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 .
Status of claims
The following claims have been rejected or allowed for the following reasons:
Claim(s) 1-21 is rejected under 35 USC § 103
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement/statements (IDS) were filed on 2/5/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6 – 10 and 14 - 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to Antoniucci (US 20220032937 A1), in further view of Sikorski (US 20220004189 A1), in further view of Badger (US 20180118210 A1).
Regarding claim 1 Antoniucci teaches A golf cart comprising: a user interface; a driveline; a memory device; and processing circuitry configured to: operate the golf cart according to a currently active state that is either (1) a first state where one or more operational capabilities of the golf cart [[is]] are unrestricted or limited at a first level or (2) a second state where the one or more operational capabilities of the golf cart [[is]] are limited at a second level, the second level of limitation being more restrictive that the first level; (Antoniucci [0008 – 00014] reads “This is achieved by controlling an operating state of a vehicle such that the operating state, initially in a locked state which immobilizes the vehicle, can be modified in order to adopt any of the following unlocking states: a total unlocking state which allows activation of an operating mode of the vehicle, which is associated with the total unlocking state, without any restrictions, and partial unlocking states which each allow the activation of an operating mode associated with the partial unlocking state and which allow restricted activation of the vehicle”.);
transitioning the golf cart into a third state where the driveline operation of the golf cart is disabled; (Antoniucci [0008 – 00014] reads “This is achieved by controlling an operating state of a vehicle such that the operating state, initially in a locked state which immobilizes the vehicle,”);
Antoniucci does not teach a memory device; responsive to a first request to disable the driveline operation of the vehicle golf cart provided by a user via the user interface, and responsive to a second request to enable the driveline operation of the vehicle golf cart provided by the user via the user interface and a verification of a credential of the user, retrieving a previously active state stored in the memory device and transitioning the golf cart out of the third state and into [[a]] the previously active state, the previously active state being that is either the first state or the second state.
Sikorski in analogous art, teaches a memory device; (Sikorski [0018] reads “Provided within the vehicle, the processor allows onboard processing of commands and routines. Further, the processor is connected to both non-persistent 5 and persistent storage 7. In this illustrative embodiment, the non-persistent storage is random access memory (RAM) and the persistent storage is a hard disk drive (HDD) or flash memory. In general, persistent (non-transitory) memory can include all forms of memory that maintain data when a computer or other device is powered down. These include, but are not limited to, HDDs, CDs, DVDs, magnetic tapes, solid state drives, portable USB drives and any other suitable form of persistent memory.”);
responsive to a first request to disable the driveline operation of the vehicle golf cart provided by a user via the user interface, (Sikorski [0052] reads “The process then receives 509 the input for the various conditionals or toggles. In this example, the states have toggle “on/off” switches associated therewith, and the each conditional may also have state settings associated therewith. For example, the process may present a snow conditional, for which the user can then engage particular states or disable states. The process also saves 511 the settings.”);
and responsive to a second request to enable the driveline operation of the vehicle golf cart provided by the user via the user interface and a verification of a credential of the user, (Sikorski [0037] reads “The remote version of the override allows the primary owner or a designated party to use a mobile phone, PC, etc. to input a form of secure authorization, such as a code, PIN, biometric, etc., to override a lockout mode for a specific request.” And [0055] reads “If the user has attempted to select a disabled mode, the process may request 615 secure authorization before the selected mode can be enabled. If the correct authorization 617 is received, the process can engage 619 the selected, previously disabled, mode.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Antoniucci with that of Sikorski to provide an adaptive mode control system that would selectively allow for the user to enable different driving modes depending on a variety of factors. This would not only allow for the user to better drive at their ability level but could also enhance the safety and security of the vehicle. (Sikorski [0003 – 0004] reads “Improvements to onboard computing capability and vehicle mechanics present opportunities for increased variances in vehicle driving modes. In addition to more traditional driving modes, such as four-wheel drive (4WD) and all-wheel drive (AWD), drivers may be able to select from more environmentally specific driving modes, such as sand, gravel, snow and ice, etc. Advanced performance vehicles may also include modes such as drift mode, usable for a highly specific form of driving called “drifting,” or “line lock” mode, which allows drivers to spin the rear tires to produce noise and smoke. In a similar vein, drivers of autonomous or partially autonomous vehicles may wish to switch between automated and manually controlled driving or driving assisted conditions. Skilled drivers may want to freely switch between all possible modes, but at the same time parents or people loaning out vehicles may not want to run the risk of an unskilled or little-known driver using a vehicle in a mode that can be unfavorable to both the occupants and the vehicle when used incorrectly.”);
Antoniucci/Sikorski does not teach retrieving a previously active state stored in the memory device and transitioning the golf cart out of the third state and into [[a]] the previously active state, the previously active state being that is either the first state or the second state.
Badger in analogous art, teaches retrieving a previously active state stored in the memory device and transitioning the golf cart out of the third state and into [[a]] the previously active state, (Badger [0005] reads “A method of operating a vehicle includes shutting down a vehicle while an optional driving mode is selected, starting the vehicle following a period after the shutting down of the vehicle, and notifying the operator of the previous selection of the optional mode after the starting.”);
the previously active state being that is either the first state or the second state. (Badger [0018] reads “The operator of the vehicle 10 may have selected the optional driving mode via a selector which may require the operator to engage a control interface such as the HMI 26. Optional driving modes may include, but are not limited to, economy driving modes and traction control disabled driving modes.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Antoniucci/Sikorski with that of Badger to include a method for storing the previous state of the vehicle in its memory. This would allow the user of the vehicle the ability to seamlessly return the vehicle to their desired settings, which would improve the users experience. (Badger [0002] reads “Vehicles include control interfaces that may communicate information and/or allow vehicle operators to control various subsystems.”);
Regarding claim 2 Antoniucci/Sikorski/Badger teaches The golf cart of Claim 1, wherein in the second state, a speed of the golf cart is limited to a threshold, the threshold being less than a speed that the golf cart can achieve in the first state. (Antoniucci [0055] reads “For example, a third operating mode M3 (FIG. 8), associated with one of the partial unlocking states E3, is only implemented if the verified condition corresponds to a request to activate an autonomous parking function of the vehicle 100 and the associated restriction can prevent the vehicle 100 from exceeding a speed threshold of, for example, 30 km/h.” and “This makes it possible, in the event of a thief entering the passenger compartment, to prevent the thief from fleeing at full speed with the vehicle 100.”);
Regarding claim 6 Antoniucci/Sikorski/Badger teaches The golf cart of Claim 1, wherein at least one of (i) the user interface includes a touch screen and the credential of the user includes a typed credential entered at the user interface comprising a password or a personal identification number, (Sikorski [0017] reads “A vehicle enabled with a vehicle-based computing system may contain a visual front end interface 4 located in the vehicle. The user may also be able to interact with the interface if it is provided, for example, with a touchscreen display. In another illustrative embodiment, the interaction occurs through button presses, spoken dialog system with automatic speech recognition, and speech synthesis.”);
or (ii) the user interface includes a biometric sensor and the credential of the user includes at least one of a fingerprint, an eye scan, facial scan, or voice input of the user. (Sikorski [0037 – 0038] reads “The remote version of the override allows the primary owner or a designated party to use a mobile phone, PC, etc. to input a form of secure authorization, such as a code, PIN, biometric, etc., to override a lockout mode for a specific request.” And “ In this illustrative example, the process may detect 201 a driver identification. Driver identification can be done in a variety of manners, such as, but not limited to, device based identification where the system identifies a driver based on a known device relationship, biometric identification (fingerprint, weight, height, etc), visual identification or even input of a specified username/password combination.”);
Regarding claim 7 Antoniucci/Sikorski/Badger teaches The golf cart of Claim 1, wherein the user interface includes a biometric sensor and the credential of the user includes at least one of a fingerprint, an eye scan, facial scan, or voice input of the user. (Sikorski [0017] reads “A vehicle enabled with a vehicle-based computing system may contain a visual front end interface 4 located in the vehicle. The user may also be able to interact with the interface if it is provided, for example, with a touchscreen display. In another illustrative embodiment, the interaction occurs through button presses, spoken dialog system with automatic speech recognition, and speech synthesis.”);
Regarding claim 8 Antoniucci/Sikorski/Badger teaches The golf cart of Claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to identify different levels of authorization corresponding to different credentials, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to limit transition of the golf cart out of the second state and into the first state until the user provides credentials corresponding to a first authorization level sufficient to transition the golf cart into the first state in which the golf cart is operable in an unrestricted manner, the processing circuitry further configured to restrict transition of the golf cart out of the third state into the first state but allow transition of the golf cart into the second state in response both (i) the previously active state being the second state and (ii) obtaining credentials corresponding to a second authorization level insufficient to transition the golf cart into the first state but sufficient to transition the golf cart into the second state. (Sikorski [0039] reads “The process also determines 203 if there is a “mode profile” for the identified driver. That is, individual drivers or classes of driver may have owner-designated control and mode selection rights associated therewith.” … “If there is a defined profile for the driver, the process may load 207 parameters for that driver. These parameters may define both impermissible driving modes and driving modes that may be triggered under certain conditions (e.g., permitted under certain conditions or even automatically triggered under certain conditions). If there is no profile for a certain user (or if identification attempts result in an unknown user), the process may use 205 a default profile. The default profile can be customized to enable/disable certain driving modes, or may, for example, correspond to a specific profile having the lowest permission settings.”);
Regarding claim 9 Antoniucci teaches An access control system for a vehicle, the access control system comprising: a memory device; and processing circuitry configured to: operate the vehicle according to a currently active state that is either (1) a first state where one or more operational capabilities of the vehicle [[is]] are unrestricted or limited at a first level or (2) a second state where the one or more operational capabilities of the vehicle [[is]] are limited at a second level, the second level of limitation being more restrictive that the first level; (Antoniucci [0008 – 00014] reads “This is achieved by controlling an operating state of a vehicle such that the operating state, initially in a locked state which immobilizes the vehicle, can be modified in order to adopt any of the following unlocking states: a total unlocking state which allows activation of an operating mode of the vehicle, which is associated with the total unlocking state, without any restrictions, and partial unlocking states which each allow the activation of an operating mode associated with the partial unlocking state and which allow restricted activation of the vehicle”.);
transitioning the vehicle into a third state where the driveline operation of the vehicle is disabled; (Antoniucci [0008 – 00014] reads “This is achieved by controlling an operating state of a vehicle such that the operating state, initially in a locked state which immobilizes the vehicle,”);
Antoniucci does not teach a memory device;
responsive to a first request to disable a driveline operation of the vehicle provided by a user, and responsive to a second request to enable the driveline operation of the vehicle provided by the user and a verification of a credential of the user, retrieving a previously active state stored in the memory device and transitioning the vehicle out of the third state and into [[a]] the previously active state, the previously active state being that is either the first state or the second state.
Sikorski in analogous art, teaches a memory device; (Sikorski [0018] reads “Provided within the vehicle, the processor allows onboard processing of commands and routines. Further, the processor is connected to both non-persistent 5 and persistent storage 7. In this illustrative embodiment, the non-persistent storage is random access memory (RAM) and the persistent storage is a hard disk drive (HDD) or flash memory. In general, persistent (non-transitory) memory can include all forms of memory that maintain data when a computer or other device is powered down. These include, but are not limited to, HDDs, CDs, DVDs, magnetic tapes, solid state drives, portable USB drives and any other suitable form of persistent memory.”);
responsive to a first request to disable a driveline operation of the vehicle provided by a user, (Sikorski [0052] reads “The process then receives 509 the input for the various conditionals or toggles. In this example, the states have toggle “on/off” switches associated therewith, and the each conditional may also have state settings associated therewith. For example, the process may present a snow conditional, for which the user can then engage particular states or disable states. The process also saves 511 the settings.”);
and responsive to a second request to enable the driveline operation of the vehicle provided by the user and a verification of a credential of the user, (Sikorski [0037] reads “The remote version of the override allows the primary owner or a designated party to use a mobile phone, PC, etc. to input a form of secure authorization, such as a code, PIN, biometric, etc., to override a lockout mode for a specific request.” And [0055] reads “If the user has attempted to select a disabled mode, the process may request 615 secure authorization before the selected mode can be enabled. If the correct authorization 617 is received, the process can engage 619 the selected, previously disabled, mode.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Antoniucci with that of Sikorski to provide an adaptive mode control system that would selectively allow for the user to enable different driving modes depending on a variety of factors. This would not only allow for the user to better drive at their ability level but could also enhance the safety and security of the vehicle. (Sikorski [0003 – 0004] reads “Improvements to onboard computing capability and vehicle mechanics present opportunities for increased variances in vehicle driving modes. In addition to more traditional driving modes, such as four-wheel drive (4WD) and all-wheel drive (AWD), drivers may be able to select from more environmentally specific driving modes, such as sand, gravel, snow and ice, etc. Advanced performance vehicles may also include modes such as drift mode, usable for a highly specific form of driving called “drifting,” or “line lock” mode, which allows drivers to spin the rear tires to produce noise and smoke. In a similar vein, drivers of autonomous or partially autonomous vehicles may wish to switch between automated and manually controlled driving or driving assisted conditions. Skilled drivers may want to freely switch between all possible modes, but at the same time parents or people loaning out vehicles may not want to run the risk of an unskilled or little-known driver using a vehicle in a mode that can be unfavorable to both the occupants and the vehicle when used incorrectly.”);
Antoniucci/Sikorski does not teach retrieving a previously active state stored in the memory device and transitioning the vehicle out of the third state and into [[a]] the previously active state, the previously active state being that is either the first state or the second state.
Badger in analogous art, teaches retrieving a previously active state stored in the memory device and transitioning the vehicle out of the third state and into [[a]] the previously active state, (Badger [0005] reads “A method of operating a vehicle includes shutting down a vehicle while an optional driving mode is selected, starting the vehicle following a period after the shutting down of the vehicle, and notifying the operator of the previous selection of the optional mode after the starting.”);
the previously active state being that is either the first state or the second state. (Badger [0018] reads “The operator of the vehicle 10 may have selected the optional driving mode via a selector which may require the operator to engage a control interface such as the HMI 26. Optional driving modes may include, but are not limited to, economy driving modes and traction control disabled driving modes.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Antoniucci/Sikorski with that of Badger to include a method for storing the previous state of the vehicle in its memory. This would allow the user of the vehicle the ability to seamlessly return the vehicle to their desired settings, which would improve the users experience. (Badger [0002] reads “Vehicles include control interfaces that may communicate information and/or allow vehicle operators to control various subsystems.”);
Regarding claim 10 Antoniucci/Sikorski/Badger teaches The access control system of Claim 9, wherein in the second state, a speed of the vehicle is limited to a threshold, the threshold being less than a speed that the vehicle can achieve in the first state. (Antoniucci [0055] reads “For example, a third operating mode M3 (FIG. 8), associated with one of the partial unlocking states E3, is only implemented if the verified condition corresponds to a request to activate an autonomous parking function of the vehicle 100 and the associated restriction can prevent the vehicle 100 from exceeding a speed threshold of, for example, 30 km/h.” and “This makes it possible, in the event of a thief entering the passenger compartment, to prevent the thief from fleeing at full speed with the vehicle 100.”);
Regarding claim 14 Antoniucci/Sikorski/Badger teaches The access control system of Claim 9, further comprising a user interface, wherein the user interface includes a touch screen and the credential of the user includes a typed credential entered at the user interface comprising a password or a personal identification number. (Sikorski [0017] reads “A vehicle enabled with a vehicle-based computing system may contain a visual front end interface 4 located in the vehicle. The user may also be able to interact with the interface if it is provided, for example, with a touchscreen display. In another illustrative embodiment, the interaction occurs through button presses, spoken dialog system with automatic speech recognition, and speech synthesis.”);
Regarding claim 15 Antoniucci/Sikorski/Badger teaches The access control system of Claim 9, wherein the user interface includes a biometric sensor and the credential of the user includes at least one of a fingerprint, an eye scan, or a voice input of the user. (Sikorski [0017] reads “A vehicle enabled with a vehicle-based computing system may contain a visual front end interface 4 located in the vehicle. The user may also be able to interact with the interface if it is provided, for example, with a touchscreen display. In another illustrative embodiment, the interaction occurs through button presses, spoken dialog system with automatic speech recognition, and speech synthesis.”);
Regarding claim 16 Antoniucci/Sikorski/Badger teaches The access control system of Claim 9, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to identify different levels of authorization corresponding to different credentials, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to limit transition of the vehicle out of the second state and into the first state until the user provides credentials corresponding to a first authorization level sufficient to transition the vehicle into the first state in which the vehicle is operable in the unrestricted manner, the processing circuitry further configured to restrict transition of the vehicle out of the third state and into the first state but allow transition of the vehicle into the second state in response both (i) the previously active state being the second state and (ii) obtaining credentials corresponding to a second authorization level insufficient to transition the vehicle into the first state but sufficient to transition the vehicle into the second state. (Sikorski [0039] reads “The process also determines 203 if there is a “mode profile” for the identified driver. That is, individual drivers or classes of driver may have owner-designated control and mode selection rights associated therewith. … “If there is a defined profile for the driver, the process may load 207 parameters for that driver. These parameters may define both impermissible driving modes and driving modes that may be triggered under certain conditions (e.g., permitted under certain conditions or even automatically triggered under certain conditions).”);
Regarding claim 17 Antoniucci teaches A method of providing access to a vehicle, the method comprising: operating the vehicle according to a currently active state that is either (1) a first state where one or more operational capabilities of the vehicle [[is]] are unrestricted or limited at a first level or (2) a second state where the one or more operational capabilities of the vehicle [[is]] are limited at a second level, the second level of limitation being more restrictive that the first level; (Antoniucci [0008 – 00014] reads “This is achieved by controlling an operating state of a vehicle such that the operating state, initially in a locked state which immobilizes the vehicle, can be modified in order to adopt any of the following unlocking states: a total unlocking state which allows activation of an operating mode of the vehicle, which is associated with the total unlocking state, without any restrictions, and partial unlocking states which each allow the activation of an operating mode associated with the partial unlocking state and which allow restricted activation of the vehicle”.);
transitioning the vehicle into a third state where the driveline operation of the vehicle is disabled; (Antoniucci [0008 – 00014] reads “This is achieved by controlling an operating state of a vehicle such that the operating state, initially in a locked state which immobilizes the vehicle,”);
Antoniucci does not teach responsive to a first request to enable a driveline operation of the vehicle provided by a user via a user interface and responsive to a second request to disable the driveline operation of the vehicle provided by the user via the user interface and a verification of credentials of the user, retrieving a previously active state stored in a memory device and transitioning the vehicle out of the third state and into [[a]] the previously active state, the previously active state being that is either the first state or the second state.
Sikorski in analogous art, teaches responsive to a first request to enable a driveline operation of the vehicle provided by a user via a user interface, (Sikorski [0052] reads “The process then receives 509 the input for the various conditionals or toggles. In this example, the states have toggle “on/off” switches associated therewith, and the each conditional may also have state settings associated therewith. For example, the process may present a snow conditional, for which the user can then engage particular states or disable states. The process also saves 511 the settings.”);
and responsive to a second request to disable the driveline operation of the vehicle provided by the user via the user interface and a verification of credentials of the user, (Sikorski [0037] reads “The remote version of the override allows the primary owner or a designated party to use a mobile phone, PC, etc. to input a form of secure authorization, such as a code, PIN, biometric, etc., to override a lockout mode for a specific request.” And [0055] reads “If the user has attempted to select a disabled mode, the process may request 615 secure authorization before the selected mode can be enabled. If the correct authorization 617 is received, the process can engage 619 the selected, previously disabled, mode.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Antoniucci with that of Sikorski to provide an adaptive mode control system that would selectively allow for the user to enable different driving modes depending on a variety of factors. This would not only allow for the user to better drive at their ability level but could also enhance the safety and security of the vehicle. (Sikorski [0003 – 0004] reads “Improvements to onboard computing capability and vehicle mechanics present opportunities for increased variances in vehicle driving modes. In addition to more traditional driving modes, such as four-wheel drive (4WD) and all-wheel drive (AWD), drivers may be able to select from more environmentally specific driving modes, such as sand, gravel, snow and ice, etc. Advanced performance vehicles may also include modes such as drift mode, usable for a highly specific form of driving called “drifting,” or “line lock” mode, which allows drivers to spin the rear tires to produce noise and smoke. In a similar vein, drivers of autonomous or partially autonomous vehicles may wish to switch between automated and manually controlled driving or driving assisted conditions. Skilled drivers may want to freely switch between all possible modes, but at the same time parents or people loaning out vehicles may not want to run the risk of an unskilled or little-known driver using a vehicle in a mode that can be unfavorable to both the occupants and the vehicle when used incorrectly.”);
Antoniucci/Sikorski does not teach retrieving a previously active state stored in a memory device and transitioning the vehicle out of the third state and into [[a]] the previously active state, the previously active state being that is either the first state or the second state.
Badger in analogous art, teaches retrieving a previously active state stored in a memory device and transitioning the vehicle out of the third state and into [[a]] the previously active state, (Badger [0005] reads “A method of operating a vehicle includes shutting down a vehicle while an optional driving mode is selected, starting the vehicle following a period after the shutting down of the vehicle, and notifying the operator of the previous selection of the optional mode after the starting.”);
the previously active state being that is either the first state or the second state. (Badger [0018] reads “The operator of the vehicle 10 may have selected the optional driving mode via a selector which may require the operator to engage a control interface such as the HMI 26. Optional driving modes may include, but are not limited to, economy driving modes and traction control disabled driving modes.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Antoniucci/Sikorski with that of Badger to include a method for storing the previous state of the vehicle in its memory. This would allow the user of the vehicle the ability to seamlessly return the vehicle to their desired settings, which would improve the users experience. (Badger [0002] reads “Vehicles include control interfaces that may communicate information and/or allow vehicle operators to control various subsystems.”);
Regarding claim 18 Antoniucci/Sikorski/Badger teaches The method of Claim 17, wherein in the second state, a speed of the vehicle is limited to a threshold, the threshold being less than a speed that the vehicle can achieve in the first state. (Antoniucci [0055] reads “For example, a third operating mode M3 (FIG. 8), associated with one of the partial unlocking states E3, is only implemented if the verified condition corresponds to a request to activate an autonomous parking function of the vehicle 100 and the associated restriction can prevent the vehicle 100 from exceeding a speed threshold of, for example, 30 km/h.” and “This makes it possible, in the event of a thief entering the passenger compartment, to prevent the thief from fleeing at full speed with the vehicle 100.”);
Regarding claim 21 Antoniucci/Sikorski/Badger teaches The golf cart of Claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: responsive to the first request to disable the driveline, store the currently active state in the memory device as the previously active state; (Badger [0011] reads “The controller 20 may include a microprocessor or central processing unit (CPU) in communication with various types of computer readable storage devices or media. Computer readable storage devices or media may include volatile and nonvolatile storage in read-only memory (ROM), random-access memory (RAM), and keep-alive memory (KAM), for example. KAM is a persistent or non-volatile memory that may be used to store various operating variables while the CPU is powered down.”);
and responsive to the second request to enable the driveline, automatically retrieve the previously active state from the memory device without requiring re-selection of the first state or the second state by the user. (Sikorski [0053] reads “The process determines 603 modes that are defined as associated with the detected condition. This may reveal that an owner has enforced a certain required 605 mode for a given condition (e.g., snow driving mode for freezing temperatures). If there are no mandated driving modes, the process may present options or illuminate 607 options corresponding to driving modes permitted under certain conditions.”);
Claim(s) 3, 11, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to Antoniucci/Sikorski/Badger, in further view of Diamond (US 20210096559 A1).
Regarding claim 3 Antoniucci/Sikorski/Badger teaches The golf cart of Claim 1.
Antoniucci/Sikorski/Badger does not teach wherein in the second state, the golf cart is limited from being driven into a restricted geographic area or out of an approved geographic area.
Diamond in analogous art, teaches wherein in the second state, the golf cart is limited from being driven into a restricted geographic area or out of an approved geographic area. (Diamond [0047] reads “For example, using a finger or other means of entry, a user (e.g., the user 105) may create a user-selected geo-fence indication 605 that visually describes a geographic limit. The geo-fence indication 605 may establish an outer limit for operating the vehicle 110. An icon 610 may provide an indication of a current location of the vehicle 110, and may provide real-time GPS locating services to the user 105. In some example embodiments, the telematics control unit 130 may disable the vehicle 110 responsive to determining that the vehicle 110 has exited the geographic region associated with the user-selected geo-fence indication 605.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Antoniucci/Sikorski/Badger with that of Diamond to provide an improvement is how vehicles can get transferred between users. This would allow for better convince and safety in situations where control and ownership needs to be transferred. (Diamond [0002] reads “In situations where a vehicle is to be towed or transported, drivers have limited options for transferring the vehicle into the hands of transportation personnel. In most cases, the driver must wait with the vehicle until the personnel arrive on site to ensure that the vehicle safely changes hands, which may be time consuming and may cause frustration if the transportation personnel cannot arrive within a short time. Leaving the ignition keys inside of the vehicle may present security risks to the vehicle and any personal effects in the vehicle. Moreover, the transportation personnel may be unknown to the driver, and it is often unknown whether they may be trusted to operate the vehicle only for the limited transportation purposes.”);
Regarding claim 11 Antoniucci/Sikorski/Badger teaches The access control system of Claim 9.
Antoniucci/Sikorski/Badger does not teach wherein in the second state, the vehicle is limited from being driven into a restricted geographic area or out of an approved geographic area.
Diamond in analogous art, teaches wherein in the second state, the vehicle is limited from being driven into a restricted geographic area or out of an approved geographic area. (Diamond [0047] reads “For example, using a finger or other means of entry, a user (e.g., the user 105) may create a user-selected geo-fence indication 605 that visually describes a geographic limit. The geo-fence indication 605 may establish an outer limit for operating the vehicle 110. An icon 610 may provide an indication of a current location of the vehicle 110, and may provide real-time GPS locating services to the user 105. In some example embodiments, the telematics control unit 130 may disable the vehicle 110 responsive to determining that the vehicle 110 has exited the geographic region associated with the user-selected geo-fence indication 605.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Antoniucci/Sikorski/Badger with that of Diamond to provide an improvement is how vehicles can get transferred between users. This would allow for better convince and safety in situations where control and ownership needs to be transferred. (Diamond [0002] reads “In situations where a vehicle is to be towed or transported, drivers have limited options for transferring the vehicle into the hands of transportation personnel. In most cases, the driver must wait with the vehicle until the personnel arrive on site to ensure that the vehicle safely changes hands, which may be time consuming and may cause frustration if the transportation personnel cannot arrive within a short time. Leaving the ignition keys inside of the vehicle may present security risks to the vehicle and any personal effects in the vehicle. Moreover, the transportation personnel may be unknown to the driver, and it is often unknown whether they may be trusted to operate the vehicle only for the limited transportation purposes.”);
Regarding claim 19 Antoniucci/Sikorski/Badger teaches The method of Claim 16.
Antoniucci/Sikorski/Badger does not teach wherein in the second state, the vehicle is limited from being driven into a restricted geographic area or out of an approved geographic area.
Diamond in analogous art, teaches wherein in the second state, the vehicle is limited from being driven into a restricted geographic area or out of an approved geographic area. (Diamond [0047] reads “For example, using a finger or other means of entry, a user (e.g., the user 105) may create a user-selected geo-fence indication 605 that visually describes a geographic limit. The geo-fence indication 605 may establish an outer limit for operating the vehicle 110. An icon 610 may provide an indication of a current location of the vehicle 110, and may provide real-time GPS locating services to the user 105. In some example embodiments, the telematics control unit 130 may disable the vehicle 110 responsive to determining that the vehicle 110 has exited the geographic region associated with the user-selected geo-fence indication 605.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Antoniucci/Sikorski/Badger with that of Diamond to provide an improvement is how vehicles can get transferred between users. This would allow for better convince and safety in situations where control and ownership needs to be transferred. (Diamond [0002] reads “In situations where a vehicle is to be towed or transported, drivers have limited options for transferring the vehicle into the hands of transportation personnel. In most cases, the driver must wait with the vehicle until the personnel arrive on site to ensure that the vehicle safely changes hands, which may be time consuming and may cause frustration if the transportation personnel cannot arrive within a short time. Leaving the ignition keys inside of the vehicle may present security risks to the vehicle and any personal effects in the vehicle. Moreover, the transportation personnel may be unknown to the driver, and it is often unknown whether they may be trusted to operate the vehicle only for the limited transportation purposes.”);
Claim(s) 4, 5, 12, 13, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to Antoniucci/Sikorski/Badger, in further view of Johnson (US 20130289797 A1).
Regarding claim 4 Antoniucci/Sikorski/Badger teaches The golf cart of Claim 1.
Antoniucci/Sikorski does not teach wherein the processing circuitry is configured to operate the golf cart according to either the first state or the second state by causing a primary mover of the golf cart to drive a tractive element of the golf cart based on a control input provided by the user.
Johnson in analogous art, teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to operate the golf cart according to either the first state or the second state by causing a primary mover of the golf cart to drive a tractive element of the golf cart based on a control input provided by the user. (Johnson [0021] reads “The vehicle monitoring component 14 a can be operably coupled to systems of the vehicle 12, such as the fuel injection system, the exhaust system, the electronic system, the drive train, the internal instruments of the vehicle, or any other suitable vehicle system.” And [0004] reads “For example, due to safety, liability, and/or insurance-related concerns, a company having a fleet of ATVs for use by its employees may wish to limit the speed at which the ATVs can be driven. As another example, an owner of an ATV may wish to limit the speed at which a child, youth, or guest can drive the ATV.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Antoniucci/Sikorski/Badger with that of Johnson to provide a method to limit the functionality of a vehicle. This would allow for the user to ensure that anyone using the vehicle is doing so in a safe manor, while also protecting the warranty for the vehicle. (Johnson [0003] reads “Recreational vehicles, such as all-terrain vehicles (“ATVs”), recreational off-road vehicles (“ROVs”), and other similar equipment usually represent a significant purchase. As such, buyers enjoy testing a vehicle before purchasing in an environment similar to the one in which they will use the vehicle. The buyer may wish to test the vehicle under actual conditions such as at full throttle, full speed, etc. However, the dealer, manufacturer, and consumer have an interest in selling the vehicle and having it registered for warranty purposes. Thus, once the vehicle is sold to a consumer, the testing comes to a close and the vehicle is registered and warranty coverage starts for the new owner. There is a need in the art for a system and/or method of controlling the usage of a vehicle or other equipment after purchase that ensures that the vehicle is covered by warranty from the manufacturer but that still allows the vehicle to be tested before purchase under real conditions.”);
Regarding claim 5 Antoniucci/Sikorski/Badger teaches The golf cart of Claim 1, responsive to authorization of credentials provided by the user that indicate sufficient authorization, operate the user interface or the personal computer device to prompt the user to set or adjust the user defined threshold. (Sikorski [0040] reads “Once the system confirms 303 that any necessary security checks have cleared (e.g. PIN/password/secure authorization or driver identity verification), the process may further determine 305 if the driving mode is enabled for the identified driver.”);
Antoniucci/Sikorski/Badger does not teach wherein the one or more operational capabilities of the golf cart is limited according to a user defined threshold, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to receive a third request at the user interface or a personal computer device to set or update the user defined threshold, and,
Johnson in analogous art, teaches wherein the one or more operational capabilities of the golf cart is limited according to a user defined threshold, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to receive a third request at the user interface or a personal computer device to set or update the user defined threshold, and, (Johnson [0020] reads “In another embodiment, described with respect to FIGS. 4-7 below, the ECU is configured to receive limit data, such as a maximum speed, that is entered by a user via an input device, such as a gauge interface, diagnostic tool, or the like.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Antoniucci/Sikorski/Badger with that of Johnson to provide a method to limit the functionality of a vehicle. This would allow for the user to ensure that anyone using the vehicle is doing so in a safe manor, while also protecting the warranty for the vehicle. (Johnson [0003] reads “Recreational vehicles, such as all-terrain vehicles (“ATVs”), recreational off-road vehicles (“ROVs”), and other similar equipment usually represent a significant purchase. As such, buyers enjoy testing a vehicle before purchasing in an environment similar to the one in which they will use the vehicle. The buyer may wish to test the vehicle under actual conditions such as at full throttle, full speed, etc. However, the dealer, manufacturer, and consumer have an interest in selling the vehicle and having it registered for warranty purposes. Thus, once the vehicle is sold to a consumer, the testing comes to a close and the vehicle is registered and warranty coverage starts for the new owner. There is a need in the art for a system and/or method of controlling the usage of a vehicle or other equipment after purchase that ensures that the vehicle is covered by warranty from the manufacturer but that still allows the vehicle to be tested before purchase under real conditions.”);
Regarding claim 12 Antoniucci/Sikorski/Badger teaches The access control system of Claim 9.
Antoniucci/Sikorski/Badger does not teach wherein the processing circuitry is configured to operate the vehicle according to either the first state or the second state by causing a primary mover of the vehicle to drive a tractive element of the vehicle based on a control input provided by the user.
Johnson in analogous art, teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to operate the vehicle according to either the first state or the second state by causing a primary mover of the vehicle to drive a tractive element of the vehicle based on a control input provided by the user. (Johnson [0021] reads “The vehicle monitoring component 14 a can be operably coupled to systems of the vehicle 12, such as the fuel injection system, the exhaust system, the electronic system, the drive train, the internal instruments of the vehicle, or any other suitable vehicle system.” And [0004] reads “For example, due to safety, liability, and/or insurance-related concerns, a company having a fleet of ATVs for use by its employees may wish to limit the speed at which the ATVs can be driven. As another example, an owner of an ATV may wish to limit the speed at which a child, youth, or guest can drive the ATV.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Antoniucci/Sikorski/Badger with that of Johnson to provide a method to limit the functionality of a vehicle. This would allow for the user to ensure that anyone using the vehicle is doing so in a safe manor, while also protecting the warranty for the vehicle. (Johnson [0003] reads “Recreational vehicles, such as all-terrain vehicles (“ATVs”), recreational off-road vehicles (“ROVs”), and other similar equipment usually represent a significant purchase. As such, buyers enjoy testing a vehicle before purchasing in an environment similar to the one in which they will use the vehicle. The buyer may wish to test the vehicle under actual conditions such as at full throttle, full speed, etc. However, the dealer, manufacturer, and consumer have an interest in selling the vehicle and having it registered for warranty purposes. Thus, once the vehicle is sold to a consumer, the testing comes to a close and the vehicle is registered and warranty coverage starts for the new owner. There is a need in the art for a system and/or method of controlling the usage of a vehicle or other equipment after purchase that ensures that the vehicle is covered by warranty from the manufacturer but that still allows the vehicle to be tested before purchase under real conditions.”);
Regarding claim 13 Antoniucci/Sikorski/Badger The access control system of Claim 9.
Antoniucci/Sikorski/Badger does not teach wherein the one or more operational capabilities of the vehicle are limited according to a user defined threshold, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to receive a third request to set or update the user defined threshold.
Johnson in analogous art, teaches wherein the one or more operational capabilities of the vehicle are limited according to a user defined threshold, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to receive a third request to set or update the user defined threshold, (Johnson [0020] reads “In another embodiment, described with respect to FIGS. 4-7 below, the ECU is configured to receive limit data, such as a maximum speed, that is entered by a user via an input device, such as a gauge interface, diagnostic tool, or the like.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Antoniucci/Sikorski/Badger with that of Johnson to provide a method to limit the functionality of a vehicle. This would allow for the user to ensure that anyone using the vehicle is doing so in a safe manor, while also protecting the warranty for the vehicle. (Johnson [0003] reads “Recreational vehicles, such as all-terrain vehicles (“ATVs”), recreational off-road vehicles (“ROVs”), and other similar equipment usually represent a significant purchase. As such, buyers enjoy testing a vehicle before purchasing in an environment similar to the one in which they will use the vehicle. The buyer may wish to test the vehicle under actual conditions such as at full throttle, full speed, etc. However, the dealer, manufacturer, and consumer have an interest in selling the vehicle and having it registered for warranty purposes. Thus, once the vehicle is sold to a consumer, the testing comes to a close and the vehicle is registered and warranty coverage starts for the new owner. There is a need in the art for a system and/or method of controlling the usage of a vehicle or other equipment after purchase that ensures that the vehicle is covered by warranty from the manufacturer but that still allows the vehicle to be tested before purchase under real conditions.”);
Regarding claim 20 Antoniucci/Sikorski/Badger teaches The method of Claim 16.
Antoniucci/Sikorski/Badger does not teach wherein operating the vehicle according to either the first state or the second state comprises causing a primary mover of the vehicle to drive a tractive element of the vehicle based on a control input provided by the user.
Johnson in analogous art, teaches wherein operating the vehicle according to either the first state or the second state comprises causing a primary mover of the vehicle to drive a tractive element of the vehicle based on a control input provided by the user. (Johnson [0021] reads “The vehicle monitoring component 14 a can be operably coupled to systems of the vehicle 12, such as the fuel injection system, the exhaust system, the electronic system, the drive train, the internal instruments of the vehicle, or any other suitable vehicle system.” And [0004] reads “For example, due to safety, liability, and/or insurance-related concerns, a company having a fleet of ATVs for use by its employees may wish to limit the speed at which the ATVs can be driven. As another example, an owner of an ATV may wish to limit the speed at which a child, youth, or guest can drive the ATV.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Antoniucci/Sikorski/Badger with that of Johnson to provide a method to limit the functionality of a vehicle. This would allow for the user to ensure that anyone using the vehicle is doing so in a safe manor, while also protecting the warranty for the vehicle. (Johnson [0003] reads “Recreational vehicles, such as all-terrain vehicles (“ATVs”), recreational off-road vehicles (“ROVs”), and other similar equipment usually represent a significant purchase. As such, buyers enjoy testing a vehicle before purchasing in an environment similar to the one in which they will use the vehicle. The buyer may wish to test the vehicle under actual conditions such as at full throttle, full speed, etc. However, the dealer, manufacturer, and consumer have an interest in selling the vehicle and having it registered for warranty purposes. Thus, once the vehicle is sold to a consumer, the testing comes to a close and the vehicle is registered and warranty coverage starts for the new owner. There is a need in the art for a system and/or method of controlling the usage of a vehicle or other equipment after purchase that ensures that the vehicle is covered by warranty from the manufacturer but that still allows the vehicle to be tested before purchase under real conditions.”);
Response to arguments
Applicant argues < Applicant submits that Antoniucci and Sikorski, alone or in proper combination, fail to disclose, teach, or suggest ''a memory device'' and ''responsive to a second request to enable the driveline of the golf cart provided by the user via the user interface and a verification of a credential of the user, retrieving a previously active state stored in the memory device and transitioning the golf cart out of the third state and into the previously active state, the previously active state being either the first state or the second state," as recited by amended Claim 1. > [Arguments page 9 third paragraph]. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Limitations directed towards storing and retrieving previously active states of a vehicle from its memory are newly added. Therefor, the examiner does not rely on Antoniucci or Sikorski to teach this limitations. The examiner relies upon Badger to teach these limitations. (Badger [0005] reads “A method of operating a vehicle includes shutting down a vehicle while an optional driving mode is selected, starting the vehicle following a period after the shutting down of the vehicle, and notifying the operator of the previous selection of the optional mode after the starting.”); Badger clearly teaches that previous operational modes can be recalled from the vehicle when the vehicle is turned on. Therefore, the combination teaches the claimed invention.
Other references not Cited
Throughout examination other references were found that could read onto the prior art. Though these references were not used in this examination they could be used in future examination and could read on the contents of the current disclosure. These references are, Glora (US 20050027428 A1); Grassley (US 20230145972 A1); Kraemer (US 20220379840 A1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN MARTIN O'MALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6228. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9 am - 5 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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at (571) 270 - 5744. 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.
/JOHN MARTIN O'MALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/Ramon A. Mercado/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights