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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/15/2026 has been entered.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification (MPEP 608.01, ¶6.31).
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 directed to an abstract idea accomplishable by mental processes [with or without physical aid] without significantly more. The claims recite the abstract idea of analyzing data and outputting a notification, which is analogous to mental work. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1: Is the claim directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes, The claims are directed to a process [method] and a machine [system].
Step 2A; is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
Yes, claims 1-20 are directed to the abstract idea of receiving, analyzing, and outputting data, which is analogous to mental work with the aid of generic computer equipment. In essence, the claims recite receiving data related to a user’s use of a function in a vehicle, analyzing it, and implementing/installing the used feature in another vehicle when the analyzed environmental data is similar to the environmental data collected associate with the use of the function.
Prong One; Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
Yes, as understood in their broadest reasonable interpretation, the independent claims are directed to a method, a system, and computer readable storage medium, directed to the analysis of data [if/when a user uses a function], and installing a software update in response to the analysis to implement the function. In particular;
Receiving data amounts to mere data gathering as insignificant extra solution activity,
Analyzing data is a mental activity, and
Installing menus and software additionally falls under insignificant extra solution activity.
The activation/control of a feature, which broadly includes displaying information/media (as suggested in the applicant’s specification detailing features, paragraph 0055), additionally only serve as extra-solution activity.
Prong Two; Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the elements are generically recited. In particular, elements of a vehicle controller and sensors merely use generically recited features as tools to perform the abstract idea.
The claims recite a processor and a memory; however, such recitations are highly generic to vehicle computer systems, and do not require nor recite any feature or structure beyond that which is generic to vehicle processor/memory.
The claims additionally recite sensors; however, the claims do not specify what kind of sensors are used, and are recited broadly/generically such that any number of well understood and routine sensors [such as thermometers, cameras etc.] fulfill the scope of the claims.
Therefore, this abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because there are no meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
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 receiving steps and the displaying step were considered to be insignificant 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 the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle controller [processor/memory] is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. 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 [such as installing software or sharing data between vehicles] 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.
Thus, claims 1-20 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penilla (US20160173568A1) and further in view of Ricci (US20170247000A1).
Regarding claim 1, Penilla teaches;
A method (taught as methods, systems and apparatus to drive vehicle display devices in vehicles, paragraph 0053), comprising:
determining a lack of use of a vehicular function [interpreted to be a functionality of the vehicle (e.g., a function of a media player, a seat function, a lane deviation feature, an autopilot function, and the like, paragraph 0055, and cabin features like seat heating/cooling, paragraph 0072] within a first vehicle (taught as managing a profile for a user account, wherein settings are stored on a cloud and assigned to a vehicle that the user account associates with, including identifying a recommended setting based on historical patterns, paragraph 0035);
detecting use of the vehicular function in a second vehicle is associated with first vehicle (taught as learning actions and analyzing them to change configuration settings in a user’s saved profile, paragraph 0059; *while not explicitly taught for a retransferring to a first vehicle, Penilla teaches transferring the user profile to other vehicles, paragraph 0069, and would apply the learning techniques, such as in paragraph 0030, to the duration of the user’s profile being loaded/used on the second vehicle. Afterwards, the newly learned pattern would be applied to the first vehicle when the user profile is loaded onto the vehicle and updated automatically, e.g . paragraph 0056 and 0107);
obtaining environmental operating conditions of the second vehicle captured from at least one sensor of the second vehicle (taught as using sensors, such as GPS for location, paragraph 0119, and such as cameras, to detect and monitor the exterior of the vehicle and monitor its status, paragraph 0127, and including real-time metrics concerning data from processing systems, paragraph 0063);
receiving additional environmental operating conditions of the first vehicle captured from at least one additional sensor of the first vehicle (taught as communicating real-time metrics concerning data from processing systems and client devices, paragraph 0063, which would include sensor data of the environment, paragraph 0172, indicated in learning, for example, temperature ranges to enact air conditioning, times of day etc.);
determining that the environmental operating conditions of the first vehicle satisfy a similarity constraint with respect to the additional environmental operating conditions of the second vehicle (indicated in the determination of assumptions/recommendations based on similarity analysis, paragraph 0165, and further using the environment and historical data to implement assumptions/recommendations for settings, paragraph 0172, which suggests a similarity based on, for example, temperature and time data similarities to enact various settings; in other words, when the environment matches the general conditions learned by the user prior data points [associated with a connected profile, and thus crossing multiple devices/vehicles], the system implements certain functions/settings); and
[[installing a software]] update within the first vehicle to activate the vehicular function in the first vehicle (taught as sending recommended settings to the user account to be implemented on the vehicle associated with the user profile, paragraph 0035, and adjusting customization based on presented options to a user to update, add or delete features, paragraph 0056, via a profile update based on a connected device, paragraph 0107).
While Penilla does not explicitly differentiate learning settings between first and second vehicles for “determining that the feature was used in the second vehicle for a minimum period of time”, Penilla does teach in some embodiments, transferring the user profile to other vehicles, paragraph 0069, and would obviously apply the learning techniques, such as in paragraph 0030, to the duration of the user’s profile being loaded/used on the second/other [such as a rental car, paragraph 0057] vehicle. Afterwards, the newly learned pattern would be applied to the first vehicle when the user profile is loaded onto the vehicle and update the customization of the vehicle automatically, paragraph 0054.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the learning techniques in Penilla to multiple vehicles associated with the user profile to improve user convenience. Such combination of embodiments allows for customization in cases such as car rental to import/export learned settings to build the user a custom UI, such as suggested in Penilla (paragraph 0057).
However, Penilla does not explicitly teach; installing a software update within the first vehicle to activate the vehicular function in the first vehicle (emphasis added).
Ricci teaches; installing a software update within the first vehicle to activate the vehicular function in the first vehicle (taught as software types being installed as part of the capabilities of the device, paragraph 0322).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate download and installation of features in a vehicle as taught by Ricci in the system taught by Penilla in order to improve customization and maintenance. Such a feature allows for more remote updates (such as firmware updates) that could be fixing potential bugs or issues with a vehicle/applications. Additionally, such methods allow for further customization, including customized hardware and software for the vehicle, as suggested by Ricci (paragraph 0131).
Regarding claim 2, Penilla as modified by Ricci teaches;
The method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Penilla further teaches; further comprising offering the vehicular function in the first vehicle when a device previously connected to the second vehicle is currently connected to the first vehicle (taught as, when a user profile connects to a second vehicle, transferring the configuration to the second vehicle, paragraph 0069; while not explicitly taught for a retransferring to a first vehicle, Penilla teaches transferring the user profile to other vehicles, paragraph 0069, and would apply the learning techniques, such as in paragraph 0030, to the duration of the user’s profile being loaded/used on the second vehicle. Afterwards, the newly learned pattern would be applied to the first vehicle when the user profile is loaded onto the vehicle and updated automatically, e.g . paragraph 0056).
Regarding claim 3, Penilla as modified by Ricci teaches;
The method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Penilla does not explicitly teach; further comprising
Downloading the software update from a server; and
notifying, via a display associated with the first vehicle, an availability of the vehicular function.
Ricci teaches; downloading the software update from a server (taught as performing a download to update various software features, paragraph 0188); and
notifying, via a display associated with the first vehicle, an availability of the vehicular function (taught as examples of device communication, including installed software with release data, paragraph 0322, with a notification bar as a notification mechanism associated with applications, paragraph 0284).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate download and installation of features in a vehicle as taught by Ricci in the system taught by Penilla in order to improve customization and maintenance. Such a feature allows for more remote updates (such as firmware updates) that could be fixing potential bugs or issues with a vehicle/applications. Additionally, such methods allow for further customization, including customized hardware and software for the vehicle, as suggested by Ricci (paragraph 0131).
Regarding claim 4, Penilla as modified by Ricci teaches;
The method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Penilla further teaches; further comprising:
offering activation off the vehicular function within the first vehicle in response to a determination that the environmental operating conditions of the first vehicle satisfy the similarity constraint (taught as loading custom configurations with similar components when using another vehicle with the loaded user profile, e.g. paragraph 0075; in such a case, features and settings from the user profile, shown in Fig 4 and 5, would be loaded, including restrictions in driving characteristics and location based settings).
Regarding claim 5, Penilla as modified by Ricci teaches;
The method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Penilla further teaches; comprising:
receiving a consensus to use the vehicular function in the first vehicle (taught as the user providing acceptance of the change to the setting from a recommendation for the change in to the setting, paragraph 0036); and
providing access to the vehicular function based on the consensus (taught as implementing the change to the setting post acceptance and adding the change to the profile, paragraph 0036).
Regarding claim 7, Penilla as modified by Ricci teaches;
The method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Penilla further teaches; wherein the installing comprises activating the vehicular function in the first vehicle when the vehicular function is manually engaged in the second vehicle a number of times greater than a threshold (taught as the user customizing their profile manually, paragraph 0164, which is then saved to the profile after a threshold [one] times of use, and applied when the user profile is loaded onto a vehicle, paragraph 0069).
Regarding claims 8-12 and 14-20, it has been determined that no further limitations exist apart from those previously addressed in claims 1-5 and 7. Therefore, claims 8-12 and 14-20 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1-5 and 7, wherein claims 8-12 and 15-19 correspond to claims 1-5, and claims 14 and 20 correspond to claim 7 respectively.
Claim(s) 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penilla (US20160173568A1) as modified by Ricci (US20170247000A1) and further in view of Kang (US20200269849A1).
Regarding claim 6, Penilla as modified by Ricci teaches;
The method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Penilla does not explicitly teach; further comprising determining stress to an occupant due to the vehicular function in the second vehicle.
Kang teaches; determining stress to an occupant due to the vehicular function in the second vehicle (taught as evaluating an occupant’s stress upon adjustment or activation of vehicle features, paragraph 0039).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to monitor the driver’s stress based on features as taught by Kang in the system taught by Penilla in order to improve recommendations of features. As taught by Kang, such a system can facilitate decreasing stress or workload of a driver (paragraph 0039). In combination with Penilla, one would implement stress detection as taught by Kang into the assumption/recommendation system taught by Penilla in order to improve feature/settings activation that improve user comfort, reduce stress or workload or similar.
Regarding claim 13, it has been determined that no further limitations exist apart from those previously addressed in claim 6. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on pages 7-9 of the remarks that the amendments should overcome the 101 rejection.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. While the amended claims do recite controlling a feature of the vehicle and installing a software update, such features, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, does include mere display and media activities (see paragraph 0055 of the specification, for example). Collecting information, analyzing/manipulating it, and displaying results of the analysis still recite a mental process, and the mere act of displaying something amounts to an extra-solution activity. Furthermore, the act of installing a downloaded software update does not adequately integrate the idea into a practical application. Thus, the claims are considered ineligible and the 101 rejection is sustained.
Applicant argues on pages 9-11 that Penilla fails to teach the amended material involving;.
“determining that the vehicular function was used in the second vehicle for a minimum period of time….determining that the environmental operating conditions…satisfy a similarity constraint….and installing a software update…”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Penilla does teach use metrics including environment conditions (paragraph 0058), to be used by algorithms to build assumption based on environmental inputs (paragraph 0060), and derive settings based on the assumptions (paragraph 0172). While not explicitly sharing settings between vehicles via a software update, the assumption building for user profile settings/actions based on history and environmental data as described can effectively create the claimed system of implementing a feature based on the conditions from another vehicle.
The use of a feature for a minimum amount of time is not explicitly taught in Penilla, as described in the rejection. However, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a minimum time includes ANY non-zero amount of time, and thus the act of learning new settings, as taught by Penilla, would indicate the fulfillment of such a condition (for example, learning settings based on use, paragraph 0080 wherein a use of a setting requires a non-zero amount of time to learn). Additionally, while not explicitly reciting a specific use in a second vehicle, Penilla teaches the transfer/updating of a personal profile that connects across systems; indicating that when a user implements a function in one vehicle [which the profile learns from], then loads their profile onto another vehicle, the idea of implementing a vehicle function from a second vehicle in a first vehicle as described in the claim language is fulfilled.
Regarding installing software updates, under the interpretation that software updates are required to alter the operating system beyond mere settings information, the examiner agrees that Penilla does not explicitly teach installing a software update. However, Ricci is provided to remedy such deficiencies by directly addressing the installation of a software to activate a function (e.g. paragraph 0332).
Applicant argues on page 11 of the remarks that, based on the allowability of the independent claims, dependent claims are also allowable.
In light of the above arguments and rejections, this argument is rendered moot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
For further presenting new features to vehicle occupants; US20230381391A1
For further providing recommendations of vehicle functions to users; US20190111941A1 and EP3363706A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL ANFINRUD whose telephone number is (571)270-3401. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571)270-3969. 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.
/GABRIEL ANFINRUD/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights