DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is responsive to the following communication: Amended Claims and Remarks, filed on September 16, 2025. This action is made final.
2. Claims 1-20 are pending in the case; Claims 1, 7, and 13 are independent claims; Claims 1, 3, and 6-12 are amended.
Response to Arguments
3. In the Non-Final Rejection mailed on July 8, 2025, Claims 7-12 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, but Amended Claims filed on September 16, 2025 have rendered this rejection moot.
4. Applicant’s arguments with respect to § 103 rejections, see Remarks filed on September 16, 2025 (hereinafter Remarks) (see pgs. 8-11), in view of Claim Amendments filed therewith, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Applicant argues that Kobel does not disclose or suggest “determining status information when it is determined that a vehicle is in a suitable location for providing the status information on an HMI” (see Remarks, pg. 9). Applicant dismisses paragraph 0042 of Kobel as merely suggesting that “diagnostic information is permitted to be displayed when a vehicle is at a service depot” and that Kobel “require[s] a designated signal to be received to actually display diagnostic information” (see Remarks, pg. 10), but Kobel explicitly suggests that the “diagnostic actuation signal” can be generated based on operation data when the vehicle’s location corresponds to a particular location (i.e., a service depot or other service location), which does not require a designated signal from a dispatch center or a user control. In addition, further review of Kobel reveals that Kobel explicitly states that the diagnostic information is generated based on received vehicle operation information, such as vehicle’s location (see ¶¶ 0042, 0051).
Second, Applicant argues that Kobel does not disclose or suggest “setting an HMI to a first mode of a plurality of modes” (see Remarks, pg. 10), but Examiner respectfully disagrees with this conclusion because Kobel at least suggests two modes as recited in the claims – one mode where the diagnostic information is permitted to be displayed, and another mode where it is not (see ¶¶ 0042, 0043, 0047). In addition, Kobel makes it clear that the HMI (on display 20) can display general information, such as upcoming station information, as well as diagnostic information (see Fig. 4, ¶¶ 0032, 0042), which would be understood as different modes, and Kobel explicitly recognizes that certain diagnostic information should only be seen by authorized personnel (or in particular locations) (see ¶¶ 0042, 0049).
Finally, Applicant argues that Claim 13 does not recite the same limitations as Claim 1 and that the corresponding rejection is improper (see Remarks, pg. 11). While Examiner agrees that Claims 1 and 13 are not identical, the claims were similar enough to justify one rejection. With respect to “a diagnostics system, the diagnostics system configured to obtain status information associated with the vehicle from at least the set of sensors” recited in Claim 13, it is noted that Claim 1 recites “a diagnostic system” and “using the diagnostic system … for providing the status information associated with the vehicle on the HMI,” and such “diagnostic system” was interpreted to provide status information by using sensors (see also Kobel, ¶ 0042, describing diagnostic information to include information that is obtained by sensors). With respect to “the HMI being arranged to provide a user interface which allows interactions with the vehicle when set in a second mode by the mode module” recited in Claim 13, it is noted that Claim 1 previously recited “a mode module, and the HMI, the HMI being arranged to provide a user interface which allows interactions with the vehicle” which is different from the first mode recited in the claim (thus, Claim 1 requires the same two modes as Claim 13 except that the second mode is not explicitly labeled as the “second mode” in Claim 1). Accordingly, Claim 13 remains rejected under the same rationale as Claims 1 and 7, and this action is made final.
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.
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.
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.
5. Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobel et al. (hereinafter Kobel), US 2021/0268881 A1, published on September 2, 2021.
With respect to independent Claim 1, Kobel teaches a method comprising:
determining when a vehicle is in a location that is suitable for providing status information associated with the vehicle on a human machine interface (HMI) of the vehicle, (see ¶ 0042, showing that a determination can be made that the vehicle’s location corresponds to a specific/predetermined location, such as a depot or other service location; Kobel teaches an HMI (a display to show diagnostic information), a diagnostics system that provides diagnostic information, and suggests changing modes based on the vehicle’s location, sensor inputs, and/or other signals).
determining the status information for the vehicle using the diagnostics system when it is determined that the vehicle is in the location that is suitable for providing the status information associated with the vehicle on the HMI (see ¶¶ 0042, 0051).
setting the HMI to a first mode of a plurality of modes using the mode module when it is determined that the vehicle is located in the location that is suitable for providing the status information associated with the vehicle on the HMI (see ¶¶ 0042-43, showing that in order to display diagnostic information, the vehicle has to be in a particular location and other criteria has to be met as well, such as receiving a proper actuation signal and detecting an authorized technician nearby, otherwise, the display of diagnostic information is prohibited; see also ¶¶ 0047, 0049; see also § Response to Arguments, above).
causing the status information to be provided to the mode module after determining the status information and setting the HMI to the first mode (see ¶¶ 0042-43).
providing the status information to the HMI, wherein the HMI is further arranged to display the status information (see ¶¶ 0042-43; see also ¶¶ 0045-46).
Kobel does not appear to explicitly illustrate “an autonomy system arranged to enable the vehicle to operate autonomously,” but Kobel clearly states that the method described therein is applicable to any vehicle (see ¶ 0019), and there does not appear to be anything in Kobel that would prevent such vehicle from being an autonomous vehicle. A skilled artisan would understand that many vehicles, at the time the instant application was filed, had at least some form of an autonomy system (i.e., ADAS) integrated therewith, such as adaptive cruise control, automatic emergency braking, etc.
With respect to dependent Claim 2, Kobel teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and further suggests determining when the vehicle is located within a first area using the mode module (see ¶¶ 0047, 0055-56, Cl. 5, illustrating different operational modes, including “a location of the vehicle” mode).
With respect to dependent Claim 3, Kobel teaches the method of claim 2, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein when it is determined that the vehicle is located within the first area using the mode module, setting the HMI to a first mode of a plurality of modes using the mode module includes providing functionality which enables functions of the vehicle to be controlled using the HMI (see ¶¶ 0036, 0046, showing various ways to interact with the HMI), the method further including: determining when the status information indicates at least a first issue with the vehicle … [and] wherein when the HMI is in the second mode, the status information is not provided to the HMI (see ¶ 0042, showing that a diagnostic actuation signal can include vehicle operational information, and further showing that without a proper actuation signal, a display of diagnostic information may be prohibited; Kobel further teaches displaying other information on the HMI based on different criteria, where such information does not include the diagnostic information (see ¶¶ 0005, 0007)). While Kobel does not appear to explicitly illustrate determining when the at least first issue is resolved; and setting the HMI to a second mode when it is determined that the at least first issue is resolved, Kobel suggests that the display of diagnostic information (i.e., the first mode) can be predicated on receiving multiple signals (see ¶ 0043) where a required signal can comprise vehicle operational information indicating a vehicle maintenance problem (see ¶ 0042). Accordingly, a skilled artisan would understand that upon the vehicle maintenance problem being dismissed/resolved by the technician, the first mode would no longer be displayed (as the actuation signal corresponding to the vehicle operation information would no longer be present), and the vehicle would enter into a different/default mode.
With respect to dependent Claim 5, Kobel teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and further suggests authenticating a first user associated with the location, wherein authenticating the first user includes determining whether the first user is authorized to obtain the status information, wherein the status information is provided to the HMI when it is determined that the first user is authorized to obtain the status information (see ¶¶ 0042, 0046).
With respect to dependent Claim 6, Kobel teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above, and further suggests wherein the status information includes vehicle maintenance information, and wherein setting the HMI to the first mode of the plurality of modes using the mode module when it is determined that the vehicle is located in the location that is suitable for providing the status information associated with the vehicle on the HMI includes providing functionality to the HMI to enable functions of the vehicle to be controlled using the HMI (see ¶ 0042, describing the diagnostic information; see also ¶¶ 0036, 0046, showing various ways to interact with the HMI).
With respect to Claims 7-9, 11-14, 16, and 17, these claims are directed to a vehicle comprising steps and/or features similar to those recited in Claims 1-3, 5, and 6, respectively, and are thus rejected under a similar rationale as those claims, above (it is noted that Claims 7-9 correspond to Claims 1-3, respectively, Claims 11 and 12 correspond to Claims 5 and 6, respectively, Claim 13 corresponds to Claim 1, Claim 14 corresponds to Claim 3, and Claims 16 and 17 correspond to Claims 5 and 6, respectively) (see also § Response to Arguments, above).
6. Claims 4, 10, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobel in view of Meador et al. (hereinafter Meador), US 2023/0184557 A1, published on June 15, 2023 (filed on December 13, 2021).
With respect to dependent Claim 4, Kobel suggests the method of claim 3, as discussed above, but does not appear to explicitly suggests wherein the vehicle includes at least one compartment, and wherein the second mode enables a first user to use the HMI to access the at least one compartment. However, the teachings of Meador can be relied upon for an explicit showing of this limitation.
Meador is directed towards facilitating deliveries by autonomous vehicles (see Meador, Abstract). Meador teaches that the user interface of the autonomous vehicle can be configured in response to a determined location of the vehicle (see Meador, ¶ 0021). Meador further teaches that the vehicle comprises one or more compartments which can be accessed by interacting with the user interface (see Meador, Figs. 6, 7, ¶¶ 0021, 0061, 0072-75). In addition, Meador suggest a service mode (i.e., diagnostic configuration), which is activated when the system is being repaired, resulting in the user interface being locked (unlockable only by an authorized service user) (see Meador, ¶ 0078, Cl. 9).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan, at the time the instant Application was filed, to incorporate security features of Meador with the vehicle described in Kobel in order to prevent tampering of the user interface (and vehicle’s compartments) by unauthorized users (see Meador, ¶¶ 0078, 0083, Cl. 9).
With respect to Claims 10 and 15, these claims are directed to the logic and the vehicle comprising steps and/or features similar to those recited in Claim 4, and are thus rejected under a similar rationale as Claim 4, above.
With respect to dependent Claim 18, Kobel teaches the vehicle of claim 13, as discussed above, but does appear to explicitly suggest wherein the HMI is mounted to an exterior of the body. However, the teachings of Meador can be relied upon for an explicit showing of this limitation. Meador teaches a UI module that is mounted on the outside of the vehicle (see Figs. 1 and 4, ¶¶ 0022, 0061, 0064-65). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan, at the time the instant Application was filed, to explicitly add the user interface unit of Meador to the vehicle of Kobel, in order allow a user outside the vehicle to interact with the user interface (and vehicle’s compartments) without entering the vehicle (see Meador, ¶¶ 0022, 0065, 0079).
7. Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobel, as further evidenced by Sethi et al. (hereinafter Sethi), US 11,017,351 B2, issued on May 25, 2021, or Merg et al. (hereinafter Merg), US 10,671,623 B2, issued on June 2, 2020.
With respect to dependent Claim 19, Kobel teaches the vehicle of claim 13, as discussed above, and while Kobel does not appear to explicitly recite wherein the diagnostics system includes a second input/output arrangement, and wherein when the status information includes a first maintenance issue, the diagnostics system is arranged to obtain an error code for the first maintenance issue from the second input/output arrangement and to provide the error code to the HMI when the HMI is set to the first mode, Kobel suggests that various diagnostic information can be provided, and that such information can include information (faults/statuses/warnings/codes) from various components and/or subsystems (see ¶ 0042). A skilled artisan would understand that such information can comprise codes, such as OBD codes, and/or additional information related to a diagnosed issue/fault, that can be displayed to the user, as evidenced by Sethi or Merg (see Sethi, Figs. 1 and 3, col. 14, line 59 – col. 15, line 5; see Merg, Figs. 12-15, col. 29, line 54 – col. 30, line 26).
With respect to dependent Claim 20, Kobel in view Sethi or Merg suggests the vehicle of claim 19, as discussed above, and while Kobel does not appear to explicitly suggest wherein the diagnostics system further includes a mapping arrangement, the mapping arrangement being arranged to map the error code to a response to the first maintenance issue, as discussed with respect to Claim 19, above, a skilled artisan would understand that diagnostic information obtained by Kobel (see ¶ 0042) can be further processed in order to assist the technician in addressing the issues (see Merg, Figs. 12-14, and Sethi, col. 8, lines 43-55).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 DINO KUJUNDZIC whose telephone number is (571)270-5188. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5pm.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached on 571-272-5109. 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.
/DINO KUJUNDZIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667