
As per Claim 17, the combination of Rao, Watanabe, Harichandan teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 11. Rao further discloses wherein the communication function provides communication with the vehicle-external communication device in a dialog format. (as per "wherein the instructions are further executable to provide a conversational voice assistant configured to interact with the user via natural language audio input recognition and natural language audio output presentation." in Claim 12, as per "to provide a conversational voice assistant configured to interact with the user via natural language audio input recognition and natural language audio output presentation." in ¶75, Fig. 7/8)
As per Claim 18, the combination of Rao, Watanabe, Harichandan teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 17. Rao further discloses wherein the communication function adapts a communication behavior of the dialog format depending on the user behavior profile. (as per “wherein detecting the one or more behaviors of the user includes detecting a voice input from the user, the instructions further executable to selectively forward the voice input to a selected personal assistant service of a plurality of personal assistant services based on a context of the voice input.” in ¶75, as per “Another example provides for a method including, responding to a first user voice request of a user via enabling (and/or commencing a process) with a first remote service that provides a first prompt to the user based on the user's first voice request, and responding to a second, different, user voice request via enabling (and/or commencing a process), with a second, different remote service that provides a second, different, audio prompt to the user based on the user's second voice request.” in ¶80)
As per Claim 19, the combination of Rao, Watanabe, Harichandan teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 11. Rao further discloses wherein the server device determines a position of the user. (as per "a fob sensor receiving commands from and optionally tracking the geographic location/proximity of a fob of the vehicle, etc." in ¶33, as per “mobile device application 244 may aggregate data regarding… positional information including locations frequented by the user and an amount of time spent at each location, etc.” in ¶36)
Rao fails to expressly disclose wherein the vehicle function is offered for performing only if the user is outside the motor vehicle.
See Claim 11 for teachings of Watanabe. Watanabe further discloses wherein the vehicle function is offered for performing only if the user is outside the motor vehicle. (as per “a user of a vehicle is able to close a window of the vehicle or turn off a hazard lamp of the vehicle by using a cellular phone” in ¶5, as per “the user accesses the Web page provided by the Internet server function unit 304 by using the communication terminal 103; for example, the user requests a remote operation of closing the window of the vehicle 101” in ¶81)
In this way, Watanabe operates to direct a vehicle to execute operations in response to a remote operation request made by a user of the vehicle (¶2). Like Rao and Harichandan, Watanabe is concerned with vehicle operation.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the portable personalization of Rao and the smartphone controlled vehicle components of Harichandan with the remote vehicle operation as taught by Watanabe to enable another standard means of detecting location of user and provide a vehicle remote operation device of an optimized fail-safe function (¶10-¶11).
As per Claim 20, Rao discloses of portable personalization, comprising:
detecting user interactions with a motor vehicle; (as per “may be sent to an object recognition module of the in-vehicle computing system 300 and/or an off-board (e.g., server) computing device" in ¶45”, as per “to monitor the one or more behaviors of the user over time and build a database of user preferences based on the monitored one or more behaviors." in Claim 8)
learning a user behavior profile by a learning function based on the detected user interactions; (as per "Features of the in-vehicle computing system may be selectively provided based on the identified user and/or learned data relating to the user and/or conditions of the vehicle." in Abstract, as per “Based on learned behaviors of the user derived from the user's interaction with the in-vehicle computing system and/or other computing devices” in ¶56)
determining a personalized event criterion (as per “algorithms 906 may receive the data from inputs 908 and evaluate whether the inputs indicate an event or otherwise trigger a potential for output” in ¶70, as per “For example, output control logic and/or algorithms may determine whether or not information is to be provided (e.g., output, via a vehicle device or another device within the vehicle) to a driver given a current context (e.g., a driver status, a vehicle status, a detected event, etc.). The current context may be determined based on one or more inputs” in ¶69) by the learning function trained on user behavior; (as per “human-machine interactions (HMI) which aggregates inputs from user interactions, multiple vehicle inputs/inputs from multiple vehicles, and other auxiliary vehicle data in conjunction with a cloud-based deep learning engine to derive trends and personalize the in-car experience” in ¶4, as per “wherein detecting the one or more behaviors of the user includes monitoring a user state by aggregating inputs from user interactions, multiple vehicle inputs, and other auxiliary vehicle data in conjunction with a cloud-based deep learning engine of the cloud computing device, and deriving trends in the user state and reactions to adaptations of the display device and/or the vehicle device” in ¶76, as per “personalizing the experience creates a bond between the driver and the car; and the car could help ensure that the driver is optimally operating the vehicle, and help anticipate the driver's needs based on the driver's calendar, activities, personal preferences, etc., and help recommend intuitive and contextual information” in ¶18)
determining one or more vehicle functions from a predetermined function pool of the motor vehicle based on the learning function based on the user behavior profile; (as per "features of the in-vehicle computing system may be selectively provided based on the identified user and/or learned data relating to the user and/or conditions of the vehicle." in Abstract, as per "with a cloud-based deep learning engine of the cloud computing device to derive trends in the user state and reactions to adaptations of the display device and/or the selected vehicle device." In ¶75)
Rao fails to expressly disclose:
comparing using the server device, a position of a user communication device relative to a position of the motor vehicle to determine if the user is outside the motor vehicle;
upon determining that the user is outside the motor vehicle, based on the personalized event criterion being present for one of the determined vehicle functions, performing a communication function of the server device for one of the determined vehicle functions, with the vehicle-external communication device for offering one of the determined vehicle functions to be performed;
sending a confirmation to the server device, to proceed with performing one of the determined vehicle functions, via the vehicle-external communication device; and
performing one of the determined vehicle functions by the server device, in response to receiving the confirmation from the vehicle-external communication device.
Watanabe discloses of vehicle remote operation, comprising:
comparing using the server device, a position of a user communication device relative to a position of the motor vehicle to determine if the user is outside the motor vehicle; (as per “he distance between the user and the vehicle can be calculated from detection results obtained through communications from a position detector (for example, a device using GPS) carried by the vehicle and a position detector (for example, a device using GPS) installed in a mobile terminal carried by the user” in ¶12)
upon determining that the user is outside the motor vehicle, (as per “When the current position of the vehicle 101 is approximately the same as the current position of the communication terminal 103, namely, it is determined that the user is inside the vehicle 101… Therefore, among the above fail safe operations (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e), the fail safe operations of (c),… can be omitted” in ¶102-¶104) based on the personalized event criterion being present for one of the determined vehicle functions, performing a communication function of the server device for one of the determined vehicle functions, with the vehicle-external communication device for offering one of the determined vehicle functions to be performed; (as per “the user is reminded by the center 102 to make this request through the following series of actions. Specifically, the in-vehicle device 101 a detects that the window is open even after the IG of the vehicle 101 has been tuned off for a time period, and the in-vehicle device 101 a notifies the center 102 of this fact. Then, the center 102 sends a message to the communication terminal 103 by an email through the Internet server function unit 304 to remind the user that he or she forgot to close the window” in ¶82)
In this way, Watanabe operates to direct a vehicle to execute operations in response to a remote operation request made by a user of the vehicle (¶2). Like Rao, Watanabe is concerned with vehicle operation.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the portable personalization of Rao with the remote vehicle operation as taught by Watanabe to enable another standard means of detecting location of user and provide a vehicle remote operation device of an optimized fail-safe function (¶10-¶11).
Rao and Watanabe fail to expressly disclose:
sending a confirmation to the server device, to proceed with performing one of the determined vehicle functions, via the vehicle-external communication device; and
performing one of the determined vehicle functions by the server device, in response to receiving the confirmation from the vehicle-external communication device.
Harichandan discloses controlling vehicle components using smartphone, comprising:
sending a confirmation to the server device, to proceed with performing one of the determined vehicle functions, via the vehicle-external communication device; (as per “. The smartphone 104 further generates commands/events for sending to the microprocessor 110 to control the various parts/components of the two/three wheeled vehicle” in ¶94, as per “Once the identity of the user is confirmed on the smartphone, a signal is sent to the vehicle parameter controller 114 via the microprocessor 110 provided in the vehicle module 102 for locking/unlocking the two/three wheeled vehicle” in ¶100)
performing one of the determined vehicle functions by the server device, in response to receiving the confirmation from the vehicle-external communication device. (as per “the microprocessor 110 is further configured to receive one or more commands/events from the smartphone 104 for controlling the operation of various parts/components of the two/three wheeled vehicle 116” in ¶95)
In this way, Harichandan operates to control the operation of vehicle components in vehicles through a smartphone of the user (¶28). Like Rao and Watanabe, Harichandan is concerned with vehicle systems.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the portable personalization of Rao and the remote vehicle operation of Watanabe with the smartphone controlled vehicle components by Harichandan to enable another standard means of operating certain vehicle components via a smartphone (¶28). Such modification also allows the system to upload the data related to the vehicle parameters and commands/events on a cloud to build driver profile and allow live tracking of the vehicle parameters through a smartphone (¶15).
As per Claim 21, the combination of Rao, Watanabe, Harichandan teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 11. Rao further discloses performing the communication function in a dialog format. (as per "wherein the instructions are further executable to provide a conversational voice assistant configured to interact with the user via natural language audio input recognition and natural language audio output presentation." in Claim 12, as per "to provide a conversational voice assistant configured to interact with the user via natural language audio input recognition and natural language audio output presentation." in ¶68, Fig. 7/8)
As per Claim 22, the combination of Rao, Watanabe, Harichandan teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 12. Rao further discloses adapting a communication behavior of the dialog format based on the user behavior profile. (as per “wherein detecting the one or more behaviors of the user includes detecting a voice input from the user, the instructions further executable to selectively forward the voice input to a selected personal assistant service of a plurality of personal assistant services based on a context of the voice input.” in ¶68, as per “Another example provides for a method including, responding to a first user voice request of a user via enabling (and/or commencing a process) with a first remote service that provides a first prompt to the user based on the user's first voice request, and responding to a second, different, user voice request via enabling (and/or commencing a process), with a second, different remote service that provides a second, different, audio prompt to the user based on the user's second voice request.” in ¶73)
As per Claim 23, the combination of Rao, Watanabe, Harichandan teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 11. Rao fails to expressly disclose providing a confirmation to the server device after the vehicle function has performed.
See Claim 11 for teachings of Watanabe. Watanabe further discloses providing a confirmation to the server device after the vehicle function has performed. (as per “The controller 202 of the in-vehicle device 101 a determines whether it is necessary to send the operation results of the remote operation (that is, if the distance is at the level 4 as shown in FIG. 6) If it is determined that it is necessary to send the operation results (that is, “YES” in step S509), in step S510, the controller 202 of the in-vehicle device 101 a sends an operation completion notification to the center 102 through the signal transmitter and receiver 201” in ¶109, as per “As for transmission of operation results of the remote operation, which is another fail-safe operation, for example, when the window is completely closed, the min-vehicle device 101 a notifies the center 102 through communications that the remote operation is finished” in ¶95)
In this way, Watanabe operates to direct a vehicle to execute operations in response to a remote operation request made by a user of the vehicle (¶2). Like Rao and Harichandan, Watanabe is concerned with vehicle operation.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the portable personalization of Rao and the smartphone controlled vehicle components of Harichandan with the remote vehicle operation as taught by Watanabe to enable another standard means of detecting location of user and provide a vehicle remote operation device of an optimized fail-safe function (¶10-¶11).
As per Claim 24, the combination of Rao, Watanabe, Harichandan teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 11. Rao fails to expressly disclose providing by the server device, a notification to the user communication device confirming that the vehicle function has been performed.
See Claim 11 for teachings of Watanabe. Watanabe further discloses providing by the server device, a notification to the user communication device confirming that the vehicle function has been performed. (as per “as per “As for transmission of operation results of the remote operation, which is another fail-safe operation, for example, when the window is completely closed, the min-vehicle device 101 a notifies the center 102 through communications that the remote operation is finished. Receiving this notification, the center 102 sends a message to the communication terminal 103 carried by the user by an email to notify the user that the remote operation is finished.” in ¶95, as per “the controller 302 directs the Internet server function unit 304 to generate a completion notification mail for notifying the user that the operation of closing the window is finished, and sends the mail to the communication terminal 103 of the user” in ¶110)
In this way, Watanabe operates to direct a vehicle to execute operations in response to a remote operation request made by a user of the vehicle (¶2). Like Rao and Harichandan, Watanabe is concerned with vehicle operation.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the portable personalization of Rao and the smartphone controlled vehicle components of Harichandan with the remote vehicle operation as taught by Watanabe to enable another standard means of detecting location of user and provide a vehicle remote operation device of an optimized fail-safe function (¶10-¶11).
As per Claim 25, the combination of Rao, Watanabe, Harichandan teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 20. Rao fails to expressly disclose wherein the server device is configured to carry out a method further comprising providing a confirmation to the server device after the vehicle function has performed.
See Claim 20 for teachings of Watanabe. Watanabe further discloses wherein the server device is configured to carry out a method further comprising providing a confirmation to the server device after the vehicle function has performed. (as per “The controller 202 of the in-vehicle device 101 a determines whether it is necessary to send the operation results of the remote operation (that is, if the distance is at the level 4 as shown in FIG. 6) If it is determined that it is necessary to send the operation results (that is, “YES” in step S509), in step S510, the controller 202 of the in-vehicle device 101 a sends an operation completion notification to the center 102 through the signal transmitter and receiver 201” in ¶109, as per “As for transmission of operation results of the remote operation, which is another fail-safe operation, for example, when the window is completely closed, the min-vehicle device 101 a notifies the center 102 through communications that the remote operation is finished” in ¶95)
In this way, Watanabe operates to direct a vehicle to execute operations in response to a remote operation request made by a user of the vehicle (¶2). Like Rao and Harichandan, Watanabe is concerned with vehicle operation.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the portable personalization of Rao and the smartphone controlled vehicle components of Harichandan with the remote vehicle operation as taught by Watanabe to enable another standard means of detecting location of user and provide a vehicle remote operation device of an optimized fail-safe function (¶10-¶11).
As per Claim 26, the combination of Rao, Watanabe, Harichandan teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 20. Rao fails to expressly disclose wherein the server device is configured to carry out a method further comprising providing by the server device, a notification to the user communication device confirming that the vehicle function has been performed.
See Claim 20 for teachings of Watanabe. Watanabe further discloses wherein the server device is configured to carry out a method further comprising providing by the server device, a notification to the user communication device confirming that the vehicle function has been performed. (as per “as per “As for transmission of operation results of the remote operation, which is another fail-safe operation, for example, when the window is completely closed, the min-vehicle device 101 a notifies the center 102 through communications that the remote operation is finished. Receiving this notification, the center 102 sends a message to the communication terminal 103 carried by the user by an email to notify the user that the remote operation is finished.” in ¶95, as per “the controller 302 directs the Internet server function unit 304 to generate a completion notification mail for notifying the user that the operation of closing the window is finished, and sends the mail to the communication terminal 103 of the user” in ¶110)f
In this way, Watanabe operates to direct a vehicle to execute operations in response to a remote operation request made by a user of the vehicle (¶2). Like Rao and Harichandan, Watanabe is concerned with vehicle operation.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the portable personalization of Rao and the smartphone controlled vehicle components of Harichandan with the remote vehicle operation as taught by Watanabe to enable another standard means of detecting location of user and provide a vehicle remote operation device of an optimized fail-safe function (¶10-¶11).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao (US Pub. No. 20200114931) in view of Watanabe (US Pub. No. 20060197677) in view of Harichandan (US Pub. No. 20200079397) in further view of Chatterjee (US Pub. No. 20150127215).
As per Claim 14, the combination of Rao, Watanabe, Harichandan teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 13. Rao further discloses:
wherein vehicle functions to be performed automatically are determined by the user interaction with the vehicle functions that are offered; (as per “if the user squints to read content on a display every time the pupil diameter is below a threshold and the ambient light is above a threshold, the in- vehicle computing system may adjust a display brightness, contrast, or display mode when such conditions are met in order to make the display easier for the user to read in bright light environments." in ¶54)
wherein the motor vehicle is controlled by the server device (as per “object recognition module of the in-vehicle computing system 300 and/or an off-board (e.g., server) computing device." in ¶38, Fig. 4)
Rao, Watanabe, and Harichandan fail to expressly disclose to carry out the vehicle functions to be performed automatically without user interaction.
Chatterjee discloses adapting vehicle systems based on wearable devices, comprising carrying out the vehicle functions to be performed automatically without user interaction. (as per “At 412, the method includes, automatically determining one or more vehicle aspects or vehicle settings based on the inferred user state before receiving input from the user. That is, the vehicle settings are automatically selected before a user provides input, such as by pushing a button or dial of the vehicle's instrument panel, or by interacting with a touch screen of the vehicle. Likewise, vehicle settings are automatically selected before receiving input from the user via the wearable device or mobile device, such as by the user giving a voice command on the device.” in ¶51), as per “In response to input from the devices indicating that the user is engaged in an elevated physical activity level (e.g., based on sensor signals indicating the user pulse rate is elevated and the user is perspiring), the in-vehicle control system may adjust the climate control system to increase cabin cooling so that cooled cabin air is provided to the user upon entering the vehicle” in ¶30)
In this way, the system operates improve an in-vehicle ambience experienced by a user (¶76). Like Rao, Watanabe, and Harichandan, Chatterjee is concerned with vehicle computing systems.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the portable personalization of Rao, the remote vehicle operation of Watanabe, and the smartphone controlled vehicle components of Harichandan with the adapting vehicle systems based on wearable devices method as taught by Chatterjee to enable another standard means performing the desired vehicle function. Such modification also allows the system to automatically determine vehicle settings based on the user state, therefore improving the vehicle ambience and drive feel for the car (¶47).
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 TYLER R ROBARGE whose telephone number is (703)756-5872. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached on (571) 270-5744. 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.
/T.R.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/TRUC M DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights