DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed 2/22/2024.
Claims 1-7 have been submitted for examination.
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 .
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed to “an information processing device having a communication interface…..and a user interface…” which may be interpreted as being purely software per se. Applicant describes the communication interface in paragraph [0013] of the specification, but gives no definitive description of what said interface may entail. Therefore, one of ordinary skill may interpret the interface to be that of a software program running communication protocols. Furthermore, while claim 1 presents several component “units”, applicant never defines such units as requiring a hardware component. Such as paragraph [0012], which lists several “examples” of “storage units”, but fails to state that such a unit must be hardware. Software per se fails to meet the 101 requirement that the invention be a “process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the first mode" in the second and fourth lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the second mode" in the second line and “the first mode” in the fourth line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
The examiner believes that the intended dependence of claim 3 (currently claim 1) should be that of claim 2 as this would solve the antecedent basis issue and shall be interpreted as such for purposes of examination and furthering prosecution.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takatsuji (US 2015/0017969), in view of Ricci (US 2013/0205412).
As per claim 1, Takatsuji teaches the following:
an information processing device having a communication interface connected to an external terminal and a user interface that receives operation requests from a user. As Takatsuji teaches in paragraph [0029], and corresponding Fig. 1, in-vehicle communication apparatus 11 (communication interface) is connected to mobile communication terminal 12 (external terminal). Takatsuji shows user interfaces in Fig. 9(a), comprising:
a first operation request receiving unit that receives an operation request from the user via the user interface. As Takatsuji teaches in paragraph [0037], and corresponding Fig. 2, the in-vehicle apparatus 11 may comprise operational input unit 26 which includes a touch panel (requests from UI);
a second operation request receiving unit that receives an operation request from the external terminal via the communication interface. As Takatsuji teaches in paragraph [0048], and corresponding Fig. 2, mobile communication terminal 12 may include operational input unit 46;
a storage unit that stores restriction information for applying an operation restriction to a function performed by the information processing device to the first operation request received by the first operation request receiving unit or the second operation request received by the second operation request receiving unit. Takatsuji teaches in paragraph [0041] that in-vehicle apparatus 11 may comprise forbidding unit 32 which may forbid operational input of the apparatus. As Takatsuji teaches in paragraph [0050], a terminal-side forbidding unit may forbid input to the terminal 12;
an external terminal identifying unit that identifies the external terminal from which the second operation request is made based on the second operation request. Takatsuji teaches in paragraph [0065] that in-vehicle apparatus 11 monitors whether a mobile terminal is connected. Takatsuji teaches in paragraph [0105] that an identification number of the terminal is compared with registered numbers for connection (identify external terminal based on request); and
a restriction executing unit that executes the operation restriction based on the restriction information. As Takatsuji teaches in paragraph [0060], and corresponding Fig. 3, in a state where the vehicle is not running (restriction information) all content on all devices are provided. Takatsuji then teaches in paragraph [0061], and corresponding Fig. 4, when the vehicle starts running, the in-vehicle apparatus is forbidden to provide the input interface and/or the output interface of content B. As Takatsuji teaches in paragraph [0062], and corresponding Fig. 5, forbidden content may be provided on a sub terminal 13. This is interpreted as encompassing Applicant’s “based on the identification result” as the system identifies main terminal 12 and sub terminal 13 for content sharing.
However, Takatsuji does not explicitly teach of executing operation restriction when the first request is received. In a similar field of endeavor, Ricci teaches of restricting functions of an external communication device (see abstract). Ricci further teaches in paragraphs [0224] and [0225], and corresponding Fig. 9, in response to receiving a request 900, the system authenticates the requestor and determines restrictions/privileges for said requestor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the restriction determination of Takatsuji with the determination in response to request of Ricci. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because such on-demand determination benefits users when a wide variety of remote terminal types may seek access to a vehicle’s functions, such as Ricci describes in paragraph [0220] being that of law enforcement, insurance company, intelligent sign, etc.
Regarding claim 2, modified Takatsuji teaches the device of claim 1 as described above. Takatsuji further teaches the following:
a screen information generating unit that generates screen information for the screen displayed on the external terminal. As Takatsuji teaches in paragraphs [0081] and [0082], and corresponding Fig. 8, a coop application sends state info to a remote terminal in step C2. Takatsuji further shows in Figs. 11(a)-(c) that the state information is utilized to synchronize displayed information, thus encompassing “screen information”; and
a screen information transmitting unit that transmits the screen information to the external terminal. As Takatsuji teaches in paragraphs [0081] and [0082], the state of the coop application is transmitted between devices,
wherein
the user interface includes a display unit, (see Fig. 2, 25, 45, and 65),
a first mode is to generate screen information of the same screen as that displayed on the display unit, for the external terminal. As Takatsuji teaches in paragraphs [0065] and [0066], when a mobile terminal is in communication with an in-vehicle apparatus AND the coop application is running, the displays are synchronized (step A3:YES), and
a second mode is to generate screen information of a screen different from the screen displayed on the display unit, for the external terminal. As Takatsuji teaches in paragraph [0065], if the remote terminal is in communication with the in-vehicle apparatus and the coop application is NOT running, the displays operate independently (see Fig. 9(b)),
the second restriction information when the second operation request is received is the second restriction information for the first mode and the second restriction information for the second mode. As Takatsuji shows in the operational flow of Fig. 6, restriction is only performed after a step of the coop application running (steps A3 and A7). Therefore, the “restriction information” is interpreted as encompassing restricting access during coop mode and not restricting access during a non-coop mode,
when the second operation request is received, the restriction executing unit performs mode determination to determine whether the screen information generating unit is operating in the first mode or the second mode, and based on the result of the mode determination, the system selects either the second restriction information for the first mode or the second restriction information for the second mode, and executes the operation restriction based on the selected second restriction information. As Takatsuji shows in the operational flow of Fig. 6, restrictions are only applied upon a coop application being in a running state. Therefore, a determination is made as to whether the coop mode is running (step A3) and restrictions applied accordingly (step A7).
Regarding claim 3, modified Takatsuji teaches the device of claim 1 as described above. Takatsuji further teaches the following:
a vehicle information acquiring unit that acquires vehicle information including vehicle speed information. As Takatsuji teaches in paragraph [0040], travel determination unit 31 determines if the vehicle is running based upon a vehicle speed sensor,
wherein the restriction information is first restriction information for applying an operation restriction to the first operation request or second operation request when the vehicle is determined to be in motion based on the vehicle information, and second restriction information for applying an operation restriction to an operation request received by the second operation request receiving unit. As Takatsuji shows in Fig. 6, step A6, the method restricts utilization if the vehicle is running (first restriction information) and does not restrict utilization if the vehicle is not running (second restriction information).
Regarding claim 4, modified Takatsuji teaches the device of claim 3 as described above. Takatsuji further teaches the following:
when the screen information generating unit is operating in the first mode, the restriction executing unit executes the operation restriction without the vehicle information based on the second restriction information for the first mode. As Takatsuji teaches in paragraph [0065], if the remote terminal is in communication with the in-vehicle apparatus and the coop application is NOT running, the displays operate independently (see Fig. 9(b)). As such, the restriction of step A7 is not utilized, where the absence of the restriction is interpreted as being “restriction information”, i.e., do not restrict input.
Regarding claim 5, modified Takatsuji teaches the device of claim 3 as described above. Takatsuji further teaches the following:
wherein when the screen information generating unit is operating in the second mode, the restriction executing unit executes the operation restriction based on the vehicle information and the second restriction information for the first mode. As Takatsuji teaches in paragraphs [0065] and [0066], when a mobile terminal is in communication with an in-vehicle apparatus AND the coop application is running, the displays are synchronized (step A3:YES). As such, when the vehicle is running and the coop app is activated, restriction information is applied in step A7.
Regarding claim 6, modified Takatsuji teaches the device of claim 3 as described above. Takatsuji further teaches the following:
wherein identification by the external terminal identifying unit includes determining whether the external terminal that is the request source of the second operation request is an external terminal in the driver's seat, and the restriction executing unit executes the operation restriction based on the first restriction information and the second restriction information if the external terminal is an external terminal in the driver's seat of the vehicle, and executes the operation restriction based on the second restriction information when the external terminal is an external terminal in a seat other than the driver's seat of the vehicle. As Takatsuji teaches in paragraph [0012], a user that is the driver is forbidden to utilize content while the vehicle is running. Takatsuji teaches in paragraph [0029], the first device connected to the in-vehicle communication system is identified as the vehicle driver and the driver’s terminal is identified as the “main mobile communication terminal”. As Takatsuji shows in paragraph [0091], and corresponding Figs. 11(a)-(c), the main mobile terminal 12, identified as the drivers terminal, is restricted from input, acting as a “go-between” for in-vehicle apparatus 11 and remote terminal 13. The examiner would like to further note paragraph [0004], where Takatsuji identifies an issue with prior art in restricting access for non-driver terminals.
As per claim 7, Takatsuji teaches the following:
a non-transient storage medium having computer readable instruction stored thereon, when executed by a processor of an information processing device, (see Fig. 2, #23 and 21), configures the processor to perform:
a receiving step of receiving a first operation request as an operation request via a user interface from a user or a second operation request as an operation request from an external terminal via a communication interface. As Takatsuji teaches in paragraph [0048], and corresponding Fig. 2, mobile communication terminal 12 may include operational input unit 46,
an identifying step of identifying the external terminal that is a request source of the second operation request based on the second operation request, when the received operation request is the second operation request. Takatsuji teaches in paragraph [0065] that in-vehicle apparatus 11 monitors whether a mobile terminal is connected. Takatsuji teaches in paragraph [0105] that an identification number of the terminal is compared with registered numbers for connection (identify external terminal based on request); and
an executing step of an operation restriction based on the restriction information when the first operation request is received, or t. As Takatsuji teaches in paragraph [0060], and corresponding Fig. 3, in a state where the vehicle is not running (restriction information) all content on all devices are provided. Takatsuji then teaches in paragraph [0061], and corresponding Fig. 4, when the vehicle starts running, the in-vehicle apparatus is forbidden to provide the input interface and/or the output interface of content B. As Takatsuji teaches in paragraph [0062], and corresponding Fig. 5, forbidden content may be provided on a sub terminal 13. This is interpreted as encompassing Applicant’s “based on the identification result” as the system identifies main terminal 12 and sub terminal 13 for content sharing.
However, Takatsuji does not explicitly teach of executing operation restriction when the first request is received. In a similar field of endeavor, Ricci teaches of restricting functions of an external communication device (see abstract). Ricci further teaches in paragraphs [0224] and [0225], and corresponding Fig. 9, in response to receiving a request 900, the system authenticates the requestor and determines restrictions/privileges for said requestor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the restriction determination of Takatsuji with the determination in response to request of Ricci. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because such on-demand determination benefits users when a wide variety of remote terminal types may seek access to a vehicle’s functions, such as Ricci describes in paragraph [0220] being that of law enforcement, insurance company, intelligent sign, etc.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vander Veen et al. (US 2011/0159842), see abstract.
Abramson et al. (US 2012/0071151), see paragraph [0156].
*Nara et al. (US 2013/0298052), see abstract.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY A DISTEFANO whose telephone number is (571)270-1644. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9 am - 5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Bashore can be reached at 5712424088. 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.
/GREGORY A. DISTEFANO/
Examiner
Art Unit 2174
/WILLIAM L BASHORE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2174