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 . 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.
DETAILED ACTION
The following FINAL Office Action is in response to communication filed on 10/22/2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-21 are currently pending.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 13, 15, 20 are currently amended.
Claims 1-21 are currently under examination and have been rejected as follows.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to Amendment
The previously pending claim objections are withdrawn in view of the amendments.
The previously pending rejections under 35 USC 112 are withdrawn in view of the amendments.
The previously pending rejections under 35 USC 101, will be maintained. The 101 rejection is updated in view of the amendments.
The previously pending rejections under 35 USC 102 are withdrawn in view of the amendments.
New grounds for rejection 35 USC 103 are applied as necessitated by the amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s remarks pertaining to 35 USC 101:
Applicant argues on page 10 of remarks 10/22/2025:
“As amended, claim 1 recites storing the one or more workflow tasks associated with a user at a cache of a mobile device hosting an ECM mobile application. The caching improves computing performance by making the retrieval of the one or more workflow tasks faster while decreasing the load on the primary resources of the mobile device. A cache is not an abstract idea, and thus, claim 1 is directed to statutory subject matter. Claims 8 and 15 have likewise been amended to recite storing the one or more workflow tasks associated with a user at a cache of a mobile device hosting an ECM mobile application. Thus, claims 1, 8, and 15, along with their respective dependent claims, are directed to statutory subject matter.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As amended, the claims still recite, describe, or set forth managing and communicating workflow tasks, which fall within managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, as well as commercial or legal interactions, both under the larger abstract grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II); thus, the claims recite a judicial exception of an abstract idea. Furthermore, the claims fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the additional elements, including the amended additional element “cache of the mobile device”, are recited in a way the claims invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data). See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Regarding the increase in computing performance argued by Applicant, Examiner finds the technical improvement in the claims as amended to not be meaningfully different than a process for monitoring audit log data that is executed on a general-purpose computer where the increased speed in the process comes solely from the capabilities of the general-purpose computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(iii)).
Furthermore, the claims as amended are still recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer performing functions of obtaining, storing, evaluating, presenting and communicating data, etc.) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(i)), and for the same reasons as above, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, the previously pending rejections under 35 USC 101, will be maintained. The 101 rejection is updated in view of the amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding Applicant’s remarks pertaining to 35 USC 102:
Applicant argues on page 10 of remarks 10/22/2025:
“…Farmer does not disclose or suggest determining whether an enterprise content management (ECM) mobile application executing on a mobile device associated with a user is operating in an automotive or a non-automotive context and based on the ECM mobile application operating in the automotive context, presenting one or more workflow tasks through the car infotainment system using the automotive media interface, as in claim 1. Farmer is directed to a non-ECM mobile app that interacts exclusively with a vehicle entertainment system…. Unlike a non-ECM mobile app, an ECM mobile application can be tailored to selectively operate in both automotive and non-automotive contexts…. Thus, the non-ECM mobile app of Farmer does not suggest or motivate determining whether an ECM mobile application executing on a mobile device associated with a user is operating in an automotive or a non-automotive context”
Examiner considers Applicant’s argument but finds it moot considering art reference Diao US 20250321709 A1, hereinafter Diao. Although Farmer teaches a mobile device integrating with a vehicle infotainment system to present tasks and workflows, assuming, arguendo, that Farmer does not specifically teach a mobile device determining and operating specifically in an automotive context, Diao in analogous art of vehicle infotainment mobile device integration systems teaches the claims as amended in combination with Farmer. Additional details and citations are provided in the 103 section below.
Accordingly, the previously pending rejections under 35 USC 102 are withdrawn in view of the amendments, and new grounds for rejection under 35 USC 103 are applied as necessitated by the amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-7 are directed to a method or process which is a statutory category.
Claims 8-14 are directed to a system or machine which is a statutory category.
Claims 15-21 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium or article of manufacture which is a statutory category.
Step 2A Prong One: The claims recite, describe, or set forth a judicial exception of an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Specifically, the claims recite, describe or set forth managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including: “determining one or more workflow tasks associated with a user”, “obtaining the one or more workflow tasks associated the user [..] operating in an automotive context”, and “presenting the one or more workflow tasks”. Managing and communicating workflow tasks fall within managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, as well as commercial or legal interactions, both under the larger abstract grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: Independent claims 1, 8, 15 recite the following additional elements: “enterprise content management (ECM) platform”, “ECM mobile application”, “mobile device”, “car infotainment system”, “cache of the mobile device”, “automotive media interface”, “processor”, and “non-transitory computer-readable medium”. The functions of these additional elements include examples such as “determining one or more workflow tasks”, “obtaining the one or more workflow tasks”, “operating in an automotive context”, connecting a mobile device “to a car infotainment system”, and “presenting the one or more workflow tasks”, and “storing the one or more workflow tasks associated with the user at a cache of the mobile device hosting the ECM mobile application”. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer performing functions of obtaining, storing, evaluating, presenting and communicating data, etc.) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Therefore, these functions can be viewed as not meaningfully different than a business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general-purpose computer as tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(i); nor meaningfully different than a process for monitoring audit log data that is executed on a general-purpose computer where the increased speed in the process comes solely from the capabilities of the general-purpose computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(iii)). The claims are directed to an abstract idea and the judicial exception does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: According to MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), considering whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claims fail to recite the technological details of how the actual technological solution to the actual technological problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover an entrepreneurial and thus abstract solution to an entrepreneurial problem with no technological details on how the technological result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-21 do not appear to provide any additional computer-based elements, let alone for such additional computer-based elements to integrate the abstract idea into practical application (Step 2A prong two) or providing significantly more (Step 2B).
Further, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-21 merely incorporate the additional elements recited in claims 1, 8, 15 along with further narrowing of the abstract idea of claims 1, 8, 15 along with their execution of the abstract idea. Specifically, the dependent claims narrow the “enterprise content management (ECM) platform”, “ECM mobile application”, “mobile device”, “car infotainment system”, “automotive media interface”, “processor”, and “non-transitory computer-readable medium” to capabilities such as receiving, determining, presenting, sending, and comprising various forms of data such as workflow tasks, commands, sets of actions, voice commands, approvals, content, etc. which, when evaluated per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) represent mere invocation of computers to perform existing processes. Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually and in combination fail to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) and for the same reasons they also fail to provide significantly more (Step 2B). Thus, claims 1-21 are reasoned to be patent ineligible.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART
Examiner Note: Some rejections will contain bracketed comments preceded by an “EN” that will denote an examiner note. This will be placed to further explain a rejection.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Farmer US 20160150020 A1, hereinafter Farmer. In view of
Diao US 20250321709 A1, hereinafter Diao. As per,
Regarding claims 1, 8, 15: Farmer teaches:
(claim 1) A method, comprising:
(claim 8) A system, comprising: a mobile device, comprising: a processor; a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions for:
(claim 15) A non-transitory computer-readable medium, storing instructions for:
[..]
(claim 1 only) determining one or more workflow tasks associated with a user, each of the workflow tasks associated with a workflow instance executing at an enterprise content management (ECM) platform (claim 1 only) (Farmer ¶ [0083]: Step 1002 receives input of a first modality type. The input is associated with a particular task and that a user wishes to accomplish. A particular task [EN: workflow] may have multiple different actions [EN: workflow tasks] that are to be performed to accomplish the task. ¶ [0056]: The platform 216 abstracts underlying functionality of hardware (e.g., servers) and software resources of the cloud and thus may act as a "cloud operating system”. ¶ [0057]: Thus, the cloud is included as a part of the strategy that pertains to software and hardware resources that are made available to the computing devices [EN: mobile phone and infotainment system] via the Internet or other networks.);
(claims 1, 15) storing / (claim 8) store the one or more workflow tasks associated with the user at a cache of the mobile device hosting the ECM mobile application, wherein the ECM mobile application is connected to a car infotainment system through an automotive media interface (Farmer ¶ [0053]: Applications 212 [EN: ECM mobile app] can comprise any suitable type of application that can reside on phone 104. [0040]: Various embodiments enable mobile devices, such as phones and the like, to integrate with an in-vehicle [EN: automotive] information / entertainment system to enable the user to control the in-vehicle information / entertainment system by way of their mobile phone. Users can leverage the functionality of their mobile phone to promote an in-vehicle experience which can be contextually tailored to [EN: associated with] the user's or the vehicle's context. ¶ [0041]: In at least some embodiments, a user can complete various tasks using multiple different modalities with smooth continuous modal handoffs between the modalities. ¶ [0083]: Step 1002 receives input of a first modality type. The input is associated with a particular task and that a user wishes to accomplish. A particular task [EN: workflow] may have multiple different actions [EN: workflow tasks] that are to be performed to accomplish the task. ¶ [0084]: Step 1006 receives the communication from the mobile device. The communication can include information and data to enable a user interface to be rendered on a visual console or display device of the entertainment system. ¶ [0166]: Computer-readable media 2814 provides data storage mechanisms to store the device data 2804, as well as various device applications 2818 and any other types of information and/or data related to operational aspects of device 2800. [Also see Figs. 10, 13-15A and related text]); and
[..] presenting the one or more workflow tasks through the car infotainment system using the automotive media interface (Farmer ¶ [0083]: Step 1002 receives input of a first modality type. The input is associated with a particular task and that a user wishes to accomplish. A particular task [EN: workflow] may have multiple different actions [EN: workflow tasks] that are to be performed to accomplish the task. ¶ [0087]: In this manner, a user can complete a single task or various tasks using multiple different modalities with smooth continuous modal handoffs between the modalities. The modalities can include Voice, touch, and controls such as a jog dial. Smooth modal handoffs permit the user to easily change their input modality depending on their context. So, for example, if a user initiates a task using a voice modality and finds themselves in heavy traffic, they may continue to perform the task using the Voice modality until they are less busy driving, e.g., at a stoplight or in light traffic. That is, the user is able to naturally move between these different input modalities in any suitable combination. For example, the user can smoothly move between (1) Voice and touch, (2) Voice and jog dial, (3) Voice, touch, and jog dial or any combination thereof).
Although Farmer teaches a mobile device integrating with a vehicle infotainment system to present tasks and workflows, Farmer does not specifically teach a mobile device determining and operating specifically in an automotive context.
However, Diao in analogous art of vehicle infotainment mobile device integration systems teaches or suggests:
(claims 1, 15) determining / (claim 8) determine whether an enterprise content management (ECM) mobile application executing on a mobile device associated with a user is operating in an automotive or a nonautomotive context (Diao ¶ [0247]: 901: A voice assistant of a mobile phone and a voice assistant of an in-vehicle infotainment determine that a connection is established between the mobile phone and the in-vehicle infotainment. ¶ [0249] 902: The voice assistant of the mobile phone detects an instruction of a user for waking up the voice assistant. ¶ [0253]: 905: The voice assistant atomic service module of the in-vehicle infotainment sends the wake-up state animation effect data to a voice assistant distributed collaboration UI module of the in-vehicle infotainment. ¶ [0168]: after the mobile phone is connected to the in-vehicle infotainment, the mobile phone automatically enters a driving mode [EN: automotive context]. After the voice assistant of the mobile phone is woken up, if the driving mode home screen of the mobile phone is not projected to a central control screen of the vehicle for display, the mobile phone directly applies for projecting the driving mode home screen of the mobile phone to a screen of the in-vehicle infotainment. [Also see Fig. 6, Fig. 9c-1, and related text]);
based on the operation of the ECM mobile application operating in the automotive context, presenting [..] through the car infotainment system using the automotive media interface (Diao ¶ [0168]: after the mobile phone is connected to the in-vehicle infotainment, the mobile phone automatically enters a driving mode [EN: automotive context]. After the voice assistant of the mobile phone is woken up, if the driving mode home screen of the mobile phone is not projected to a central control screen of the vehicle for display, the mobile phone directly applies for projecting the driving mode home screen of the mobile phone to a screen of the in-vehicle infotainment. [Also see Fig. 6, Fig. 9c-1, and related text]).
Diao and Farmer are found as analogous art of vehicle infotainment mobile device integration systems. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified Farmer’s vehicle-based mult-modal interface system and method to have included Diao’s teachings around a mobile device determining and operating specifically in an automotive context. The benefit of these additional features would have streamlined system updates and provided additional safety measures while driving (Diao ¶ [0003-0004]). The predictability of such modifications and/or variations, would have been corroborated by the broad level of skill of one of ordinary skills in the art as articulated by Farmer in view of Diao (see MPEP 2143 G).
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of vehicle infotainment mobile device integration systems. In such combination each element would have merely performed the same function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements, as evidenced by Farmer in view of Diao above, the to- be combined elements would have fit together like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding claims 2, 9, 16: Farmer / Diao teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 8, 15 above.
Farmer further teaches:
wherein the presentation of the one or more workflow tasks is an auditory presentation through the car infotainment system (Farmer ¶ [0089]: Tailoring Voice-Only Experiences. ¶ [0090]: In one or more embodiments, voice-only experiences can be tailored based on a user's context. The user's context can include, by way of example and not limitation, the user's drive scenario, cognitive load, and the like. Thus, the Voice experience can be dynamically adapted to accommodate the user's context in a manner that promotes driving safety. In addition, through Voice interaction the user can be prompted to utilize a particular response type. In this manner, the user is free to choose a response type that is best suited for their current context. [Also see Fig. 11 where user engages in audible dialog with the car infotainment system to complete tasks]).
Regarding claims 3, 10, 17: Farmer / Diao teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 8, 15 above.
Farmer further teaches:
receiving, at the ECM mobile application, a command associated with a task through the car infotainment system over the automotive media interface; determining the command is an indication to proceed with the workflow task (Farmer ¶ [0094]: …During the course of the conversation, the user learns that his brother has been trying to reach him. The user then engages the interaction module which responds “How can I help? The user tells the interaction module to “Read the latest message from my brother” [EN: command received]. The interaction module responds… [EN: determines to proceed]);
based on the command, determining a set of actions associated with the workflow task; and presenting the set of actions for the workflow task through the car infotainment system using the automotive media interface (Farmer mid-¶ [0094]: The interaction module responds “Hey Bro—lets have dinner tonight. Reply, callback, or are you done?” In this particular instance, the interaction module prompts the user as to whether the user wishes to use a particular response type, i.e., a text reply or a telephone call. Accordingly, the interaction module provides the user with an opportunity to select a communication medium that is most convenient given their particular driving context. Responsive to this prompt, the user states “Reply.” The interaction module that asks the user “What's your reply?” To which the user responds “Sure. Eight o'clock. I'll make reservations and let you know.”)
Regarding claims 4, 11, 18: Farmer / Diao teaches all the limitations of claims 3, 10, 17 above.
Farmer further teaches:
wherein the command is a voice command (Farmer ¶ [0052]: In the illustrated and described example, interaction module 210 includes functionality that enables voice recognition and audio Voice prompting of the user. The interaction module provides a personal assistant to assist the user in accomplishing tasks. So, for example, the interaction module 210 can recognize words that are spoken by the user Such as commands, queries, and the like. In addition, interaction module 210 includes functionality that enables actions to be taken with respect to items of communication that it receives. For example, a user may prompt their phone by asking “Please tell me if I have any meetings scheduled for today.”).
Regarding claims 5, 12, 19: Farmer / Diao teaches all the limitations of claims 3, 10, 17 above.
Farmer further teaches:
wherein at least one of the set of actions is a first action specific to the automotive context (Farmer ¶ [0108]: …For example, in at least some embodiments the mobile phone can ascertain a current driving context (e.g., current location, traffic conditions, weather conditions, road construction, and the like) based on communication with a remote source such as a web service. Responsive to ascertaining the current driving context, step 1404 provides proactive notification [EN: first action] associated with the current driving context. So, for example, based on a current location and traffic conditions, the phone device's personal assistant may recommend alternate routes. Alternately or additionally, based on current weather conditions, the personal assistant may issue weather-related warnings [EN: first action], e.g., “There is a tornado warning for your current location. Please consider finding a safe place, such as an overpass, to pull off the road.”).
Regarding claims 6, 13, 20: Farmer / Diao teaches all the limitations of claims 5, 12, 19 above.
Farmer further teaches:
wherein determining the set of actions comprises:
sending, based on the first command, a request from the ECM mobile application to the ECM platform at an interface of the ECM platform associated with the automotive context (Farmer ¶ [0075]: …As an example, consider FIG. 6 where the user has touch-selected the drive mode user instrumentality 300 to enter drive mode. Upon entering drive mode, the user is verbally prompted by the system, “How may I help you?” as shown in FIG. 7. ¶ [0076]: The driver responds “Play some music like Cold play.”); and
receiving the set of actions from the ECM platform in response to the request (Farmer ¶ [0076]: …The interaction module 210 receives this input and, in cooperation with a media playing application on phone 104, identifies several songs that were returned in an associated query. As an example, consider FIG. 8. ¶ [0077]: There, three different songs were located and are listed as shown),
wherein the set of actions is determined at the ECM platform based on the operation of the mobile application in the automotive context (Farmer ¶ [0075]: … Upon entering drive mode, the user is verbally prompted by the system, “How may I help you?”) and
a second action of the set of actions is associated with the workflow task at the ECM platform (Farmer ¶ [0078]: Subsequently, the system learns of an accident along the user's route. The system can do this by way of communication with a cloud service through cloud 204 (FIG. 2). When the system learns of the accident, the system can verbally prompt the user to ascertain whether the user would like to be rerouted. As an example, consider FIG.9. There, the system Verbally prompts the user and provides a user instrumentality that can be selected by the user. In this particular instance, the user has touch-selected the “Reroute” selection so that they can be rerouted around the accident. The user can then receive both audible directions as well as visible directions that are provided on a map displayed on the console's display device. In this manner, actions associated with one particular task [EN: first action] can be interrupted when a user's context indicates that performable actions associated with a different task [EN: second action] are available for performance).
Regarding claims 7, 14, 21: Farmer / Diao teaches all the limitations of claims 6, 13, 20 above.
Farmer further teaches:
wherein the second action associated with the workflow task at the ECM platform is an approval associated with content (See scenario with “hard” approval at Farmer ¶ [0076]: The driver responds “Play some music like Cold play.” The interaction module 210 receives this input and, in cooperation with a media playing application on phone 104, identifies several songs that were returned in an associated query. As an example, consider FIG. 8. ¶ [0077]: There, three different songs were located and are listed as shown. The user can then use the jog dial to move down through the selections and select [EN: approve] a highlighted song using the jog dial as described above, or make a touch-selection by touching the screen as shown in the illustration. The song will now play on the vehicle's sound system) and
the first action comprises a soft approval allowing the workflow instance to proceed to a subsequent task at the ECM platform without the user approving associated content (See scenario with “soft” approval, proceeding to play multiple songs without individual approval, at Farmer ¶ [0097]: As another example, consider FIG. 12 which illustrates a user driving their car and engaging in a dialogue with their interaction module or personal assistant. In this particular example, the user has activated their personal assistant or interaction module. The interaction module responds “How can I help? The user responds “Play some music like Cold play.” The interaction module responds “Okay. I'll play your Coldplay music on Xbox music.”).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
The following art is made of record and considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Barcia; Peter et al. US 20240155320 A1, Method of assisting a driver if a passenger encounters a health issue.
Clausse; Julien Marie et al. US 20180137555 A1, Contextual service systems and methods.
STEMMER; GEORG et al. US 20190147875 A1, Continuous topic detection and adaption in audio environments.
Cansino; Don E. et al. US 20170188077 A1, Method and system for providing audio signals to an in-vehicle infotainment system.
ELLIOTT; David et al. US 20240425075 A1, Autonomous machine management using behavior-based mission templates.
ILIFFE-MOON; Etienne et al. US 20240049309 A1, Appratus, method, and computer-redable medium for managing a queue of media resources received from mobile devices.
Breaux, III; Joseph E. et al. US 20230156570 A1, Context-aware mobile device management.
Luna García, Huizilopoztli, et al. “Front-end design guidelines for infotainment systems.” (2018). http://ricaxcan.uaz.edu.mx/jspui/handle/20.500.11845/1603
HUANG; Ching-Ling et al. US 20180219935 A1, Systems and methods for dynamic content delivery to mobile computing devices based on contextual presentation of workflow.
Tatourian; Igor et al. US 20160280224 A1, Technologies for assisting vehicles with changing road conditions.
Nelson et al. CN 106254307 A, Method and apparatus for the communication of vehicle to mobile phone.
Dusane; Yogesh Devidas US 20190049942 A1, Systems and methods for vehicle assistance.
Ricci; Christopher P. et al. US 20130167159 A1, Vehicle comprising multi-operating system.
TANDON; Nitya et al. US 20240071384 A1, Techniques for authorizing and prioritizing commands directed towards a virtual private assistant device from multiple sources.
Shanbhag et al. US 20180341533 A1, Method for generating workflow of task by e.g. internet of things device, involves selecting node among node of workflow in response to receiving input of user, and performing action by application installed in or connected to device.
Patil; Ajit Vilasrao et al. US 20180374126 A1, In-Vehicle Access.
ROSE; Jewgeni et al. US 20200404067 A1, Method for providing infotainment content.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 REED M. BOND whose telephone number is (571) 270-0585. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
/REED M. BOND/Examiner, Art Unit 3624 December 21, 2025
/PATRICIA H MUNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624