DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This action is in response to the following communication: Non-provisional Application No. 18/483,755 filed on 10/10/2023.
3. Claims 1-11, 11 and 12 are pending.
Claims 1 and 12 are independent claims.
Claim Objections
4. There are two claims numbered 11, please renumber the second claim numbered 11 to 12, and renumber claim 12 to 13.
Appropriate corrections is required.
Specification Objection
5. The disclosure is objected to under 37 CFR 1.71, as being so incomprehensible as to preclude a reasonable search of the prior art by the examiner. For example, the following items are not understood: Claims 5, 6, 7 and 8 recites “display the guidance notification of the software update process” and “output the guidance notification of the software update process”. Since “display the guidance notification of the software update process” is a way of “output the guidance notification of the software update process”, the claim language contradicts itself. For example, claim 5 and 6 recites “display the guidance notification of the software update process”, then “output the guidance notification of the software update process”, even though such “display the guidance notification of the software update process” is very much the same as such “output the guidance notification of the software update process”. The Applicant’s disclosure does not set forth any written description in regards to the distinction between such “display the guidance notification of the software update process” and such “output the guidance notification of the software update process”. The same issue is applicable to claims 7 and 8, which recites “output the guidance notification of the software update process for the vehicle… after displaying of the advance guidance notification”.
Appropriate correction is required. Applicant is required to submit an amendment which clarifies the disclosure so that the examiner may make a proper comparison of the invention with the prior art.
The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a). 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. Any amendment to the disclosure must be supported by the disclosure as originally filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
7. Claims 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
Claims 5, 6, 7 and 8 recites “display the guidance notification of the software update process” and “output the guidance notification of the software update process”. Since “display the guidance notification of the software update process” is a means of “output the guidance notification of the software update process”, the claim language contradicts itself. For example, claim 5 and 6 recites “display the guidance notification of the software update process”, then “output the guidance notification of the software update process”, even though such “display the guidance notification of the software update process” is very much the same as such “output the guidance notification of the software update process”. The Applicant’s disclosure does not set forth any written description in regards to the distinction between such “display the guidance notification of the software update process” and such “output the guidance notification of the software update process”. The same issue is applicable to claims 7 and 8, which recites “output the guidance notification of the software update process for the vehicle… after displaying of the advance guidance notification”.
Claims 9-11 are also rejected for being dependent on rejected base claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claims 1, 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McFarland et al., U.S. Patent No. 11,461087 (hereinafter McFarland) in view of Harkness, US 2009/0181349 in view of Marti et al., US 2020/0031365 (hereinafter Marti).
In regards to claim 1, McFarland teaches:
A vehicle software update apparatus to be applied to a vehicle, the vehicle software update apparatus comprising: an update control device configured to perform a process of updating software of the vehicle as a software update process; and an input and output control device configured to control a display device and a sound output device provided in the vehicle (column 9, lines 60-67), see “the completion notification 132 may include an SMS message, an email, an image, or a video that informs the user of the user device 124 that the software update has been completed. In another embodiment, the transport 104 may display a notification of completion of the software update on a display associated with the transport 104 and/or provide an audio notification of completion of the software update”.
display the guidance notification of the software update process for the vehicle on the display device via the input and output control device (column 9, lines 60-67), see “the completion notification 132 may include an SMS message, an email, an image, or a video that informs the user of the user device 124 that the software update has been completed. In another embodiment, the transport 104 may display a notification of completion of the software update on a display associated with the transport 104 and/or provide an audio notification of completion of the software update”.
McFarland doesn’t explicitly teach:
the update control device is configured to, before performing the process of updating the software of the vehicle, perform a visual ability determination process of determining a visual ability of an occupant on board the vehicle to view guidance display of the software update process for the vehicle.
However, Harkness teaches such use: (p. 3, [0040]), see "the invention also provides a computerized assessment system utilizing a) at least one prerecorded audio/visual training session capable of diagnosing the visual cognition, visual memory and visual recall abilities of a motor vehicle driver, where the training session comprises interactive driving simulations presented through four active visual zones; b) computerized means for digitally assessing driver actions in response to simulated driving situations presented by the interactive driving simulations; c) a database that records the driver actions; and d) a computer program capable of developing a diagnostic assessment of the visual cognition, visual memory and visual recall abilities of the driver".
display a guidance notification of the software update process for the vehicle on the display device via the input and output control device, when the update control device determines that the occupant has the ability to view the guidance display in the visual ability determination process.
However, Harkness teaches such use: (p. 3, [0040]), see "the invention also provides a computerized assessment system utilizing a) at least one prerecorded audio/visual training session capable of diagnosing the visual cognition, visual memory and visual recall abilities of a motor vehicle driver, where the training session comprises interactive driving simulations presented through four active visual zones; b) computerized means for digitally assessing driver actions in response to simulated driving situations presented by the interactive driving simulations; c) a database that records the driver actions; and d) a computer program capable of developing a diagnostic assessment of the visual cognition, visual memory and visual recall abilities of the driver".
McFarland and Harkness are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, software updates.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teaching of McFarland and Harkness before him or her, to modify the system of McFarland to include the teachings of Harkness, as a system for training a driver, and accordingly it would enhance the system of McFarland, which is focused on transport data updates, because that would provide McFarland with the ability to quickly assess the decline in certain motor skill and cognitive abilities as suggested by Harkness (p. 3, [0040]), p. 6, [0153]).
McFarland and Harkness, in particular McFarland doesn’t explicitly teach:
output an audio guidance notification of the software update process for the vehicle from the sound output device via the input and output control device, when the update control device determines that the occupant does not have the ability to view the guidance display in the visual ability determination process.
However, Marti teaches such use: (p. 4, [0037]), see “then, scheduling engine 430 could determine that although driver 150 is visually engaged with driving, the… message can be transcoded into speech and delivered to driver 150 audibly without causing driver 150 any visual distractions. FIGS. 5A-6C set forth more detailed examples of how scheduling engine 430 schedules notifications for delivery).
McFarland, Harkness and Marti are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, software updates.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teaching of McFarland, Harkness and Marti before him or her, to modify the system of McFarland and Harkness, in particular McFarland to include the teachings of Marti, as a system for coordinating vehicle delivery of notifications, and accordingly it would enhance the system of McFarland, which is focused on transport data updates, because that would provide McFarland with the ability to reduce distracting notifications, as suggested by Marti (p. 4, [0037], p. 8, [0082]).
In regards to claim 3, McFarland and Harkness, in particular McFarland doesn’t explicitly teach:
the update control device is configured to, in the visual ability determination process, determine the visual ability of the occupant to view the guidance display, based on one or both of an age of the occupant and a behavior exhibited when the occupant views the display device.
However, Marti teaches such use: (p. 4, [0037]), see “then, scheduling engine 430 could determine that although driver 150 is visually engaged with driving, the text message can be transcoded into speech and delivered to driver 150 audibly without causing driver 150 any visual distractions. FIGS. 5A-6C set forth more detailed examples of how scheduling engine 430 schedules notifications for delivery).
McFarland, Harkness and Marti are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, software updates.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teaching of McFarland, Harkness and Marti before him or her, to modify the system of McFarland and Harkness, in particular McFarland to include the teachings of Marti, as a system for coordinating vehicle delivery of notifications, and accordingly it would enhance the system of McFarland, which is focused on transport data updates, because that would provide McFarland with the ability to reduce distracting notifications, as suggested by Marti (p. 4, [0037], p. 8, [0082]).
In regards to claim 12, McFarland teaches:
A vehicle software update apparatus to be applied to a vehicle, the vehicle software update apparatus comprising: first circuitry configured to perform a process of updating software of the vehicle as a software update process; and second circuitry configured to control a display device and a sound output device provided in the vehicle (column 9, lines 60-67), see “the completion notification 132 may include an SMS message, an email, an image, or a video that informs the user of the user device 124 that the software update has been completed. In another embodiment, the transport 104 may display a notification of completion of the software update on a display associated with the transport 104 and/or provide an audio notification of completion of the software update”.
display the guidance notification of the software update process for the vehicle on the display device via the input and output control device (column 9, lines 60-67), see “the completion notification 132 may include an SMS message, an email, an image, or a video that informs the user of the user device 124 that the software update has been completed. In another embodiment, the transport 104 may display a notification of completion of the software update on a display associated with the transport 104 and/or provide an audio notification of completion of the software update”.
McFarland doesn’t explicitly teach:
the first circuitry is configured to, before performing the process of updating the software of the vehicle, perform a visual ability determination process of determining a visual ability of an occupant on board the vehicle to view guidance display of the software update process for the vehicle.
However, Harkness teaches such use: (p. 3, [0040]), see "the invention also provides a computerized assessment system utilizing a) at least one prerecorded audio/visual training session capable of diagnosing the visual cognition, visual memory and visual recall abilities of a motor vehicle driver, where the training session comprises interactive driving simulations presented through four active visual zones; b) computerized means for digitally assessing driver actions in response to simulated driving situations presented by the interactive driving simulations; c) a database that records the driver actions; and d) a computer program capable of developing a diagnostic assessment of the visual cognition, visual memory and visual recall abilities of the driver".
display a guidance notification of the software update process for the vehicle on the display device via the second circuitry, when the first circuitry determines that the occupant has the ability to view the guidance display in the visual ability determination process.
However, Harkness teaches such use: (p. 3, [0040]), see "the invention also provides a computerized assessment system utilizing a) at least one prerecorded audio/visual training session capable of diagnosing the visual cognition, visual memory and visual recall abilities of a motor vehicle driver, where the training session comprises interactive driving simulations presented through four active visual zones; b) computerized means for digitally assessing driver actions in response to simulated driving situations presented by the interactive driving simulations; c) a database that records the driver actions; and d) a computer program capable of developing a diagnostic assessment of the visual cognition, visual memory and visual recall abilities of the driver".
McFarland and Harkness are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, software updates.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teaching of McFarland and Harkness before him or her, to modify the system of McFarland to include the teachings of Harkness, as a system for training a driver, and accordingly it would enhance the system of McFarland, which is focused on transport data updates, because that would provide McFarland with the ability to quickly assess the decline in certain motor skill and cognitive abilities as suggested by Harkness (p. 3, [0040]), p. 6, [0153]).
McFarland and Harkness, in particular McFarland doesn’t explicitly teach:
output an audio guidance notification of the software update process for the vehicle from the sound output device via the second circuitry, when the first circuitry determines that the occupant does not have the ability to view the guidance display in the visual ability determination process.
However, Marti teaches such use: (p. 4, [0037]), see “then, scheduling engine 430 could determine that although driver 150 is visually engaged with driving, the… message can be transcoded into speech and delivered to driver 150 audibly without causing driver 150 any visual distractions. FIGS. 5A-6C set forth more detailed examples of how scheduling engine 430 schedules notifications for delivery).
McFarland, Harkness and Marti are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, software updates.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teaching of McFarland, Harkness and Marti before him or her, to modify the system of McFarland and Harkness, in particular McFarland to include the teachings of Marti, as a system for coordinating vehicle delivery of notifications, and accordingly it would enhance the system of McFarland, which is focused on transport data updates, because that would provide McFarland with the ability to reduce distracting notifications, as suggested by Marti (p. 4, [0037], p. 8, [0082]).
10. Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McFarland et al., U.S. Patent No. 11,461087 (hereinafter McFarland) in view of Harkness, US 2009/0181349 in view of Marti et al., US 2020/0031365 (hereinafter Marti).
In regards to claim 1, the rejections above are incorporated respectively.
In regards to claim 2, McFarland teaches:
display a second guidance notification on the display device, when the update control device determines that the occupant does not have the ability to view the guidance display in the visual ability determination process (column 9, lines 60-67), see “the completion notification 132 may include an SMS message, an email, an image, or a video that informs the user of the user device 124 that the software update has been completed. In another embodiment, the transport 104 may display a notification of completion of the software update on a display associated with the transport 104 and/or provide an audio notification of completion of the software update”.
McFarland doesn’t explicitly teach:
the update control device is configured to display a first guidance notification on the display device, when the update control device determines that the occupant has the ability to view the guidance display in the visual ability determination process.
However, Harkness teaches such use: (p. 3, [0040]), see "the invention also provides a computerized assessment system utilizing a) at least one prerecorded audio/visual training session capable of diagnosing the visual cognition, visual memory and visual recall abilities of a motor vehicle driver, where the training session comprises interactive driving simulations presented through four active visual zones; b) computerized means for digitally assessing driver actions in response to simulated driving situations presented by the interactive driving simulations; c) a database that records the driver actions; and d) a computer program capable of developing a diagnostic assessment of the visual cognition, visual memory and visual recall abilities of the driver".
McFarland and Harkness are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, software updates.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teaching of McFarland and Harkness before him or her, to modify the system of McFarland to include the teachings of Harkness, as a system for training a driver, and accordingly it would enhance the system of McFarland, which is focused on transport data updates, because that would provide McFarland with the ability to quickly assess the decline in certain motor skill and cognitive abilities as suggested by Harkness (p. 3, [0040]), p. 6, [0153]).
McFarland, Harkness and Marti, in particular McFarland doesn’t explicitly teach:
the second guidance notification is at least increased in font size as compared with the first guidance notification
However, Fan teaches such use: (p. 6, [0061]), see “in one embodiment of the computer program product, in the second display mode, the information items are displayed with a bigger font size than that in the first display mode”.
McFarland, Harkness, Marti and Fan are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, software updates.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teaching of McFarland, Harkness, Marti and Fan before him or her, to modify the system of McFarland, Harkness and Marti, in particular McFarland to include the teachings of Fan, as a system for browsing displayed content, and accordingly it would enhance the system of McFarland, which is focused on transport data updates, because that would provide McFarland with the ability to only display valid information, as suggested by Fan (p. 6, [0061], p. 7, [0075]).
In regards to claim 4, McFarland and Harkness, in particular McFarland doesn’t explicitly teach:
the update control device is configured to, in the visual ability determination process, determine the visual ability of the occupant to view the guidance display, based on one or both of an age of the occupant and a behavior exhibited when the occupant views the display device.
However, Marti teaches such use: (p. 4, [0037]), see “then, scheduling engine 430 could determine that although driver 150 is visually engaged with driving, the text message can be transcoded into speech and delivered to driver 150 audibly without causing driver 150 any visual distractions. FIGS. 5A-6C set forth more detailed examples of how scheduling engine 430 schedules notifications for delivery).
McFarland, Harkness and Marti are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, software updates.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teaching of McFarland, Harkness and Marti before him or her, to modify the system of McFarland and Harkness, in particular McFarland to include the teachings of Marti, as a system for coordinating vehicle delivery of notifications, and accordingly it would enhance the system of McFarland, which is focused on transport data updates, because that would provide McFarland with the ability to reduce distracting notifications, as suggested by Marti (p. 4, [0037], p. 8, [0082]).
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 5-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitation of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As per claims 5 and 6, prior art of record does not each and/or fairly suggest that “the update control device is configured to perform, before the visual ability determination process, a setting determination process of acquiring sound output setting data regarding the occupant and acquirable in the vehicle, and determining whether an audio guidance notification is to be outputted, display the guidance notification of the software update process for the vehicle on the display device via the input and output control device, and output the audio guidance notification of the software update process for the vehicle from the sound output device via the input and output control device, regardless of the visual ability determination process, when the update control device determines that the audio guidance notification is to be outputted in the setting determination process, and output the guidance notification of the software update process for the vehicle, based on determination in the visual ability determination process, when the update control device determines that the audio guidance notification is not to be outputted in the setting determination process”. The art of record does not expressly disclose such features.
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Application Publications
Shenhar 20160116977 teaches systems and methods for a vehicle including an eye tracking device. The systems and methods use input from the eye tracking device. The systems and methods are configured to communicate with a driver based on input from the eye tracking device and registering a gaze associated with the vehicle system if gaze location data is found at a location associated with the vehicle system, then generating auxiliary information based on the auxiliary parameter; and communicating the auxiliary information via an interface.
Choi 20160147525 teaches in general, embodiments of the invention relates to a method for a firmware update of a vehicle, wherein the system includes a telematics terminal provided in a vehicle; a mobile communication server configured to provide a firmware of the telematics terminal; and a telematics server configured to manage the firmware of the telematics terminal, and provide update information of the firmware to a mobile terminal, when the update information of the firmware is received from the mobile communication server. The mobile terminal is configured to check whether download is progressed based on the update information of the firmware provided from the telematics server and output may include a display which displays an operation state and results of the mobile terminal 100, and may include a speaker to guide the operation state and results in a voice.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Evral Bodden whose telephone number is 571-272-3455. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 9am to 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Cha Do, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3721. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automatedinterview-request-air-form.
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EVRAL E BODDEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights