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 . Claims 11-30 were previously pending in this application. Claims 11, 13, 15-19, 21, and 23-29 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled or newly added. Thus, claims 11-30 remain pending and have been examined in this application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/2/2026 has been entered.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the
references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as
the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is
reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the
language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant's definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 11-15, 17-23, 25-28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamberger (DE 10 2013 014 887 A1, a full machine translation of which was attached to the Office action dated 12/31/2024 and is being relied upon) in view of Kim (US 2020/0282979 A1).
Regarding claims 11, 19, and 27, Hamberger discloses a method and an apparatus for operating a motor vehicle, comprising: an operator control interface (see at least [0012, 0019] – Operating device); at least one camera monitoring device, configured to monitor movement of a vehicle driver associated with a manual actuation of the operator control interface by the vehicle driver (see at least [0019] - a camera through which the interior of the motor vehicle is filmed, as well as an image analysis device which, for example, recognizes whether an input context was activated by an operation of the driver or by the operation of another person), the monitoring comprising at least one of (BRI requires only one of the following) a gaze of the vehicle driver and/or of a front-seat passenger, a movement of at least one hand of the vehicle driver and/or of the front-seat passenger, and a movement of at least one finger of the vehicle driver and/or of the front-seat passenger (see at least [0012-0013, 0019] – A detection device is provided which is designed to check and signal whether the driver of the motor vehicle or a person other than the driver is operating the operating device… a camera through which the motor vehicle interior is filmed, as well as an image analysis device which, for example, recognizes whether an input context was activated by an operating action of the driver or by the operating action of another person.); and a control unit configured to determine, based on the monitored movement, whether the monitored vehicle driver is distracted by an operating intention or operating action that is already in progress according to a predetermined driver-distraction criterion computed from the monitored movement of the vehicle driver (see at least [0012-0013, 0019, 0022, 0037, 0040] - Recognizes whether an input context was activated by an operating action of the driver or by the operating action of another person. The operating device is designed to switch to the second input mode depending on the driving situation parameter only in the event that the recognition device signals an operation by the driver. However, if the input context was activated by another person, automatic activation of the speech dialogue system is not necessary because the other person does not have to concentrate on the traffic… the at least one input context has several subsections, for example several operating menus of a menu navigation or several text input fields. Each of these subsections includes a variable complexity parameter, such as a storage space for digital information. The respective complexity parameter indicates for its subsection whether a predetermined threshold for operating complexity has been exceeded, i.e., whether the voice dialog system should be activated if the driving situation parameter meets the danger criterion.), the operating intention or operating action comprising activities from a predetermined group of activities of the vehicle driver that are not directly related to movement and/or directional control of the motor vehicle (see at least [0012, 0019, 0022, 0037, 0040] - As already explained, one or more devices of the motor vehicle can be operated by means of the operating device in such a way that input data can be determined, such as a destination input for a navigation assistance system or the selection of a telephone number from an address book or a station selection for radio reception. To do this, the operator must perform a specific operating action.), wherein the control unit is configured to determine the predetermined driver-distraction criterion by determining a numerical value based on the activities from the predetermined group of activities and determining that the numerical value is beyond a threshold value (see at least [0022, 0037, 0040] - According to this embodiment, the at least one input context has several subsections, for example several operating menus of a menu navigation or several text input fields. Each of these subsections includes a variable complexity parameter, such as a storage space for digital information. The respective complexity parameter indicates for its subsection whether a predetermined threshold for operating complexity has been exceeded, i.e., whether the voice dialog system should be activated if the driving situation parameter meets the danger criterion. The values of the complexity parameters can be set by the developers, for example, when developing an embodiment of the operating device. They can decide, for example, whether a particular menu does not pose a risk of distraction when a driver operates it using the manual input method. If, on the other hand, it is decided that a particular section is too complex to be operated using the manual input modality while the vehicle is in motion, or during certain cornering maneuvers or other driving situations marked as dangerous by the driving situation parameter, the complexity parameter can be adjusted accordingly to signal that the threshold for operating complexity has been exceeded.); in response to determining that the vehicle driver is distracted according to the predetermined driver-distraction criterion, suppress or advise against the operating intention or operating action (see at least [0022, 0037, 0040] - The operating device then only activates the second input mode for such a subsection, depending on the driving situation parameter for which the complexity parameter indicates an operating complexity above the threshold.); present an alternative operating type selection for the motor vehicle to the vehicle driver or occupant in response to determining that the vehicle driver is distracted according to the predetermined driver-distraction criterion (see at least [0014, 0017-0019, 0022, 0037, 0040] - The operating device is designed to switch to the second input mode depending on the driving situation parameter only in the event that the recognition device signals an operation by the driver. However, if the input context was activated by another person, automatic activation of the speech dialogue system is not necessary because the other person does not have to concentrate on the traffic... The operating device then only activates the second input mode for such a subsection, depending on the driving situation parameter for which the complexity parameter indicates an operating complexity above the threshold); and implement the alternative operating type selection for the motor vehicle in response to determining that the vehicle driver is distracted (see at least [0017-0019, 0022, 0037, 0040] - The development further provides that the operating device is designed to switch to the second input mode depending on the driving situation parameter only in the event that the recognition device signals an operation by the driver… The operating device then only activates the second input mode for such a subsection, depending on the driving situation parameter for which the complexity parameter indicates an operating complexity above the threshold.).
Hamberger does not appear to explicitly disclose in response to determining that the vehicle driver is distracted according to the predetermined driver-distraction criterion, suppress or advise against the operating intention or operating action that is already in progress.
Kim, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: the monitoring comprising at least one of (BRI requires only one of the following) a gaze of the vehicle driver and/or of a front-seat passenger, a movement of at least one hand of the vehicle driver and/or of the front-seat passenger, and a movement of at least one finger of the vehicle driver and/or of the front-seat passenger (see at least [0040] - The processor 140 may then be configured to track the position of a driver gaze or the movement of the driver based on the driver image.); a control unit configured to determine, based on the monitored movement, whether the monitored vehicle driver is distracted by an operating intention or operating action that is already in progress according to a predetermined driver-distraction criterion computed from the monitored movement of the vehicle driver (see at least Table 1, [0040, 0046, 0058-0059] - When the driver uses at least two convenience functions, the processor 140 may reference to the look-up table of Table 1 to identify the occurrence degree of attention dispersion caused by the use of each convenience function, and may be configured to calculate the sum of occurrence degrees of attention dispersion… When the attention the driver is determined as being dispersed, the processor 140 may be configured to detect the cause of the attention dispersion (S170). The processor 140 may be configured to detect the convenience function resulting in the attention dispersion when the gaze of the driver is beyond the observation area for a specific time or more.); in response to determining that the vehicle driver is distracted according to the predetermined driver-distraction criterion, suppress or advise against the operating intention or operating action (see at least Table 1, [0040, 0046, 0058-0059] - When the attention the driver is determined as being dispersed, the processor 140 may be configured to detect the cause of the attention dispersion (S170). The processor 140 may be configured to detect the convenience function resulting in the attention dispersion when the gaze of the driver is beyond the observation area for a specific time or more. Further, the processor 140 may be configured to restrict the use of the convenience function corresponding to the cause of the attention dispersion (S180). Particularly, the processor 140 may be configured to restrict the handling and/or execution of the convenience function resulting in the attention dispersion… For example, when the driver is performing a hands-free call in the dangerous driving situation (e.g., region, zone, or the like), the processor 140 may be configured to determine the cause of the attention dispersion as the hands-free call, and restrict the operation of the electronic device 200 providing the hands-free function to hold the hands-free call. The processor 140 may be configured to determine whether the dangerous driving situation is terminated (S190).); and present an alternative operating type selection for the motor vehicle to the vehicle driver or occupant in response to determining that the vehicle driver is distracted according to the predetermined driver-distraction criterion (see at least Table 1, [0040, 0046, 0058-0059] - Further, the processor 140 may be configured to restrict the use of the convenience function corresponding to the cause of the attention dispersion (S180). Particularly, the processor 140 may be configured to restrict the handling and/or execution of the convenience function resulting in the attention dispersion… For example, when the driver is performing a hands-free call in the dangerous driving situation (e.g., region, zone, or the like), the processor 140 may be configured to determine the cause of the attention dispersion as the hands-free call, and restrict the operation of the electronic device 200 providing the hands-free function to hold the hands-free call. The processor 140 may be configured to determine whether the dangerous driving situation is terminated (S190).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Kim into the invention of Hamberger with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is to restrict the use of the convenience function in the vehicle to support safe driving of a vehicle (Kim – [0009]). Furthermore, Kim uses a sum of the attention dispersion values to account for more than one convenience function being used and restricting the functions in order based on the degree of attention dispersion (Kim – [0046]). Suppressing or advising against the operation intention or action that is already in progress is advantageous over suppressing or advising against future intentions or actions because it improves the safety instantaneously by preventing the driver from being distracted by the current operating intention or action.
Regarding claim 12, Hamberger discloses wherein the presenting of the alternative operating type selection comprises presenting a voice control instead of the manual actuation ([0014, 0017-0019] – Speech dialogue system).
Regarding claim 13, Hamberger discloses wherein the activities of the vehicle driver are selected from a predetermined group of activities ([0012, 0019] - As already explained, one or more devices of the motor vehicle can be operated by means of the operating device in such a way that input data can be determined, such as a destination input for a navigation assistance system or the selection of a telephone number from an address book or a station selection for radio reception. To do this, the operator must perform a specific operating action.).
Kim, in the same field of endeavor, also teaches the following limitations: wherein the activities of the vehicle driver are selected from a predetermined group of activities (see at least Table 1, [0042] - When the attention dispersion of the driver is detected, the processor 140 may be configured to determine the cause of the attention dispersion. In other words, the processor 140 may be configured to determine whether there is a convenience function that the driver is using or operating. The convenience function (e.g., the non-driving related function), which is a function that is not related to the driving of the vehicle, may include hands-free (related to a mobile device), air conditioning operation, window opening/closing, sunroof opening/closing, multimedia (music, video, or radio) reproducing and/or navigation. The present disclosure, however, is not limited to these convenience functions and other functions may be contemplated.).
The motivation to combine Hamberger and Kim is the same as in the rejection of claim 11 above.
Regarding claim 14, Hamberger discloses wherein the predetermined group of activities ([0012, 0022]) comprise one or more of (BRI requires only one of the following) (i) operating an infotainment system ([0012] – Selection of a telephone number from an address book or a station selection for radio reception), (ii) operating a navigation device ([0012] – Navigation assistance system), (iii) operating an on-board computer and/or (iv) carrying out switching processes on a dashboard of the motor vehicle.
Kim, in the same field of endeavor, also teaches the following limitations: wherein the predetermined group of activities comprise one or more of (BRI requires only one of the following) (i) operating an infotainment system (see at least Table 1, [0042] – multimedia (music, video, or radio)), (ii) operating a navigation device (see at least Table 1, [0042] - navigation), (iii) operating an on-board computer and/or (iv) carrying out switching processes on a dashboard of the motor vehicle.
The motivation to combine Hamberger and Kim is the same as in the rejection of claim 11 above.
Regarding claim 15, Hamberger discloses wherein the determining of the numerical value comprises assigning respective activity values to the activities of the vehicle driver ([0022] - According to this embodiment, the at least one input context has a plurality of subsections, for example a plurality of operating menus of a menu navigation or a plurality of text input fields. Each of these subsections comprises a variable complexity parameter, for example a storage space for storing digital information. The respective complexity parameter indicates for its subsection whether a predetermined threshold for operating complexity is exceeded, i.e. whether the voice dialogue system should be activated if the driving situation parameter meets the danger criterion. The values of the complexity parameters can be set by the developers, for example, when developing an embodiment of the operating device. These can decide, for example, whether a certain operating menu does not pose a risk of distraction if a driver operates it using the manual input modality. If, however, it is decided that a certain section is too complex to be operated by means of the manual input modality while the motor vehicle is moving or during certain curves or other driving situations identified as dangerous by the driving situation parameter, the complexity parameter can be adjusted accordingly to signal that the threshold for operating complexity has been exceeded. The operating device then switches on the second input mode only for such a partial section, depending on the driving situation parameter, for which the complexity parameter indicates an operating complexity above the threshold. This embodiment has the advantage that it can be determined for individual sections of an input context whether the speech dialogue system should switch on automatically if a dangerous driving situation occurs.).
Hamberger does not appear to explicitly disclose combining the respective activity values by addition or multiplication to determine the numerical value.
Kim, in the same field of endeavor, also teaches the following limitations: wherein the determining of the numerical value comprises assigning respective activity values to the activities of the vehicle driver and combining the respective activity values by addition or multiplication to determine the numerical value (see at least Table 1, [0045-0046] - When the driver uses at least two convenience functions, the processor 140 may reference to the look-up table of Table 1 to identify the occurrence degree of attention dispersion caused by the use of each convenience function, and may be configured to calculate the sum of occurrence degrees of attention dispersion. The processor 140 may be configured to restrict the use of the convenience function in a predetermined (preset) restriction order when the sum of the occurrence degrees of attention dispersion is less than a threshold value (e.g., −20). In particular, the restriction order may be set as the descending order of coefficients causing attention dispersion or set by a user.).
The motivation to combine Hamberger and Kim is the same as in the rejection of claim 11 above.
Regarding claim 17, Hamberger discloses further comprising monitoring a traffic situation by at least one traffic monitoring device of the motor vehicle, and wherein the threshold value comprises a function of at least a degree of attention of the vehicle driver and the monitored traffic situation ([0009, 0015-0017, 0019, 0030] – Driving situation parameter indicates a driving speed or a curve position or a distance to a vehicle driving ahead, and represents a measure of how much attention the driver of the vehicle needs to pay to the traffic situation… The development further provides that the operating device is designed to switch to the second input mode depending on the driving situation parameter only in the event that the recognition device signals an operation by the driver. However, if the input context was activated by another person, automatic activation of the speech dialogue system is not necessary because the other person does not have to concentrate on the traffic.).
Hamberger does not appear to explicitly disclose at least one traffic monitoring camera.
Kim, in the same field of endeavor, also teaches the following limitations: monitoring a traffic situation by at least one traffic monitoring camera of the motor vehicle (see at least Table 1, [0038-0040] – camera... dangerous driving situation).
The motivation to combine Hamberger and Kim is the same as in the rejection of claim 11 above. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that either the numerical values (as taught by Kim) or the threshold value (as taught by Hamberger) could be varied based on the traffic situation, and one of ordinary skill in the art could adjust either and still yield predictable results. For example, when traffic is high a threshold could be decreased or a numerical value for an activity could be increased as compared to when there is no traffic. Both perform the desired function of adjusting when the operating intention/action needs to be suppressed or advised against based on the risk of the traffic and the driver’s level of distraction.
Regarding claim 18, Hamberger discloses wherein the determining of the numerical value comprises applying different weightings to different activities of the vehicle driver to determine the numerical value ([0022] - According to this embodiment, the at least one input context has a plurality of subsections, for example a plurality of operating menus of a menu navigation or a plurality of text input fields. Each of these subsections comprises a variable complexity parameter, for example a storage space for storing digital information. The respective complexity parameter indicates for its subsection whether a predetermined threshold for operating complexity is exceeded, i.e. whether the voice dialogue system should be activated if the driving situation parameter meets the danger criterion. The values of the complexity parameters can be set by the developers, for example, when developing an embodiment of the operating device. These can decide, for example, whether a certain operating menu does not pose a risk of distraction if a driver operates it using the manual input modality. If, however, it is decided that a certain section is too complex to be operated by means of the manual input modality while the motor vehicle is moving or during certain curves or other driving situations identified as dangerous by the driving situation parameter, the complexity parameter can be adjusted accordingly to signal that the threshold for operating complexity has been exceeded. The operating device then switches on the second input mode only for such a partial section, depending on the driving situation parameter, for which the complexity parameter indicates an operating complexity above the threshold. This embodiment has the advantage that it can be determined for individual sections of an input context whether the speech dialogue system should switch on automatically if a dangerous driving situation occurs.).
Kim, in the same field of endeavor, also teaches the following limitations: wherein the determining of the numerical value comprises applying different weightings to different activities of the vehicle driver to determine the numerical value (see at least Table 1, [0045-0046] - When the driver uses at least two convenience functions, the processor 140 may reference to the look-up table of Table 1 to identify the occurrence degree of attention dispersion caused by the use of each convenience function, and may be configured to calculate the sum of occurrence degrees of attention dispersion. The processor 140 may be configured to restrict the use of the convenience function in a predetermined (preset) restriction order when the sum of the occurrence degrees of attention dispersion is less than a threshold value (e.g., −20). In particular, the restriction order may be set as the descending order of coefficients causing attention dispersion or set by a user.).
The motivation to combine Hamberger and Kim is the same as in the rejection of claim 11 above.
With respect to claims 20-23, 25-26, 28, and 30 all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 12-15 and 17-18, respectively, and it has been determined that claims 20-23, 25-26, 28, and 30 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claims 12-15 and 17-18; therefore, claims 20-23, 25-26, 28, and 30 are also rejected over the same rationale as claims 12-15 and 17-18.
Claims 16, 24, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamberger in view of Kim and Schraut (DE 10 2017 222 997 A1, a full machine translation of which was attached to the Office action dated 12/31/2024 and is being relied upon).
Regarding claim 16, Hamberger does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the threshold value comprises a function of a degree of semi-autonomous driving of the motor vehicle.
Kim, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the numerical values comprise a function of a degree of semi-autonomous driving of the motor vehicle (see at least Table 1, [0035] - the occurrence degree of attention dispersion resulting from the dangerous situation in driving, and the prevention degree of attention dispersion resulting from the operation of an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS), that is, the activation of the assistant function of the driver. The ADAS includes a Lane Keeping Assist System (LKAS), an advanced smart cruise control (Adapted Cruise Control; ACC) and an automatic driving system).
Schraut, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the threshold value comprises a function of a degree of semi-autonomous driving of the motor vehicle ([0023] – depending on the detected autonomy level, the functions of the terminal can then be set, the level of autonomy implicitly defines how much attention needs to be paid to the driving experience).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Schraut into the invention of Hamberger with a reasonable expectation of success because when the autonomy level is higher the user can devote their attention to other things, but when the autonomy level changes from a higher level to a lower level, the vehicle user needs to pay more attention to driving (Schraut – page 2, lines 16-21). This would improve overall safety. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to recognize that in a vehicle with varying levels of autonomy, the different levels of autonomy would require different levels of attention and therefore the threshold value for providing an alternate operating type should vary in accordance with the autonomy level. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that either the numerical values (as taught by Kim) or the threshold value (as taught by Schraut) could be varied based on the degree of semi-autonomous driving, and one of ordinary skill in the art could adjust either and still yield predictable results. For example, when using a semi-autonomous function such as lane keep assist a threshold could be increased or a numerical value for an activity could be decreased as compared to not using lane keep assist. Both perform the desired function of adjusting when the operating intention/action needs to be suppressed or advised against based on the risk of the situation and the driver’s level of distraction.
With respect to claims 24 and 29, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 16, and it has been determined that claims 24 and 29 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 16; therefore, claims 24 and 29 are also rejected over the same rationale as claim 16.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
In light of the amendments to the claims, the previous claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 8-15 filed 7/2/2026, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered and they are considered partially persuasive.
Applicant argues that Hamberger does not disclose “determining a numerical value based on activities of the vehicle driver that are not directly related to movement and/or directional control of the motor vehicle and determining that the numerical value is beyond a threshold value.” Hamberger describes evaluating a driving situation parameter against a risk criterion. Hamberger merely identifies whether the driver or another person activated an input context. It does not determine a numerical value based on activities of the vehicle driver, and it does not determine that the numerical value is beyond a threshold value. A designer-set complexity parameter for an input-context subsection is not a numerical value based on activities of the vehicle driver. The examiner respectfully disagrees that Hamberger does not disclose this limitation. Applicant cites certain paragraphs of Hamberger and asserts that Hamberger does not read on certain claim limitations. However, Applicant does not clearly articulate why Hamberger does not read on these limitations according to broadest reasonable interpretation and when read in light of Applicant’s own specification. Hamberger includes an operating device with subsections having variable complexity parameters (i.e., operation of different subsections corresponds to activities having corresponding numerical values, the subsections are not directly related to directional control of the motor vehicle). The variable complexity parameters of the subsections indicate whether a predetermined threshold for operating complexity has been exceeded and voice dialog should be activated (Hamberger – [0022, 0037, 0040]). In determining whether to switch to the voice dialog, Hamberger does describe also taking into account if it is the driver or another person that has operated the device and also takes into account whether there is a dangerous driving situation (Hamberger – [0019, 0022, 0037, 0040]). However nothing in the claim precludes accounting for other parameters. Furthermore, upon further consideration of Applicant’s own specification, Applicant describes that the camera monitoring is used to derive whether it is the driver or another occupant that is carrying out the operation, and only switching the operation if it is the driver (page 4 of specification). Nowhere in the specification does it describe image analysis that is any more complex than determining whether it is the driver or another occupant carrying out the operation or image analysis that somehow determines numerical values. Furthermore, Applicant’s own specification and claims describe taking into account the driving situation (pages 4 and 7 of specification, see also claims 17, 25, and 30). Hamberger does describe an embodiment where the speech dialog can be automatically activated when the motor vehicle is in motion or above a certain speed (Hamberger – [0036, 0039]), however this is presented as an alternative to the use of the complexity parameters upon which the examiner relies. A new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kim for other limitations, however Kim also teaches these limitations (see 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection above).
Applicant further argues that Hamberger and Parundekar do not disclose the newly amended limitation “suppressing or advising against the operating intention or operating action that is already in progress”. The examiner agrees with this argument. Specifically, Hamberger appears to at least suppress or advise against future operating intentions or actions, but does not explicitly suppress or advise against the operating intention or action that is already in progress. Parundekar also does not appear to disclose this limitation. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kim.
Applicant further argues that the cited combination does not disclose “presenting an alternative operating type selection for the motor vehicle to the vehicle driver or an occupant in response to determining that the vehicle driver is distracted according to the predetermined driver-distraction criterion." Hamberger activates the second input mode when the driving situation parameter satisfies the risk criterion (Hamberger 0015-0017), optionally in view of a designer-set complexity parameter for a subsection of an input context (Hamberger 0022), and optionally only when the detection device signals operation by the driver rather than another person (Hamberger 0019). The examiner respectfully disagrees that Hamberger does not disclose this limitation. Again, Applicant cites certain paragraphs of Hamberger and asserts that Hamberger doesn’t read on certain claim limitations. However, Applicant does not clearly articulate why Hamberger does not read on these limitations according to broadest reasonable interpretation and when read in light of Applicant’s own specification. As described above, Hamberger includes an operating device with subsections having variable complexity parameters (i.e., operation of different subsections corresponds to activities having corresponding numerical values, the subsections are not directly related to directional control of the motor vehicle) which indicate whether a predetermined threshold for operating complexity has been exceeded and voice dialog should be activated (Hamberger – [0022, 0037, 0040]). In determining whether to switch to the voice dialog, Hamberger does describe also taking into account if it is the driver or another person that has operated the device and whether there is a dangerous driving situation (Hamberger – [0019, 0022, 0037, 0040]). However nothing in the claim precludes accounting for other parameters. Hamberger describes an alternative where the speech dialog can be automatically activated when the motor vehicle is in motion or above a certain speed (Hamberger – [0036, 0039]), however this is presented as an alternative to the use of the complexity parameters upon which the examiner relies. A new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kim for other limitations, however Kim also teaches these argued limitations (see 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, and not relied upon, considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure or directed to the state of art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892. The following is a list relevant prior art that was cited but not applied: Prakah-Asante (US 2017/0043781 A1) and Wacquant (US 2020/0202151 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/CAITLIN R MCCLEARY/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights