The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
This action is in response to the applicant’s request for continued examination filed on 20 March 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined. Claims 1-2, 9, and 19 are currently amended.
Response to Arguments
Rejection of claims 9 and 19 under AIA 35 U.S.C. §112a has been withdrawn due to argument and amendment. However, new rejection of claims 9 and 19 is necessitated under AIA 35 U.S.C. §112b as set forth in this Office Action.¶
Applicant’s argument as to the rejection of claims 1-20 under AIA 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection has been carefully considered but is not persuasive. Applicant alleges that claim 1 is not directed to a judicial exception, arguing “transmitting the augmented reality image to a display device” is not practically performed in a human mind (abstract idea) (Step 2A Prong 1), arguing inclusion of a camera, and is integrated into a practical application of the exception (Step 2A Prong 2). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The independent claims and the other claims recite a method, vehicle and system include transmitting the augmented reality image to a display device as recited in independent claims 1, 16, 17 and 20. The limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by the processor device” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of by a camera does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Yes). The determining, obtaining, determining, and generating are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle and road condition data for use in the outputting step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The causing g step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of outputting result from sending step), and amounts to mere post solution outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The determining, obtaining, and determining merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control display. The vehicle control display is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automates the generating step. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No). Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the generating and outputting steps were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that “More and more functions and features are being added to vehicles. Many of these functions and features are HMIs such as buttons, knobs, free wheels, and the like.” [0004].
Applicant’s argument with respect to rejection to claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-14, 16-18, and 20 under AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Habashima et al., US 2015/0202962 (A1) have been carefully considered but is not persuasive. Applicant seems to argue that Habashima does not teach:
determining, from the vehicle, a current status of the target mechanically actuatable physical HMI;
generating an augmented reality image having the HMI information explaining a function of the target mechanically actuatable physical HMI and the current mechanical actuation status of the target mechanically actuatable physical HMI;
transmitting the augmented reality image to a display device; and
causing the display device to display the augmented reality image.
However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Habashima teaches:
determining, from the vehicle, a current status of the target mechanically actuatable physical HMI (Figs. 5A-6C and related text shows images of door lock, lighting and headlight with settings information which includes current status of “on” or “off” status of the HMI);
generating an augmented reality image having the HMI information explaining a function of the target mechanically actuatable physical HMI and the current mechanical actuation status of the target mechanically actuatable physical HMI (Figs. 5A-6C and related text shows images of door lock, lighting and headlight with settings information along with text explaining function of door lock whether auto-lock the driver door or with a timer);
transmitting the augmented reality image to a display device (Figs. 5A-6C and related text shows images of door lock, lighting and headlight with settings information as appeared in a display of portable electronic device 110);
causing the display device to display the augmented reality image (Figs. 5A-6C and related text shows images of door lock, lighting and headlight with settings information as appeared in a display of portable electronic device 110).
As to dependent claims 2-15, there is no argument for dependent claims other than their dependency on the independent claim 1. Because independent claim 1 is not allowable, dependent claims 2-15 are not allowable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Analysis for independent claims 1, 16, 17 and 20:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1).
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) (Step 2A Prong 1), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception (Step 2A Prong 2), and if so, re-evaluate whether the inventive concept is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (Step 2B).
Claims 1, 16, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1: statutory category
Independent claims 1, 16, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a process and machine, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. The independent claims and the other claims recite a method, vehicle and system for receiving a captured image, determining a target mechanically actuatable HMI of the vehicle, obtaining HMI information about the target mechanically actuatable HMI, determining a current status of the target mechanically actuatable HMI; generating an augmented reality image having the HMI information and the current mechanical actuation status, transmitting the augmented reality image to a display device, and causing the display device to display the augmented reality image as recited in independent claims 1, 16, 17 and 20. The limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “by the processor device”. That is, other than reciting “by the processor device” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by the processor device” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of by a processor device does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
The claim recites additional elements of determining a target mechanically actuatable HMI of the vehicle, obtaining HMI information about the target mechanically actuatable HMI, determining a current status of the target mechanically actuatable HMI; generating an augmented reality image having the HMI information and the current mechanical actuation status, and transmitting the augmented reality image to a display device. The determining, obtaining, determining, generating and transmitting are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle data for use in the causing step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The causing step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of outputting result from transmitting step), and amounts to mere post solution outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The determining, obtaining, determining, and generating merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control display. The vehicle display is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automates the generating step.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No)
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the generating and outputting steps were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that “More and more functions and features are being added to vehicles. Many of these functions and features are HMIs such as buttons, knobs, free wheels, and the like.” [0004]. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Analysis for Dependent Claims 2-15, and 18-19:
Step 1: Determining if the claim(s) are directed a statutory class of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Claims 2-15 are directed to “a method’. The claim is directed to a process, which is a statutory category. (Step 1: yes)
Claims 18-19 are directed to “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. The claim is directed to a process, which is a statutory category. (Step 1: yes)
Step 2A Prong One: Determining if the claim(s) recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity, fundamental economic practices, and “an idea of itself”.
Claims 2-15 recite additional limitations directed to a mental process. The same analysis of Step 2A Prong One for claim 1 applies. Claims 2-15 are directed to the judicial exception of a mental process.
Claims 18-19 recites additional limitations directed to a mental process. The same analysis of Step 2A Prong One for claim 17 applies. Claims 18-19 are directed to the judicial exception of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two: Determining if additional limitations within the claim(s) integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 2-15, and 18-19 recite additional limitations, which viewed both individually and in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 2-15, and 18-19 are not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Determining if the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The additional elements in claims 2-15, and 18-19 fail to recite any additional elements, viewed both individually and as a whole, that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The same analysis applies in this step 2B as discussed in Step 2A Prong Two (see independent and dependent claim analysis). Claims 2-15, and 18-19 fail to claim anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion:
Dependent claims 2-15, and 18-19 are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process. Accordingly, claims 2-15, and 18-19 are not patent eligible. Overall, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter and are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected because the phrase “responsive to the vehicle being off …” as recited is indefinite and unclear what is being “off”. “responsive to the vehicle being off” is unclear what is “off” in the vehicle. The specification seems to indicate the status of the mechanically actuable HMI is off (Specification, Fig. 20 and related text). For examination purpose, “responsive to the vehicle being off” is interpreted as “responsive to the mechanically actuable HMI being off”. Appropriate correction is required.
Notice re prior art available under both pre-AIA and AIA
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. §102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-14, and 16-20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Habashima et al., US 2015/0202962 (A1).
As to claim 1, Habashima teaches a method to determine a function and status of a human machine interface (HMI) of a vehicle (Figs. 5A-6C and related text), the method comprising:
receiving, by a processor device of a computing system, a captured image of at least one mechanically actuatable physical HMI of the vehicle (Figs. 5A-6C and related text shows HMI of door lock and light switch of a vehicle; “receiving an image of a vehicle with an image capturing device”, abs), the captured image being captured by a
camera of a wireless device being pointed toward the HMI (“augmented reality interface application 130 can be used as a plug-in/add-on to software that is utilized during operation of the camera 114 of the portable electronic device 110. As a plug-in/add-on, the augmented reality user interface 140 can be automatically enabled when the camera 114 is initialized by the user, or enabled upon the detection of a communication link between the communication device 118 and the electronic control unit 104”, ¶40);
determining a target mechanically actuatable physical HMI of the vehicle in the captured image (Figs. 5A-6C and related text shows images of door lock, lighting and headlight);
obtaining HMI information about the target mechanically actuatable HMI (Figs. 5A-6C and related text shows images of door lock, lighting and headlight with settings information);
determining, from the vehicle, a current status of the target mechanically actuatable physical HMI (Figs. 5A-6C and related text shows images of door lock, lighting and headlight with settings information which includes current status of “on” or “off” status of the HMI);
generating an augmented reality image having the HMI information explaining a function of the target mechanically actuatable physical HMI and the current mechanical actuation status of the target mechanically actuatable physical HMI (Figs. 5A-6C and related text shows images of door lock, lighting and headlight with settings information along with text explaining function of door lock whether auto-lock the driver door or with a timer); and
transmitting the augmented reality image to a display device (Figs. 5A-6C and related text shows images of door lock, lighting and headlight with settings information as appeared in a display of portable electronic device 110); and
causing the display device to display the augmented reality image (Figs. 5A-6C and related text shows images of door lock, lighting and headlight with settings information as appeared in a display of portable electronic device 110).
As to claim 2, Habashima teaches the method further comprising:
pairing the wireless device to the vehicle (“communication link between the communication device 118 and the electronic control unit 104”, ¶40);
determining a vehicle identification of the vehicle (“virtual reality module 138 accesses the memory 116 to gather the vehicle 102 owner's manual data corresponding to the model of the vehicle 102 (as provided by the ECU 104) to be displayed on the augmented reality user interface 140.”, ¶61);
obtaining an augmented reality vehicle driver manual based on the vehicle identification determined (“virtual reality module 138 accesses the memory 116 to gather the vehicle 102 owner's manual data corresponding to the model of the vehicle 102 (as provided by the ECU 104) to be displayed on the augmented reality user interface 140.”, ¶61); and
opening the augmented reality vehicle driver manual on the wireless device paired with the vehicle (“virtual reality module 138 accesses the memory 116 to gather the vehicle 102 owner's manual data corresponding to the model of the vehicle 102 (as provided by the ECU 104) to be displayed on the augmented reality user interface 140.”, ¶61);
wherein obtaining HMI information about the target mechanically actuatable physical HMI comprises obtaining the HMI information from the augmented reality vehicle driver manual (“FIG. 5A shows an illustration of the portable electronic device 510 in possession of the user as the user is capturing the driver side door lock 502 (using the camera 114) within the image that is displayed on the touch screen display 520. In an exemplary embodiment of the augmented reality user interface 500”, ¶62).
As to claim 3, Habashima teaches the method wherein obtaining the augmented reality vehicle driver manual comprises:
transmitting a request towards a vehicle manufacturer support for the augmented reality vehicle driver manual (“vehicle manufacturers have been using graphical user interface systems to provide users with added functionality and versatility when controlling vehicle features. Such technology allows many functions of the vehicle to be accessed, manipulated, and utilized by user inputs on a touch screen”, ¶2; “virtual reality module 138 can utilize the communication device 118 to access an external server to gather the vehicle 102 owner's manual data to be displayed within the augmented reality user interface 140”, ¶61); and
receiving the augmented reality vehicle driver manual responsive to the request (“virtual reality module 138 can utilize the communication device 118 to access an external server to gather the vehicle 102 owner's manual data to be displayed within the augmented reality user interface 140”, ¶61).
As to claim 5, Habashima teaches the method wherein determining the target mechanically actuatable physical HMI of the vehicle in the captured image comprises determining which mechanically actuatable physical HMI of the vehicle was selected by the user (Figs. 5A-6C and related text shows user pointing the portable electronic device to door lock, lighting and headlight for respective HMI).
As to claim 6, Habashima teaches the method wherein determining the target mechanically actuatable physical HMI of the vehicle selected comprises determining a mechanically actuatable physical HMI pointed at or touched by the user (Figs. 5A-6C and related text shows user pointing the portable electronic device to door lock, lighting and headlight for respective HMI).
As to claim 7, Habashima teaches the method wherein determining the target mechanically actuatable physical HMI of the vehicle selected comprises:
displaying, on the wireless device paired with the vehicle, the captured image of a vehicle panel at which the wireless device is pointed (Figs. 5A-6C and related text shows user pointing the portable electronic device to door lock, lighting and headlight for respective HMI);
obtaining an image of the mechanically actuatable physical HMI selected on the captured image of the vehicle panel on the wireless device or selected on the vehicle panel (Figs. 5A-6C and related text shows user pointing the portable electronic device to door lock, lighting and headlight for respective HMI for display);
based on the selection, determining the target mechanically actuatable physical HMI (Figs. 5A-6C and related text shows user pointing the portable electronic device to door lock, lighting and headlight for respective HMI).
As to claim 8, Habashima teaches the method wherein determining the current status of the target mechanically actuatable physical HMI comprises:
transmitting a status request to a controller of the vehicle to provide a status of the target mechanically actuatable physical HMI (Fig. 1 and related text; Figs. 5A-6C and related text shows images of door lock, lighting and headlight with settings information which includes current status of “on” and “off” status of the HMI); and
receiving a status request response from the controller with the current status of the target mechanically actuatable physical HMI (Fig. 1 and related text; Figs. 5A-6C and related text shows images of door lock, lighting and headlight with settings information which includes current status of “on” and “off” status of the HMI).
As to claim 9, Habashima teaches the method wherein determining the current status of the target mechanically actuatable physical HMI selected comprises:
responsive to the vehicle being off (Figs. 5A-6C and related text shows images of door lock, lighting and headlight with settings information which includes current status of “off” status of the HMI):
transmitting a command with an identification of the target mechanically actuatable physical HMI to the vehicle to turn on and provide the current status of the target mechanically actuatable physical HMI based on the identification of the target mechanically actuatable HMI (Figs. 5A-6C and related text shows images of door lock, lighting and headlight with settings information which includes current status of “on” status of the HMI); and
receiving a response having the current status of the target mechanically actuatable physical HMI (Figs. 5A-6C and related text shows images of door lock, lighting and headlight with settings information which includes current status of “on” or “off” status of the HMI).
As to claim 10, Habashima teaches the method further comprising:
initially displaying a description of a function associated with the target mechanically actuatable physical HMI for a pre-determined period of time (Figs. 6B and 6C shows lighting timer is set for pre-determined period of time 60 sec, 30 sec, 15 sec); and
after the pre-determined period of time has expired, displaying the augmented reality image (Figs. 6B and 6C shows lighting timer is set revert to auto mode after pre-determined period of time 60 sec, 30 sec, 15 sec).
As to claim 11, Habashima teaches the method wherein sending the augmented reality image for display comprises sending the augmented reality image for displaying on a vehicle display (display on optical headup display in a vehicle, ¶38).
As to claim 12, Habashima teaches the method wherein sending the augmented reality image for display comprises sending the augmented reality image for displaying the augmented reality image on a display of the wireless device (Figs. 5A-6C and related text shows images of door lock, lighting and headlight with settings information on the portable electronic device).
As to claim 13, Habashima teaches the method wherein sending the augmented reality image for display comprises sending the augmented reality image for displaying a video describing one or more vehicle functions associated with the target HMI “augmented reality interface application 130 generally processes a still or moving image of the vehicle 102 captured by the portable electronic device 110 (e.g., captured by the user), generates an augmented reality user interface 140 and displays the augmented reality user interface 140 on the display 120 for viewing and interaction by the user”, ¶37).
As to claim 14, Habashima teaches the method further comprising:
responsive to operating the target mechanically actuatable physical HMI (Figs. 5A-6C and related text shows images of door lock, lighting and headlight with settings information which includes current status of “on” or “off” status of the HMI):
transmitting a status request to a controller of the vehicle to provide a status of the target mechanically actuatable physical HMI (Figs. 1, 5A-6C and related text shows images of door lock, lighting and headlight with settings information which includes current status of “on” or “off” status of the HMI);
receiving a status request response from the controller with an updated current status of the target mechanically actuatable physical HMI (Figs. 1, 5A-6C and related text shows images of door lock, lighting and headlight with settings information which includes current status of “on” or “off” status of the HMI); and
displaying the augmented reality image with the updated current status of the target mechanically actuatable physical HMI (Figs. 5A-6C and related text shows images of door lock, lighting and headlight with settings information which includes current status of “on” or “off” status of the HMI).
As to claims 16, 17 and 20, they are method claims that recite substantially the same limitations as the corresponding apparatus claim 1. As such, claims 16, 17 and 19are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for corresponding claim 1 are incorporated herein (vehicle 102 and computing system in Fig. 1; “computer readable medium including instructions that when executed by a processor execute a method for providing an augmented reality vehicle interface is provided”, ¶7).
As to claims 18 and 19, they are method claim that recite substantially the same limitations as the corresponding respective method claims 14 and 9. As such, claims 18 and 19 rejected for substantially the same reasons given for respective claims 14 and 9 is incorporated herein (“computer readable medium including instructions that when executed by a processor execute a method for providing an augmented reality vehicle interface is provided”, ¶7).
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 of this title, 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 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Habashima et al., US 2015/0202962 (A1) in view of Ammoura et al., US 2020/0202646 (A1).
As to claim 4, Habashima teaches the method further comprising:
pairing a wireless device to the vehicle (Fig. 1 shows that communication device 118 communicates with electronic control unit 104 of vehicle 102);
determining an identification of the vehicle (“virtual reality module 138 accesses the memory 116 to gather the vehicle 102 owner's manual data corresponding to the model of the vehicle 102 (as provided by the ECU 104) to be displayed on the augmented reality user interface 140.”, ¶61); and
obtaining an augmented reality vehicle driver manual based on the identification of the vehicle and opening the augmented reality vehicle driver manual on the wireless device paired with the vehicle (“virtual reality module 138 accesses the memory 116 to gather the vehicle 102 owner's manual data corresponding to the model of the vehicle 102 (as provided by the ECU 104) to be displayed on the augmented reality user interface 140.”, ¶61),
wherein obtaining HMI information about the target mechanically actuatable physical HMI comprises obtaining the HMI information from the augmented reality vehicle driver manual (“FIG. 5A shows an illustration of the portable electronic device 510 in possession of the user as the user is capturing the driver side door lock 502 (using the camera 114) within the image that is displayed on the touch screen display 520. In an exemplary embodiment of the augmented reality user interface 500”, ¶62).
Habashima does not specifically teach the method comprising:
authenticating the wireless device;
determining if the wireless device is associated with a user authorized to operate the vehicle;
responsive to the wireless device being authorized, obtaining an augmented reality vehicle driver manual based on the identification of the vehicle and opening the augmented reality vehicle driver manual on the wireless device paired with the vehicle.
However, Ammoura, in the same of endeavor, teaches by authentically a mobile device for automatically generating a commercial driver logbook based on vehicular data by authenticating a driver based on an identifier received from a mobile device and determining the user is authorized and transmitting driving log information in a HMI (Ammoura: abs, 3, 32, 43, and 46). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the method as taught by Habashima to include authenticating the wireless device; determining if the wireless device is associated with a user authorized to operate the vehicle; responsive to the wireless device being authorized, obtaining an augmented reality vehicle driver manual based on the identification of the vehicle and opening the augmented reality vehicle driver manual on the wireless device paired with the vehicle as taught by Ammoura to improve capabilities of vehicle components and systems (Habashima: ¶1).
As to claim 15, Habashima teaches the method of communicating between a portable electronic device and a vehicle (Habashima: Fig. 1 and related text). However, Habashima does not explicitly teach the method further comprising:
tracking trends of which HMIs are being selected; and
periodically transmitting the trends to one of a vehicle manufacturer of the vehicle and a fleet manager associated with the vehicle.
However, Ammoura, in the same of endeavor, teaches HMI is used to select to track the driver log over the course of driving and transmit the driver in intervals to a fleet service (Ammoura: abs, 96-102). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the method as taught by Habashima to include tracking trends of which HMIs are being selected; and periodically transmitting the trends to one of a vehicle manufacturer of the vehicle and a fleet manager associated with the vehicle as taught by Ammoura to improve capabilities of vehicle components and systems (Habashima: ¶1).
Examiner’s Note
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action 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. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references 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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUEN WONG whose telephone number is (313)446-4851. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5:30 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi, can be reached on (313)446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YUEN WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights