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 .
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 associated 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, even if it is automatic] 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 should 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:
detecting use of a vehicular function in a second vehicle is associated with a 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 second 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) during use of the vehicular function (real time metrics concerning data from other processing systems and client feedback data, paragraph 0063, indicates that such data is collected during the use of processing systems);
obtaining first environmental operating conditions of the first vehicle captured from at least one 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 a similarity condition is satisfied based on a comparison of the first environmental operating conditions of the first vehicle and the second environmental operating conditions of the second vehicle (indicated in the determination of assumptions/recommendations based on similarity analysis to provide recommendations for settings, paragraph 0165, assumption and reasoning logic being based on data streams including GPS, calendars, traffic, past data of user behavior and interaction, vehicle diagnostics, user preferences, environmental interpretations, paragraph 0166, 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
[[in response to the similarity condition being satisfied, automatically 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; in response to the similarity condition being satisfied, automatically installing a software update within the first vehicle to activate the vehicular function in the first vehicle.
Ricci teaches; in response to the similarity condition being satisfied, automatically 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, and downloading software updates, paragraph 0188).
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/application. 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/application. 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 condition (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 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 automatically 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 skills 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 rejections.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. While the amended claims do recite controlling a feature of the vehicle and automatically installing a software update, such features, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, do 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 automatically installing a downloaded software update does not adequately integrate the idea into a practical application. Additionally, such behavior of automatically installing software updates is routine and well understood in the art. Thus, the claims are considered ineligible, and the 101 rejection is sustained.
The applicant argues on pages 9-11 that Penilla fails to teach “determining that a similarity condition is satisfied based on a comparison of the first environmental operating conditions off the first vehicle and the second environmental operating conditions of the second vehicle; and in response to the similarity condition being satisfied, automatically installing a software update within the first vehicle to activate the vehicular function”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Penilla describes the creation of assumption/reasoning logic that directly relates to the environmental/similarity conditions described, such that assumptions that are sued to recommend settings are based on past data of user behavior, user preferences or profiles, environment data etc. (paragraphs 0165-0166). While not explicitly invoking a second vehicle, the use of a user profile/preferences associated with a user/driver that uses one or more vehicles (paragraph 0174), would effectively result in the same claimed result, as loading a user onto one vehicle, having preferences updated/learned, and then loading the same user onto another vehicle, which then implements the settings/preferences associated with the user profile, creates the cross-vehicle comparison/implementation argued. Thus, Penilla is seen to cover the second vehicle.
Additionally, Penilla is seen to address similarity conditions, i.e. the implementation of user preferences based on environmental conditions. For example, the detection of calendar and environmental data effectively compares current situations with previously determined preferences or instances of certain settings (e.g. paragraph 0172) and further builds assumption and reasoning logic to ascertain such similarities (e.g. paragraph 0166). Thus, Penilla is seen to address the similarity conditions as claimed.
With regards to the installation of software updates in response to a similarity condition, one could extrapolate from Penilla that a new user schedule learned based on assumptions/reasoning logic (e.g. paragraph 0172) would modify/update software to enable AC to set a new cabin temperature based on the similarity to the scheduled events. Thus, Penilla is at least seen to cover a condition, based on environmental comparison/similarity, to effectively modify a vehicle’s feature/behavior.
However, the examiner acknowledges that such behavior does not fully cover automatically installing a software update as claimed. To further address this, the examiner relies on Ricci, which the applicant does not argue with apart from a mere assertion that is does not cure the deficiencies of Penilla. However, Ricci does teach the downloading of software update features performed by the vehicle (paragraph 0188), and the combination of the conditions taught by Penilla, as addressed in the arguments and rejection above, effectively cover the claimed features.
Thus, the rejection is maintained.
The applicant argues on page 11 of the remarks that, based on the allowability of the independent claims, the 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
For further driving profile related updates and environmental consideration; WO2020005894A1
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
For further driving mode adjustments based on enabled vehicle modes (akin to the enabling of a vehicle feature based on certain conditions); US20160121904A1
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