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 .
Response to Amendment and Arguments
The amendment filed 3/19/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 7-11, 14-18 remain pending in the application.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 8, 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-10, 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200186620A1 Golgiri et al ("Golgiri") in view of US20160313733A1 Bellem et al ("Bellem") and US20020161990A1 (“Zhang”).
As per claims 1, 8, and 15, Golgiri teaches the limitations of the method, apparatus, and computer readable medium:
An apparatus comprising: a network interface configured to receive a signal from a vehicle along a route, wherein the vehicle comprises one or more inactive features installed therein which are disabled; and a processor configured to determine that the vehicle cannot perform a task based on the signal, identify that the inactive feature can assist the vehicle in performing the task, and activate the inactive feature using an activation signal. (Golgiri at least the abstract: “operating condition of the vehicle that can be assisted by a vehicle feature not presently provided by the vehicle is identified…notification is communicated to a user…availability of the vehicle feature…upgraded to provide the vehicle feature…user interface…request”, [0011]: “network”, [0016], [0028]: “identify conditions around the vehicle…objects proximate the vehicle…receive and display…assist a driver when navigating tight spaces”, [0041]: “standard adaptive cruise control may be limited to only controlling the vehicle above a given speed…present a good opportunity to suggest adaptive cruise control with stop and go to a driver”, [0043]: “identifying occurrence of one of the…conditions…vehicle may be upgraded…trial period…software update”)
Although Golgiri teaches displaying a notification regarding an inactive feature (Golgiri at least [0003]), Golgiri does not explicitly disclose:
before receiving a signal from a vehicle, displaying a notification that identifies an inactive feature installed in the vehicle via a user interface;
Bellem teaches the aforementioned limitation (Bellem at least [0008]: “the notice is emitted at a predetermined point in time before the automatic intervention into longitudinal and/or transverse dynamics, such that the driver of the vehicle is informed in good time that an impending traffic situation, for example imminent cornering, has been detected by corresponding components of the driver assistance system.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Golgiri with the aforementioned limitations taught by Bellem with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to increase the acceptance and usage of ADAS to increase comfort and security of driving operations (Bellem [0007]).
Golgiri does not explicitly disclose:
activate the inactive feature using an activation signal, without downloading or installing a software update that upgrades the feature to the vehicle.
Zhang teaches the aforementioned limitations (Zhang at least the abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Golgiri with the aforementioned limitations taught by Zhang with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to prevent unnecessary delay and device down time (Zhang [0003]).
As per claims 2, 9, 16, Golgiri in combination with the other reference teaches the inventions as described above. Golgiri teaches the limitations of the method, apparatus, and computer readable medium:
before activating the inactive feature, receive authorization to activate the inactive feature via the user interface. (Golgiri at least [0003]: “notification to a user interface…upgrade…submitting a request to perform the upgrade”)
As per claims 3, 10, 17, Golgiri in combination with the other reference teaches the inventions as described above. Golgiri teaches the limitations of the method, apparatus, and computer readable medium:
when the processor determines that the vehicle cannot perform the task determine that the vehicle cannot maneuver, and when then processor activates an inactive feature activate an inactive driving mode of the vehicle. (Golgiri at least [0040-0041]) *Examiner’s note: here Golgiri teaches the vehicle detecting a slowing vehicle ahead and thus it cannot continue operating in standard ACC mode and suggests ACC stop and go mode to the driver.
Claim(s) 4, 7, 11, 14, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golgiri, Bellem, and Roberts in view of US20220334818A1 Macfarland ("Macfarland").
Regarding claims 4, 11, 18, Golgiri in combination with the other reference teaches the inventions as described above. Although Golgiri teaches suggesting upgrades based on sensor data of how the vehicle is operated by the driver (Golgiri at least 0055]), Golgiri does not disclose:
execute a machine learning model using the received sensor data to predict an upcoming task where the vehicle will not be able to maneuver, and identify an inactive feature based on the predicted upcoming task.
However, Macfarlane teaches the aforementioned limitation (Macfarlane at least [0059]: “upcoming rainstorm”, [0147-0148]: “machine learning training…predictions…sends one or more instructions to the transport based on the predictions from the learning model”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Golgiri with the aforementioned limitations taught by Macfarlane with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to improve functionality of a vehicle (Macfarlane [0063]).
Regarding claims 7, 14, Golgiri in combination with the other reference teaches the inventions as described above. Golgiri does not disclose:
the processor is configured to verify that an occupant of the vehicle has previously authorized activation of the inactive feature based on a user profile.
However, Macfarlane teaches the aforementioned limitation (Macfarlane at least [0047]: "signal…identification of a vehicle that has a currently active profile linked to an account that is authorized to accept a service").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Golgiri with the aforementioned limitations taught by Macfarlane with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to improve functionality of a vehicle (Macfarlane [0063]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US20170054521A1 (“DeLuca”) and US6301666B1 (“Rive”)
DeLuca teaches activation of an XM radio subscription. Toyota vehicles started having OEM XM radio installed in the year 2020.
Rive (abstract) teaches: “a preconfigured computer system … configured to restrict access to the first application by a user, so as to inhibit ready and convenient execution of the first application by the user. However, access to the second application is not restricted, so that this second application can be executed or invoked in a usual and convenient manner… Responsive to a subsequent request from the user, the restrictions on the access to the first application are removed so as not to inhibit the execution of the first application by the user”.
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 OLIVER TAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4728. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/O.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights