DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response to amendments filed 10/26/2025.
Claims 1-20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101
Due to the amendments filed 10/26/2025, the rejections of claims 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Due to the amendments filed 10/26/2025, the objections of claims 1, 9, and 17 have been withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103
On pages 9-11 of Remarks filed 10/26/2025, under Initial Remarks, the Applicant contends that maintaining three parallel theories against the same claim language is not consistent with the Office’s obligation to present the best art with a clear articulation of the single statutory basis applicable to each claim. The Applicant further contends that this is the opposite of compact prosecution, and the Examiner should select the single combination and proceed based on that alone. The Applicant further cites 37 C.F.R. 1.104(c)(2), MPEP 706, and MPEP 2143.01(III) as evidence.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s assertion that only a single combination of prior art may be applied to an independent claim. Specifically, MPEP 707.07(g) recites “[t]he examiner ordinarily should reject each claim on all valid grounds available, avoiding, however, undue multiplication of references” (emphasis added). This language specifically encourages multiple rejections as long as the rejections are “valid” and are not unduly repetitive. In the Office Action mailed 8/25/2025, the Examiner has rejected the independent claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Yellambalase, 35 U.S.C. 103 over Cho and Ferguson, and 35 U.S.C. 103 over Gilbert-Eyres and Slutsky. As is evident by the distinct combination of references, there is no undue multiplication of references. While new combinations of prior art have been made in the present Office Action, the rejections are similarly valid and not unduly repetitive.
As indicated in emphasized text in paragraphs 35 and 45 of the Office Action mailed 8/25/2025, and is similarly provided in the present Office Action, second and third rejections of the independent claims are provided in order to establish proper combinations of prior art applied to different sets of dependent claims that diverge in subject matter. For example, claim 3 depends from claim 1 and covers an embodiment in which an “unsafe condition” is when a person or animal is proximate to a vehicle, while claim 4 depends from claim 1 and covers an embodiment in which an “unsafe condition” is when a weather event is within a predetermined distance of a vehicle. Due to the broad independent claims and identified prior art, different combinations of prior art are applied to better reject the different embodiments represented in the dependent claims.
In reference to the MPEP citations provided by the Applicant, 37 C.F.R. 1.104(c)(2) recites:
“In rejecting claims for want of novelty or for obviousness, the examiner must cite the best references at his or her command. When a reference is complex or shows or describes inventions other than that claimed by the applicant, the particular part relied on must be designated as nearly as practicable. The pertinence of each reference, if not apparent, must be clearly explained and each rejected claim specified.”
In this case, the Examiner has applied the best references to each of the claims and has properly cited the pertinent parts of each reference. As discussed above, the additional rejections of the independent claims were made in order to properly combine prior art to teach the dependent claims that reflect divergent subject matter. MPEP 706 and MPEP 2143.01(III) do not indicate that a single rejection of the independent claims is required when the dependent claims reflect divergent subject matter. Dependent claims are construed as incorporating all limitations from the parent claim(s), not a combination of all claims. See MPEP 608.01(n).
On pages 12-16 of Remarks under Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 and Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the Applicant has not provided any arguments specifically directed towards the application of the references in the rejections of claims 1-20 in the Office Action mailed 8/25/2025. New references have been applied in combination to the amendments filed 10/26/2025 in the present Office Action.
Key to Interpreting the Prior Art Rejections
For readability, all claim language has been underlined.
Citations from prior art are provided at the end of each limitation in parentheses.
Any further explanations that were deemed necessary by the Examiner are provided at the end of each claim limitation.
The Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly if there are any questions or concerns regarding the current Office Action.
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.
Claims 1, 8, 9, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yellambalase et al. (US 2018/0201145 A1), hereinafter Yellambalase, in view of Mercep et al. (US 2020/0209848 A1), hereinafter Mercep, and Otero et al. (US 2011/0227756 A1), hereinafter Otero.
Claim 1
Yellambalase discloses the claimed method (see Figure 14) comprising:
identifying, by a vehicle being charged with a charging connector, an unsafe condition (see ¶0157-0158, with respect to Figure 14, regarding that sensor processors 340 of vehicle 100 detect a power system fault, e.g., thermal event such as fire, smoke, explosion, etc. in step 1408, where the vehicle 100 is determined to be in a connected charging state in step 1416 for a severe fault determined in step 1412, as described in ¶0162); and
responsive to the unsafe condition being identified:
disengaging the charging connector from the vehicle (see ¶0164, with respect to step 1420 of Figure 14, regarding that in response to a severe system fault in step 1412 and the vehicle being in a connected charging state in step 1416, the charging connection is rejected in step 1420 by ejecting the charging connector from vehicle 100), and
engaging a driving functionality of the vehicle (see ¶0170-0171, with respect to steps 1436 or 1440 of Figure 14, regarding that vehicle 100 is autonomously driven to an identified location in response to a severe system fault determined in step 1412, the vehicle being in a connected charging state in step 1416, and the vehicle determined to not be in a safe location in step 1424).
Yellambalase does not further disclose that “responsive to the unsafe condition being identified,” discontinuing one or more of an audio or video content being displayed in the vehicle, and providing one or more of new audio or video content comprising information concerning the unsafe condition. However, the technique of interrupting audio or video content to provide alerts is well known in the art, and incorporating similar alerts of the identified “unsafe condition” of Yellambalase would be obvious in light of the combination of Mercep and Otero.
Specifically, Mercep teaches the known technique of providing one or more of new audio or video content comprising information concerning the detected fault, defined as including power supply failures in ¶0065 (similar to the unsafe condition taught by Yellambalase) (see ¶0031, regarding that vehicle monitoring system 400 prompts display of override presentation 405 on a display device located in the dashboard of the vehicle, which can annunciate the detected or predicted faults within the vehicle). It may be reasonably gleaned that any audio or video content being output in the vehicle of Mercep is discontinued, so as to prioritize the display or annunciation of the detected or predicted faults (see ¶0031). In case this feature cannot be reasonably gleaned from the disclosure of Mercep, Otero is applied in combination with Mercep to teach the known feature of discontinuing audio content for providing new audio content concerning an unsafe condition. Only one of an “audio” or “video content” is required to be taught by prior art.
Specifically, Otero teaches the known technique of discontinuing one or more of an audio or video content being displayed in a vehicle (similar to the vehicle taught by Yellambalase), so as to provide new audio content concerning an alert (similar to the new audio content taught by Mercep) (see ¶0077, with respect to Figure 4, regarding that when an alert message is received, audio switch 5 transmits the audio 9 alert message for playback as audio out 19 through integral speaker 18, such that radio audio 10 is muted).
While the new audio content of Mercep is related to a power supply failure of the vehicle, and the new audio content of Otero is related to emergency alerts from remote sources, Otero is merely applied to teach the known technique of discontinuing audio content for providing new audio content; therefore, the particular contents of the new audio content of Otero does not influence this combination.
Since the systems of Yellambalase, Mercep, and Otero are directed to the same purpose, i.e. providing new audio content in a vehicle in response to an unsafe condition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Yellambalase, such that responsive to the unsafe condition being identified, Yellambalase further performs discontinuing one or more of an audio or video content being displayed in the vehicle, and providing one or more of new audio or video content comprising information concerning the unsafe condition, in light of the combination of Mercep and Otero, with the predictable result of improving user awareness of an identified fault (¶0073 of Mercep), such that a vehicle driver is made aware of an emergency condition (¶0002 of Otero) by commandeering an available audio/video system (¶0012 of Otero).
Claims 8 and 16
Yellambalase further discloses transmitting a notification of the unsafe condition to a mobile device associated with the vehicle, wherein the notification indicates that the driving functionality of the vehicle has been engaged (see ¶0173, with respect to step 1448 of Figure 14, regarding that a destruction message is transmitted across a wireless communication network to a receiving device of a receiving party, e.g., occupant or owner, indicating the power system fault, the severity of the power system fault, and location information of the vehicle, where the destruction message is generated in step 1448 after autonomous driving is performed in steps 1440 or 1436, as depicted in Figure 14). The location information inherently provides a notification to the occupant that the driving functionality has been re-engaged, due to the location information representing the location of the vehicle after autonomous driving operations. No particular type or format of “notification” is claimed.
Claim 9
The combination of Yellambalase, Mercep, and Otero discloses the claimed apparatus (see Figure 7 of Yellambalase, depicting computer system 700, described as being upon which the computing devices of the invention may be executed in ¶0117) comprising a processor (i.e. CPU 708) that executes instructions stored in a memory (i.e. storage devices 720) (see Figure 7, depicting the “coupling” via bus 704) to configure the processor to perform the steps discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 17
The combination of Yellambalase, Mercep, and Otero discloses the claimed non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions stored in a memory (see ¶0154 of Yellambalase, regarding that the method of Figure 14 may be executed by a computer system and encoded on a computer readable medium) that when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the steps discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 2, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yellambalase in view of Mercep and Otero, and in further view of Alarcon et al. (US 2025/0083662 A1), hereinafter Alarcon.
Claims 2, 10, and 18
Yellambalase further discloses that the disengaging of the charging connector comprises unlocking a safety latch that secures a charging port of a charger to the charging connector (see ¶0232-0235, with respect to Figures 24A and 24B, regarding that the latch release mechanism 2240 of charging receptacle 2200 is actuated to an extended position, such that the charging connector 2120 and handle 2112 are no longer locked to the charging receptacle 2200 of the vehicle 100 for the vehicle to autonomously drive away from the charging system).
Yellambalase may inherently disclose that the engaging of the driving functionality comprises enabling a gear shift of the vehicle to move into a driving gear, given that the vehicle is physically interconnected to the charging system via a charging connector (see ¶0162), and the charging connector is disconnected for autonomously driving away from the charging system (see ¶0234). The vehicle of Yellambalase is more likely than not in a parked gear while physically attached to the charging station and thus, would be required to transition to a driving gear for autonomously driving away, where transmission settings of park and drive are provided for the vehicle (see ¶0069). In case this claimed feature is not clearly represented in Yellambalase, Alarcon is applied in combination to teach the well-known technique of shifting into a drive gear so as to perform similar autonomous driving.
Specifically, Alarcon teaches the technique of preparing a vehicle, defined as an autonomous electric vehicle in ¶0042 (similar to the vehicle taught by Yellambalase) for autonomous drive control from a parked position (similar to the engaging of the driving functionality taught by Yellambalase) that comprises enabling a gear shift of the vehicle to move into a driving gear (see ¶0098, regarding that the vehicle is controlled to shift out of park to drive for exiting a parking space).
In Yellambalase, an electric vehicle that is charging in a parked position is disconnected from the charging connector and autonomously driven away. In Alarcon, an electric vehicle in a parked position is autonomously driven away, without consideration of a charging connector. However, it is the technique of preparing for autonomous driving by shifting the vehicle into a driving gear that is modified by Alarcon; therefore, the absence of control pertaining to a charging connector does not influence this combination.
Since the systems of Yellambalase and Alarcon are directed to the same purpose, i.e. autonomously driving an electric vehicle from a parked position, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the engaging of the driving functionality of Yellambalase to comprise enabling a gear shift of the vehicle to move into a driving gear, in the same manner that the electric vehicle of Alarcon is controlled to shift to drive for autonomously exiting a parking space, with the predictable result of providing autonomous controls that permit the vehicle to enter a state for exiting a space in which it’s parked (¶0098 of Alarcon), so as to autonomously drive to a safe location from a parked state in Yellambalase (see ¶0155-0156).
Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 11, 15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (translation of WO 2023/229055 A1), hereinafter Cho, in view of Ferguson et al. (US 2023/0141841 A1), hereinafter Ferguson, and Otero.
A second rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 17 is provided in order to properly combine references that teach the features in dependent claims 3, 7, 11, 15, and 19.
Claim 1
Cho discloses the claimed method (see Figure 14) comprising:
identifying, by a vehicle, that an unsafe situation exists (see ¶0323-0332, regarding that changes in behavioral characteristics of a recognized object is detected, so as to set a response policy, e.g., autonomous driving control or stronger warning alarm, based on the degree of proximity to a vehicle (approach, touch), an attempt to break into the vehicle through a door or window, or hitting the vehicle, where the vehicle’s exterior cameras are used to continuously collect image data outside the vehicle, as described in ¶0323, and the object may be a person or an animal, as described in ¶0331); and
responsive to the unsafe condition being identified:
providing one or more of new audio or video content comprising information concerning the unsafe condition (see ¶0275-0279, regarding that when the object in the vicinity of the vehicle approaches the vehicle within the threshold distance or touches the vehicle, an output unit generates an intervention alarm, which may be provided in a visual form on a display in the vehicle or as a warning alert sound output through an internal speaker of the vehicle, as described in ¶0241);
engaging a driving functionality of the vehicle (see ¶0280, regarding that if an object approaches and touches the vehicle, the vehicle takes progressive action to autonomously drive to a safe area).
While Cho discloses that the method is performed while the vehicle is parked (see ¶0001) and primarily applied to electric vehicles (see ¶0058), Cho does not describe the parked state as a state in which the electric vehicle is being charged with a charging connector, and thus, Cho does not further disclose that “responsive to the unsafe situation being identified,” disengaging the charging connector on the vehicle. However, it would be obvious to disengage a charging connector prior to performing autonomous navigation in scenarios where the parked electric vehicle of Cho is being charged, in light of Ferguson.
Specifically, Ferguson teaches an EV 110 (similar to the vehicle taught by Cho) being charged with a charging connector via charging station 130, depicted as stationary in Figure 1 and described in ¶0029; therefore, EV 110 may be reasonably interpreted as parked, similar to the state of the vehicle in Cho. Ferguson further teaches disengaging the charging connector from EV 110 and autonomously driving to a specified location (similar to the engaging a driving functionality of the vehicle taught by Cho) (see claim 3, regarding that the vehicle disconnects from the charging station and autonomously drives to a specified location; ¶0062, with respect to Figures 1 and 2, regarding that EV 110 disconnects from charging station 130, such that power from battery 150 is distributed to the subsystems 230 for driving).
In Cho, an electric vehicle responds to “unsafe situations” by autonomously navigating to a safe location. In Ferguson, an electric vehicle responds to instructions from a fleet manager by autonomously navigating to a specified location. However, it is the technique of disengaging a charging connector on an electric vehicle for autonomous navigation to a location that is modified by Ferguson; therefore, the reason for autonomous navigation does not influence this combination.
Since the systems of Cho and Ferguson are directed to the same purpose, i.e. autonomously navigating an electric vehicle from a parked location, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the function of engaging a driving functionality of the vehicle in Cho to incorporate the function of disengaging the charging connector from the vehicle in scenarios where the vehicle is being charged with a charging connector, in the same manner that Ferguson disconnects the plug connected to the vehicle from the charging station and autonomously drives the vehicle to a specified location, with the predictable result of preparing for driving operations by disconnecting from the charging station (¶0062 of Ferguson), where the EV is tethered to the charging station by a manual plug and cord (¶0059 of Ferguson).
While it may be reasonably gleaned that any audio or video content being output in the vehicle of Cho is discontinued, so as to prioritize the alert (see ¶0241), Otero is applied in combination with Cho to more clearly teach the known feature of discontinuing audio content for providing new audio content concerning an unsafe condition. Only one of an “audio” or “video content” is required to be taught by prior art.
Specifically, Otero teaches the known technique of discontinuing one or more of an audio or video content being displayed in a vehicle (similar to the vehicle taught by Cho), so as to provide new audio content concerning an alert (similar to the new audio content taught by Cho) (see ¶0077, with respect to Figure 4, regarding that when an alert message is received, audio switch 5 transmits the audio 9 alert message for playback as audio out 19 through integral speaker 18, such that radio audio 10 is muted).
While the new audio content of Cho is related to an object approaching the vehicle, and the new audio content of Otero is related to emergency alerts from remote sources, Otero is merely applied to teach the known technique of discontinuing audio content for providing new audio content; therefore, the particular contents of the new audio content of Otero does not influence this combination.
Since the systems of Cho and Otero are directed to the same purpose, i.e. providing new audio content in a vehicle in response to an unsafe condition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Cho, such that responsive to the unsafe condition being identified, Cho further performs discontinuing one or more of an audio or video content being displayed in the vehicle, in light of Otero, with the predictable result of improving vehicle driver awareness of an emergency condition (¶0002 of Otero) by commandeering an available audio/video system (¶0012 of Otero).
Claims 3, 11, and 19
Cho further discloses that the identifying of the unsafe condition comprises identifying the unsafe condition based on a presence of one or more of a person or an animal proximate to the vehicle (see ¶0323-0332, regarding that changes in behavioral characteristics of a recognized object is detected, so as to set a response policy, e.g., autonomous driving control or stronger warning alarm, based on the degree of proximity to a vehicle (approach, touch), an attempt to break into the vehicle through a door or window, or hitting the vehicle, where the vehicle’s exterior cameras are used to continuously collect image data outside the vehicle, as described in ¶0323, and the object may be a person or an animal, as described in ¶0331), as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 7 and 15
Cho further discloses that the identifying of the unsafe condition comprises:
detecting that a condition of an occupant has exceeded a threshold based on data from a biometric sensor of the vehicle (see ¶0275-0279, regarding that when the vehicle occupant is recognized as being in a sleeping state, and an object in the vicinity of the vehicle approaches the vehicle within the threshold distance or touches the vehicle, an output unit generates an intervention alarm, where the occupant sleeping state is determined from coordinates of the occupant detected by internal cameras of the vehicle for comparison to a reference range at predetermined time intervals, as described in ¶0303-0310, with respect to Figure 12).
The cameras of Cho may be reasonably interpreted as a “biometric sensor,” given their known use to capture unique human traits, e.g., for facial recognition. No particular biometrics are claimed for performing the “detecting” step.
Claim 9
The combination of Cho, Ferguson and Otero discloses the claimed apparatus (see Figure 11 of Cho) comprising a processor that executes instructions stored in a memory (see ¶0321 of Cho, regarding that each step of Figure 14 is performed by the processor of the vehicle, where memory is connected to the control unit 170 that controls each unit within the vehicle, as described in ¶0212-0214) to configure the processor to perform the steps discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 17
The combination of Cho, Ferguson, and Otero discloses the claimed non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions (see ¶0376-0377 of Cho) that when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the steps discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 1, 4-6, 9, 12-14, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilbert-Eyres et al. (US 2025/0058636 A1), hereinafter Gilbert-Eyres, in view of Slutzky et al. (US 2023/0115083 A1), hereinafter Slutzky, Wong et al. (US 2024/0356374 A1), hereinafter Wong, and Otero.
A third rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 17 is provided in order to properly combine references that teach the features in dependent claims 4-6, 12-14, and 20.
Claim 1
Gilbert-Eyres discloses the claimed method (see Figure 2) comprising:
identifying, by a vehicle being charged by a charging connector, that an unsafe situation exists (see ¶0083-0084, with respect to steps 11000 and 12000 of Figure 2, regarding that telematics system 30 determines that a lightning strike is detected within a predetermined distance of the charging vehicle 10 using monitored weather forecast data 80, where the telematics module 40 that includes telematics system 30 is disposed in vehicle 10, as described in ¶0077); and
responsive to the unsafe condition being identified:
providing one or more of new audio or video content comprising information concerning the unsafe condition (see ¶0086-0088, regarding that when the lighting strike is detected within the predetermined distance of the vehicle, a power status report is sent to the user interface 70, defined as an HMI within the vehicle 10);
disengaging the charging connector from the vehicle (see ¶0084, with respect to step 13000 of Figure 2, regarding that telematics system 30 automatically disconnects vehicle 10 from power station 120 when an update to the weather forecast data 80 includes a lightning strike within a predetermined distance of the charging vehicle 10).
The alert provided to the HMI (i.e. “new audio or video content”) of Gilbert-Eyres may be reasonably interpreted as either audio or video content, given the known functions of HMIs provided in conventional vehicles.
While the claim language does not specify whether the “charging connector” is wireless or wired, the language of “connector” may be reasonably gleaned to be a physical connection. Gilbert-Eyres does not explicitly disclose whether the connection is achieved wirelessly or physically; however, it would be capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration to modify a wireless connection to be a physical connection, as these are well-known alternative embodiments of a charging connection in the art. Specifically, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the charging method Gilbert-Eyres to be achieved via a physical charging connector, in light of Wong, with the predictable result of using a predominant method of charging in the field known for its high efficiency and fast charging speeds (¶0048 of Wong).
Gilbert-Eyres does not further disclose that “responsive to the unsafe condition being identified,” engaging a driving functionality of the vehicle. However, it would be obvious to additionally autonomously drive away from the area affected by the thunderstorm, in light of Slutzky.
Specifically, Slutzky teaches the known technique of re-engaging a driving functionality of electric vehicle 102 (similar to the vehicle taught by Gilbert-Eyres), so as to drive electric vehicle 102 to a safe location outside of the forecasted storm or weather event (similar to the unsafe situation taught by Gilbert-Eyres) (see ¶0071). Similar to Gilbert-Eyres, the “unsafe situation” of Slutzky is determined using current weather forecast information (see ¶0062).
While the system of Slutzky is described with respect to using electric vehicle batteries as a source of backup power for external networks, it is the alternative embodiment described in ¶0071 of Slutzky that is applied in combination with Gilbert-Eyres to teach the known “driving functionality” that may be implemented in response to similar forecasted weather events; therefore, the additional operations taught by Slutzky do not influence this combination.
Since the systems of Gilbert-Eyres and Slutzky are directed to the same purpose, i.e. controlling electric vehicles in response to a forecasted storm within an area of the vehicle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the respons(e) to determining that the unsafe situation exists of Gilbert-Eyres to additionally include re-engaging a driving functionality of the vehicle, in the same manner that the electric vehicle of Slutzky is driven to a safe location outside of the forecasted storm, with the predictable result of positioning the electric vehicle at a safe place outside the forecasted impact of the storm, leaving behind a power outage (¶0071 of Slutzky) that may occur with the lightning strikes described in ¶0084 of Gilbert-Eyres.
While it may be reasonably gleaned that any audio or video content being output to the HMI of the vehicle of Gilbert-Eyres is discontinued, so as to prioritize the alert (see ¶0086), Otero is applied in combination with Gilbert-Eyres to more clearly teach the known feature of discontinuing audio content for providing new audio content concerning an unsafe condition. Only one of an “audio” or “video content” is required to be taught by prior art.
Specifically, Otero teaches the known technique of discontinuing one or more of an audio or video content being displayed in a vehicle (similar to the vehicle taught by Gilbert-Eyres), so as to provide new audio content concerning an alert (similar to the new audio or video content taught by Gilbert-Eyres) (see ¶0077, with respect to Figure 4, regarding that when an alert message is received, audio switch 5 transmits the audio 9 alert message for playback as audio out 19 through integral speaker 18, such that radio audio 10 is muted).
While the new audio content of Gilbert-Eyres is related to a weather event within a distance of the vehicle, and the new audio content of Otero is related to emergency alerts that include inclement weather, Otero is merely applied to teach the known technique of discontinuing audio content for providing new audio content; therefore, the particular contents of the new audio content of Otero do not influence this combination.
Since the systems of Gilbert-Eyres and Otero are directed to the same purpose, i.e. providing new audio content in a vehicle in response to an unsafe condition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Gilbert-Eyres, such that responsive to the unsafe condition being identified, Gilbert-Eyres further performs discontinuing one or more of an audio or video content being displayed in the vehicle, in light of Otero, with the predictable result of improving driver awareness of an emergency condition (¶0002 of Otero) by commandeering an available audio/video system (¶0012 of Otero).
Claims 4, 12, and 20
Gilbert-Eyres, as modified by Slutzky and Otero, further discloses that the identifying of the unsafe condition comprises:
identifying the unsafe condition based on a weather event within a predetermined distance of the vehicle (see ¶0083-0084, with respect to steps 11000 and 12000 of Figure 2, regarding that telematics system 30 determines that a lightning strike is detected within a predetermined distance of the charging vehicle 10 using monitored weather forecast data 80, where the telematics module 40 that includes telematics system 30 is disposed in vehicle 10, as described in ¶0077), as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 5 and 13
Gilbert-Eyres, as modified by Slutzky and Otero, further discloses that the identifying of the unsafe condition comprises:
identifying the unsafe condition based on an input from a user to an infotainment system of the vehicle (see ¶0082-0084, with respect to steps 9000, 10000, 11000, and 13000 of Figure 2, regarding the user input 75 of user interface 70 starts the method, in which telematics system determines when the updates to the weather forecast data 80 includes a lightning strike within a predetermined distance of the charging vehicle 10; ¶0076, regarding that user interface 70 is an HMI within vehicle 10).
Claims 6 and 14
Gilbert-Eyres, as modified by Slutzky and Otero, further discloses:
identifying that the unsafe condition no longer exits (see ¶0085, regarding that the telematics system 30 monitors the weather forecast data 80 after the lightning strike for identifying that a lightning strike does not occur after a predetermined time has elapsed, where telematics system 30 is installed in vehicle 10, as described in ¶0054, with respect to Figure 1);
in response to the unsafe condition no longer existing, automatically re-engaging the charging connector with the vehicle (see ¶0085, regarding that telematics system 30 commands the charging of vehicle 10 to start after a predetermined time has elapsed without a subsequent lightning strike).
Claim 9
The combination of Gilbert-Eyres, Slutzky, and Otero discloses the claimed apparatus (see Figure 1 of Gilbert-Eyres, depicting telematics system 30) comprising a processor that executes instructions stored in a memory (see ¶0056-0059 of Gilbert-Eyres, regarding that the telematics system 30 includes a processor for execution of the instructions stored on memory) to configure the processor to perform the steps discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 17
The combination of Gilbert-Eyres, Slutzky, and Otero discloses the claimed non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions (see ¶0056-0059 of Gilbert-Eyres) which when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the steps discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, Straugheir (US 2015/0116099 A1) teaches driving an electric vehicle away from a threat based on an input to an HMI of the vehicle (see abstract), Linsmeier et al. (US 2024/0058634 A1) teaches ejecting a charging plug and autonomously driving an electric vehicle within a charging session (see ¶0003), Jakobsen et al. (US 2021/0126573 A1) teaches navigating an electric mobile device to a predetermined safe location in response to determining that weather conditions are not ideal for charging (see ¶0055), Ashida et al. (translation of JP 2012-39776 A) teaches generating a warning when a human is detected as approaching an electric vehicle during charging (see ¶0010), and Straugheir (GB 2501827 A) teaches automatically releasing a connector during a charging session prior to drive away (see page 4, lines 11-17).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sara J Lewandroski whose telephone number is (571)270-7766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5 pm ET.
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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/SARA J LEWANDROSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/RAMYA P BURGESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661