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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 6/5/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. There is no English translation or explanation of relevance for “PCT International Application Number PCT/KR2020/010256, INTERNATIONAL SEARCH REPORT dated April 29, 2021, 3 pages”.
The information disclosure statement filed 4/29/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. There is no English translation or explanation of relevance for “Korean Intellectual Property Office Application Number 10-2022-7027777, Office Action dated February 11, 2025, 6 pages”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Claims 1-4 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cansino et al (“Cansino”, US 20170188077) in view of Babcock et al (“Babcock”, US 20210241627).
Regarding Claim 1, Cansino teaches an in-vehicle infotainment system comprising:
a first device included in a vehicle, and comprising a first memory (Fig. 6, elements {44, 670} par 120; par 129; The first device is the infotainment system.);
a second device electrically connected to the first device, attachable or detachable to the vehicle or from the vehicle, and comprising a second memory (Fig. 4A, elements {34, 450}, par 92; par 100; par 132-136; The second device is the mobile device. The mobile device is attachable or detachable via Bluetooth.);
and an interface configured to electrically connect the second device to the first device (Fig. 4A, elements {34, 450, 456}, par 92; par 100; par 106; par 132-136; The second device is the mobile device. The mobile device is attachable or detachable via Bluetooth. The interface is coupling detector module 456.).
Cansino does not explicitly teach wherein the first memory stores first data including user-customized data, the second device executes a first application based on the first data, and the first application is stored in the second memory.
Babcock teaches wherein the first memory stores first data including user-customized data, the second device executes a first application based on the first data, and the first application is stored in the second memory (Fig. 7, elements {710, 720, 730}, par 54; The user-customized data is the username/password. The first memory is the database 251. The second device is the mobile device. The second memory is the memory of the mobile device. The application is the application being run on the mobile device.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Cansino with the login credentials of Babcock because it improves security by granting access to known users and preventing unknown users from accessing the system.
Regarding Claim 2, Cansino and Babcock teach the in-vehicle infotainment system of claim 1.
Cansino further teaches wherein the second device is replaced with a third device comprising a third memory (Fig. 4A, elements {34, 450, 456}, par 92; par 100; par 106; Fig. 5, elements {36, 532}, par 113; par 117; par 132-136; The second device is the mobile device. The third device is the wearable device.).
Regarding Claim 3, Cansino and Babcock teach the in-vehicle infotainment system of claim 2.
Cansino further teaches wherein the third device executes a second application based on the first data, and the second application is stored in the third memory (Fig. 4A, elements {34, 436, 450, 456}, par 92; par 100; par 106; Fig. 5, elements {36, 532, 548}, par 113; par 117; par 132-136; The second device is the mobile device. The third device is the wearable device. The second application is the recommendation module 548. The first data is the recommendation provided.).
Regarding Claim 4, Cansino and Babcock teach the in-vehicle infotainment system of claim 3.
Cansino further teaches wherein the first data further comprises application data received from the second device, and the third device executes the second application based on the application data (Fig. 4A, elements {34, 436, 450, 456}, par 92; par 100; par 106; Fig. 5, elements {36, 532, 548}, par 113; par 117; par 132-136; The second device is the mobile device. The third device is the wearable device. The second application is the recommendation module 548. The first data is the recommendation provided.).
Regarding Claim 11, Cansino teaches a method for upgrading an in-vehicle infotainment system by replacing a second device mounted in a vehicle comprising a first device with a third device, the method comprising:
storing the first data in a first memory of the first device (Fig. 6, elements {44, 670} par 120; par 129; The first device is the infotainment system.);
receiving a dismounting message for the second device (Fig. 7, elements {718, 720, 722}, par 133-134; Fig. 8A, elements {810, 812}, par 137; The second device is the mobile device. The dismounting message is the on-screen display for resuming playback after being disconnected (dismounted) at step 720.);
receiving a coupling message for the third device (Fig. 7, elements {710, 712}, par 132; The third device is the wearable device. The coupling message is the playback content received after coupling occurs at step 710.);
and transmitting the first data to the third device (Fig. 4A, elements {34, 436, 450, 456}, par 92; par 100; par 106; Fig. 5, elements {36, 532, 548}, par 113; par 117; par 132-136; The second device is the mobile device. The third device is the wearable device. The first data is the recommendation provided.),
Cansino does not explicitly teach receiving first data comprising user-customized data from the second device; wherein the second device executes a first application based on the first data.
Babcock teaches receiving first data comprising user-customized data from the second device (Fig. 7, elements {710, 720, 730}, par 54; The user-customized data is the username/password. The first memory is the database 251. The second device is the mobile device. The second memory is the memory of the mobile device. The application is the application being run on the mobile device.);
wherein the second device executes a first application based on the first data (Fig. 7, elements {710, 720, 730}, par 54; The user-customized data is the username/password. The first memory is the database 251. The second device is the mobile device. The second memory is the memory of the mobile device. The application is the application being run on the mobile device.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Cansino with the login credentials of Babcock because it improves security by granting access to known users and preventing unknown users from accessing the system.
Regarding Claim 12, Cansino and Babcock teach the method of claim 11.
Cansino further teaches wherein the third device executes a second application based on the first data (Fig. 4A, elements {34, 436, 450, 456}, par 92; par 100; par 106; Fig. 5, elements {36, 532, 548}, par 113; par 117; par 132-136; The second device is the mobile device. The third device is the wearable device. The second application is the recommendation module 548. The first data is the recommendation provided.).
Claims 5-7 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cansino and Babcock in view of Larson et al (“Larson”, US 20040210362).
Regarding Claim 5, Cansino and Babcock teach the in-vehicle infotainment system of claim 1.
Cansino and Babcock do not explicitly teach wherein the first memory is divided into a plurality of partitions.
Larson teaches wherein the first memory is divided into a plurality of partitions (par 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Cansino and Babcock with the partitioned storage of Larson because it allows for the backup of data in case data gets corrupted or lost.
Regarding Claim 6, Cansino, Babcock, and Larson teach the in-vehicle infotainment system of claim 5.
Cansino and Babcock do not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of partitions comprise a first partition to store the first data.
Larson teaches wherein the plurality of partitions comprise a first partition to store the first data (par 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Cansino and Babcock with the partitioned storage of Larson because it allows for the backup of data in case data gets corrupted or lost.
Regarding Claim 7, Cansino, Babcock, and Larson teach the in-vehicle infotainment system of claim 5.
Cansino and Babcock do not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of partitions comprise a first partition and a second partition to alternately store the first data.
Larson teaches wherein the plurality of partitions comprise a first partition and a second partition to alternately store the first data (par 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Cansino and Babcock with the partitioned storage of Larson because it allows for the backup of data in case data gets corrupted or lost.
Regarding Claim 15, Cansino and Babcock teach the method of claim 11.
Cansino and Babcock do not explicitly teach wherein the first memory is divided into a plurality of partitions, wherein the first data is stored in any one of the plurality of partitions.
Larson teaches wherein the first memory is divided into a plurality of partitions, wherein the first data is stored in any one of the plurality of partitions (par 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Cansino and Babcock with the partitioned storage of Larson because it allows for the backup of data in case data gets corrupted or lost.
Regarding Claim 16, Cansino, Babcock, and Larson teach the method of claim 15.
Cansino and Babcock do not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of partitions comprise a first partition and a second partition to alternately store the first data.
Larson teaches wherein the plurality of partitions comprise a first partition and a second partition to alternately store the first data (par 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Cansino and Babcock with the partitioned storage of Larson because it allows for the backup of data in case data gets corrupted or lost.
Claims 8-9 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cansino and Babcock in view of Nakajima et al (“Nakajima”, US 20200389325).
Regarding Claim 8, Cansino and Babcock teach the in-vehicle infotainment system of claim 1.
Cansino and Babcock do not explicitly teach wherein the first data is encrypted and stored in the first memory.
Nakajima teaches wherein the first data is encrypted and stored in the first memory (par 89).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Cansino and Babcock with the encryption of Nakajima because it improves security of data.
Regarding Claim 9, Cansino and Babcock teach the in-vehicle infotainment system of claim 1.
Cansino and Babcock do not explicitly teach wherein the first data is encrypted and transmitted to the second device.
Nakajima teaches wherein the first data is encrypted and transmitted to the second device (par 89).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Cansino and Babcock with the encryption of Nakajima because it improves security of data.
Regarding Claim 19, Cansino and Babcock teach the method of claim 11.
Cansino and Babcock do not explicitly teach wherein the first data is encrypted and stored in the first memory.
Nakajima teaches wherein the first data is encrypted and stored in the first memory (par 89).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Cansino and Babcock with the encryption of Nakajima because it improves security of data.
Regarding Claim 20, Cansino and Babcock teach the method of claim 11.
Cansico further teaches third device (Fig. 4A, elements {34, 436, 450, 456}, par 92; par 100; par 106; Fig. 5, elements {36, 532, 548}, par 113; par 117; par 132-136; The third device is the wearable device.).
Cansino and Babcock do not explicitly teach wherein the first data is encrypted and received from the second device, and the first data is encrypted and transmitted to the device.
Nakajima teaches wherein the first data is encrypted and received from the second device, and the first data is encrypted and transmitted to the device (par 89).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Cansino and Babcock with the encryption of Nakajima because it improves security of data.
Claims 10 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cansino and Babcock in view of Moinzadeh et al (“Moinzadeh”, US 20110093153).
Regarding Claim 10, Cansino and Babcock teach the in-vehicle infotainment system of claim 2.
Cansino and Babcock do not explicitly teach wherein the first data further comprises application list information received from the second device, and wherein the third device installs a third application based on the application list information.
Moinzadeh teaches wherein the first data further comprises application list information received from the second device (Fig. 6, elements {222, 239, 605, 626, 628, 661, 662}, par 61-64; The second device is the user web portal 605.),
and wherein the third device installs a third application based on the application list information (Fig. 6, elements {222, 239, 605, 626, 628, 661, 662}, par 61-64; The third device is the computing terminal 626.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Cansino and Babcock with the application manager of Moinzadeh because it allows users to select which applications they would want to have access to, thereby removing unwanted applications and adding desired applications.
Regarding Claim 17, Cansino and Babcock teach the method of claim 11.
Cansino and Babcock do not explicitly teach wherein the first data further comprises application data or application list information received from the second device, and wherein the application list information is a list of a plurality of applications installed in the second device.
Moinzadeh teaches wherein the first data further comprises application data or application list information received from the second device (Fig. 6, elements {222, 239, 605, 626, 628, 661, 662}, par 61-64; The second device is the user web portal 605.),
and wherein the application list information is a list of a plurality of applications installed in the second device (Fig. 6, elements {222, 239, 605, 626, 628, 661, 662}, par 61-64; The second device is the user web portal 605.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Cansino and Babcock with the application manager of Moinzadeh because it allows users to select which applications they would want to have access to, thereby removing unwanted applications and adding desired applications.
Regarding Claim 18, Cansino, Babcock, and Moinzadeh teach the method of claim 17.
Cansino and Babcock do not explicitly teach wherein the third device receives and installs a third application from an external server based on the application list information.
Moinzadeh teaches wherein the third device receives and installs a third application from an external server based on the application list information (Fig. 6, elements {222, 239, 605, 626, 628, 661, 662}, par 61-64; The third device is the computing terminal 626.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Cansino and Babcock with the application manager of Moinzadeh because it allows users to select which applications they would want to have access to, thereby removing unwanted applications and adding desired applications.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cansino and Babcock in view of Amulothu et al (“Amulothu”, US 20160277234).
Regarding Claim 13, Cansino and Babcock teach the method of claim 11.
Cansino and Babcock do not explicitly teach wherein receiving first data comprises: detecting occurrence of an event for a backup of the first data; executing a zero-defect test on the first data; and receiving the first data based on the first data being zero-defect.
Amulothu teaches wherein receiving first data comprises: detecting occurrence of an event for a backup of the first data (par 32);
executing a zero-defect test on the first data; and receiving the first data based on the first data being zero-defect (par 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Cansino and Babcock with the rollback functionality of Amulothu because it allows for the system to be corrected if an error occurs.
Regarding Claim 14, Cansino, Babcock, and Amulothu teach the method of claim 12.
Cansino and Babcock do not explicitly teach wherein receiving first data comprises recovering the first data based on the first data not being zero-defect.
Amulothu teaches wherein receiving first data comprises recovering the first data based on the first data not being zero-defect (par 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Cansino and Babcock with the rollback functionality of Amulothu because it allows for the system to be corrected if an error occurs.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
CEPURAN (US 20160321080), Abstract - A mobile communication system and a method of providing content data to user of a vehicle using the communication system. The method includes: determining at a vehicle a last-used content data function associated with a previous ignition cycle, wherein the last-used content data function was used to provide content data to vehicle users; determining an adaptive boot sequence that includes the last-used content data function; executing the adaptive boot sequence at a subsequent ignition cycle which includes initiating the last-used content data function; and providing content data in the vehicle via the last-used content data function.
Lee et al (US 20160028870), Abstract - A method of controlling a mobile terminal, and which includes connecting the mobile terminal to an in-vehicle infotainment (IVI) system of a vehicle through a prescribed protocol; and transmitting a device configuration information related to a service provided by the mobile terminal to the IVI system of the vehicle, wherein the device configuration information includes information on a key button and a UI key button provided by the mobile terminal.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAQIUL AMIN CHOUDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-2482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at 571-272-3964. 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.
/RAQIUL A CHOUDHURY/Examiner, Art Unit 2444