DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10 April 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 9, 10-15 have been amended.
Claims 5, 7-8, 19-20 have been cancelled
Claims 1-4, 6, and 9-18 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments and Remarks
Drawings
The drawings were objected to because of informalities. Applicant has amended Figure 3 and thus overcome the objections to the drawings. Accordingly, the objection to Figure 3 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 13, 15, 16, 18 and 20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schubert et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0104622, hereinafter “Schubert”) in view of Wasiek et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0054933 hereinafter “Wasiek”).
Claim(s) 3 and 17 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schubert and Wasiek in further view of Rush et al. (US Patent No. 11,042,341, hereinafter “Rush”).
Claim(s) 6 and 8 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schubert and Wasiek in view of Porta (US Pat. No. 11,109,152, hereinafter “Porta”).
Claim(s) 10, 12, and 14 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schubert and Wasiek in further view of Li (US Pat. No. 2025/0193343, hereinafter “Li”).
Claim(s) 11 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schubert and Wasiek in view of Li and in further view of Wolterman (US Pub. No. 2018/0194282, hereinafter “Wolterman”).
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8 filed 6 April 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4, 6, and 9-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Schubert and Wasiek have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lysdal et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0229626, hereinafter “Lysdal”).
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.
Claim 10 is 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 10 recites “an audio output” in line 2. Claim 10 depends from claim 1 which was amended to recite “an audio output”. It is not clear if the audio output of claim 10 is the same or different than that recited in claim 1. The examiner recommends amending claim 10 to recite “the audio output”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 9, 13, 15, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schubert et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0104622, hereinafter “Schubert”) in view of Wasiek et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0054933 hereinafter “Wasiek”) and further in view of Lysdal et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0229626, hereinafter “Lysdal”).
Regarding claim 1, Schubert discloses a system, comprising a computer including a processor and memory, the memory storing instructions executable by the processor (see at least Schubert [0033] The controller 40 may further comprise a memory 66. The memory 66 may comprise various forms of memory, for example, random access memory (RAM), dynamic RAM (DRAM), synchronous DRAM (SDRAM), and other forms of memory configured to store digital information. The memory 66 may be configured to store the image data 16 (e.g. the first image data 16a and/or the second image data 16b) for processing. Processing the image data 16 may comprise scaling and cropping the image data 16 to adjust a position and apparent size of the image data 16 as it is output to the display screen 32 of the display device 24. In some embodiments the memory 66 may further be configured to store additional programming information including method and processes for operation of the display system 12) . to:
transition a vehicle display from a monitored state to a content delivery state based on a placement of the vehicle in a non-monitored state (see at least Schubert Figure 1 [0030] and [0035] wherein the vehicle display 24 is in a vehicle monitored state displaying rear-facing exterior camera 16c image and is transitioned to a videoconference ins response to the vehicle being placed in park. “[0030] As discussed, one microphone or directional array 52a, as well as the imager 14a may be disposed in the rearview assembly 56, which may correspond to one of the display devices 24. The rearview assembly 56 may be configured to operate in a mirror mode as well as a display mode. In the display mode, the display device 24 may be configured to display various portions of the data 16 on the display screen 25 thereof, such as image data 16c from a rear-facing exterior camera 16c, as well as all or a portion of the image data 116 received from the conference server 60” “[0035] The controller 40 may further be in communication with a plurality of inputs - for example, a speed input 74, and a vehicle bus 76. The speed input 74 may provide a signal communicating a speed of the vehicle 10 via a speedometer or any device operable to measure and communicate data corresponding to the speed of a vehicle 10. The vehicle bus 76 may be implemented using any suitable standard communication bus, such as a Controller Area Network (CAN) bus, a Local Interconnect Network (LIN) bus, etc. The vehicle bus 76 may be configured to provide a variety of additional information to the controller 40. Such information may correspond to one or more vehicle states, for example a gear selection, occupant occupancy, a headlight activation, etc., which may be utilized by the controller to control the display of the image data. For example, the controller 40 may selectively display the first image data 16a, the second image data 16b, and or a third image data 16c in response the one or more vehicle states. In this respect, the conference system 12 can leverage various vehicle 10 data to select various operating states thereof. For example, the controller 14 can be configured to only display the image data 116 received from the conference server 60 on the rearview assembly 56 display 24 or other front-cabin displays 24 when the vehicle is not in motion and/or in park).; and
transition a control from a vehicle control state to a content delivery control state based on the placement of the vehicle in the non-monitored state (see at least Schubert Figure 1 [0030] and [0035] wherein the vehicle is transitioned from a drive mode to a videoconference state based on the vehicle being placed in park. “[0030] As discussed, one microphone or directional array 52a, as well as the imager 14a may be disposed in the rearview assembly 56, which may correspond to one of the display devices 24. The rearview assembly 56 may be configured to operate in a mirror mode as well as a display mode. In the display mode, the display device 24 may be configured to display various portions of the data 16 on the display screen 25 thereof, such as image data 16c from a rear-facing exterior camera 16c, as well as all or a portion of the image data 116 received from the conference server 60” “[0035] The controller 40 may further be in communication with a plurality of inputs - for example, a speed input 74, and a vehicle bus 76. The speed input 74 may provide a signal communicating a speed of the vehicle 10 via a speedometer or any device operable to measure and communicate data corresponding to the speed of a vehicle 10. The vehicle bus 76 may be implemented using any suitable standard communication bus, such as a Controller Area Network (CAN) bus, a Local Interconnect Network (LIN) bus, etc. The vehicle bus 76 may be configured to provide a variety of additional information to the controller 40. Such information may correspond to one or more vehicle states, for example a gear selection, occupant occupancy, a headlight activation, etc., which may be utilized by the controller to control the display of the image data. For example, the controller 40 may selectively display the first image data 16a, the second image data 16b, and or a third image data 16c in response the one or more vehicle states. In this respect, the conference system 12 can leverage various vehicle 10 data to select various operating states thereof. For example, the controller 14 can be configured to only display the image data 116 received from the conference server 60 on the rearview assembly 56 display 24 or other front-cabin displays 24 when the vehicle is not in motion and/or in park”).
Schubert does not explicitly disclose wherein the transition includes suppressing display of operating parameters determined from vehicle sensor data about vehicle propulsion, steering and/or braking.
Wasiek teaches transitioning to a content delivery control state including suppressing display of operating parameters determined from vehicle sensor data about vehicle propulsion, steering and/or braking (see at least Wasiek Figure 1 and abstract “The display instrument is able to be switched from a display state for one or several operating parameters of the vehicle into a reproducing state for images delivered from the camera” See also [0004-0005] and [0022] [0022] “When the speed of the vehicle lies below a threshold value, preferably only when the vehicle is stationary, the display instrument 4 is able to be switched from a normal operating state or display state, in which it presents the needle instruments 5, 6, into a reproducing state for images delivered from the camera 7. …” See also [0020] “The combination display instrument 4 has a matrix screen, on which two needle instruments 5, 6, typically for displaying vehicle speed and engine speed, and further smaller display instruments are presented.” See also [0035] “If the region 9 of the display instrument 4 functions as screen 19 for the driver, the image processing unit 16 here should also be coupled to a tachometer 20, in order to prevent the image reproduction in the region 9 when the speed of the vehicle exceeds a predetermined threshold speed.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Schubert with the teaching of Wasiek, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Wasiek teaches, utilizing the screens that are used to simulate the appearance of conventional analog scale instruments to switch and instead reproduce images delivered from a camera allows videoconferencing without increasing cost incurred for additional hardware (see at least [0005] and [0014]).
The combination of Schubert and Wasiek teach wherein the content delivery state is a videoconferencing state, the videoconferencing state permitting display of content transmitted from a source external to the vehicle (see at least Schubert, Figure 5 and [0035] cited above and [0036] “As discussed, the system 12 is configured, as shown for wireless data transmission to server 60 and to receive data back from the server 60, which can be a composite of original data from the server 60, including audio and video data received from third party devices 112 corresponding with additional participants of a conference call in which, for example, the driver 34a of the vehicle 10 is participating.”), however, the combination does not explicitly teach instructions to transition the control from the vehicle control state include instructions to, based on user input, modify a volume setting of an audio output by a vehicle interior audio system for audio received from a selected videoconferencing participant.
Lysdal teaches the instructions to transition the control from the vehicle control state include instructions to, based on user input, modify a volume setting of an audio output by a vehicle interior audio system for audio received from a selected videoconferencing participant (see at least Lysdal [0013] …Initially, a volume level may be set for each remote user—such as a default level set by the application or based on a learned or user-configured volume level corresponding to specific participants. Additionally or alternatively, the local user may manually select or pre-specify a default volume level for specific participants (e.g., by selecting a user icon and setting a volume level for a specific user prior to initializing the video conference). However, as the users converse, the local user may find that a particular participant is speaking very loudly or very quietly compared to the other participants, with the inconsistency leading to either difficulty in hearing or discomfort when the same general volume levels are applied to all participants. The local user may then select an icon corresponding to the particular participant and modify a volume output for audio data corresponding (e.g., specific) to the particular participant by moving or otherwise manipulating (e.g., shrink icon size to decrease volume, expand icon size to increase volume) the icon. For example, the local user may move a louder participant's icon away from the local user's icon in the UI. Based on moving the louder participant's icon away from the local user's icon, the system may determine an updated volume level (e.g., reduce volume) for the louder participant's icon. ...” See also [0078] wherein the client deice may be a vehicle or a vehicle computer system.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination Schubert and Wasiek with teaching of Lysdal with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Lysdal teaches this allows the user to select the audio output so that it is comfortable for the user, thus improving the user experience, (see at least Lysdal [0013])
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Schubert, Wasiek, and Lysdal teach the system of claim 1, wherein the non-monitored state includes a state of a vehicle transmission switch (see at least Schubert “[0035] The controller 40 may further be in communication with a plurality of inputs - for example, a speed input 74, and a vehicle bus 76. The speed input 74 may provide a signal communicating a speed of the vehicle 10 via a speedometer or any device operable to measure and communicate data corresponding to the speed of a vehicle 10. The vehicle bus 76 may be implemented using any suitable standard communication bus, such as a Controller Area Network (CAN) bus, a Local Interconnect Network (LIN) bus, etc. The vehicle bus 76 may be configured to provide a variety of additional information to the controller 40. Such information may correspond to one or more vehicle states, for example a gear selection, occupant occupancy, a headlight activation, etc., which may be utilized by the controller to control the display of the image data. For example, the controller 40 may selectively display the first image data 16a, the second image data 16b, and or a third image data 16c in response the one or more vehicle states. In this respect, the conference system 12 can leverage various vehicle 10 data to select various operating states thereof. For example, the controller 14 can be configured to only display the image data 116 received from the conference server 60 on the rearview assembly 56 display 24 or other front-cabin displays 24 when the vehicle is not in motion and/or in park).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Schubert, Wasiek, and Lysdal teach the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions to transition the vehicle display include instructions to suppress display of images that represent an environment external to the vehicle (see at least Schubert Figure 1 wherein a portion of the display previously displaying the environment is suppressed to display the videoconference).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Schubert, Wasiek, and Lysdal teach the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions to transition the control from the vehicle control state include instructions to detect reorientation of head or facial features of an operator of the vehicle (see at least Schubert [0026] wherein the motion of facial features is detected and corresponds to detecting reorientation of facial features.[ 0026] Referring back to FIGS. 2, 3A, and 3B, the controller 40 may be configured to identify the display-prompt as a motion of a facial feature 48 (e.g. a mouth, jaw, eye, etc.) that may correspond to speech of the occupant 34, including of the driver 34a, as shown in FIG. 1-3B. In response to the detection of the display-prompt in the image data 16a, the controller 40 may crop the transmitted image data, as discussed above, to the facial region 44 of the occupant 34 for transmission to the server 60. The controller 40 may continue to detect movement of the one or more facial features 46 and continue to transmit the cropped image portion 32 corresponding with the facial region 44 in the display window 42 until the motion of facial features 46 is not detected for a predetermined period of time or until a display prompt is detected elsewhere in the image data 16 that may, for example, indicate that another occupant 34 of the vehicle cabin 18 is speaking. In this way, the controller 40 may selectively transmit the facial region 44 during temporal periods during which the occupant 34 may be moving or speaking… when, for example, the driver 34a is identified as speaking, the system 12 may begin transmitting the cropped image portion 32, as shown in FIG. 3B. Additionally, the system 12 may crop a larger portion 32 of the image data 16 when one or more occupants 34 are determined to be speaking..)
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Schubert, Wasiek, and Lysdal teach the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions to transition the control from the vehicle control state include instructions to suppress a video portion of a videoconference responsive to a determination that the vehicle has been placed in the monitored state (see at least Schubert [0035] wherein the controller has instructions (is configured) to suppress the video when the vehicle is moving or not in park (a monitored state) park “[0035] Such information may correspond to one or more vehicle states, for example a gear selection, occupant occupancy, a headlight activation, etc., which may be utilized by the controller to control the display of the image data. For example, the controller 40 may selectively display the first image data 16a, the second image data 16b, and or a third image data 16c in response the one or more vehicle states. In this respect, the conference system 12 can leverage various vehicle 10 data to select various operating states thereof. For example, the controller 14 can be configured to only display the image data 116 received from the conference server 60 on the rearview assembly 56 display 24 or other front-cabin displays 24 when the vehicle is not in motion and/or in park” See also Wasiek [0035] “If the region 9 of the display instrument 4 functions as screen 19 for the driver, the image processing unit 16 here should also be coupled to a tachometer 20, in order to prevent the image reproduction in the region 9 when the speed of the vehicle exceeds a predetermined threshold speed.” ).
Claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 1, above.
Claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 2, above.
Claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 4, above.
Claim(s) 3 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schubert, Wasiek, and Lysdal in further view of Rush et al. (US Patent No. 11,042,341, hereinafter “Rush”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Schubert, Wasiek, and Lysdal teach the system of claim 1, including a display screen 24 within the dashboard (see at least Schubert Fig. 1). Schubert does not disclose wherein the vehicle display extends across a dashboard of the vehicle from a first location proximate to a left interior boundary to a second location proximate to a right interior boundary.
Rush discloses wherein the vehicle display extends across a dashboard of the vehicle from a first location proximate to a left interior boundary to a second location proximate to a right interior boundary (see at least Rush Figure 1, coast-to coast dashboard 112 and col. 4, lines 20-25 “the dashboard screen is a coast-to-coast dashboard screen, also referred to as a shared-experience display (SED) that is as wide as the width of the vehicle.” See also col. 7, lines 50-56 for application of videoconferencing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schubert, Wasiek, and Lysdal with the teaching of Rush, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Rush teaches, such a large display provides sufficient real estate to provide driving-critical applications and non-driving critical applications (See col. 1 lines 15-25 ).
Claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, as claim 5, above.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schubert, Wasiek, and Lysdal in view of Porta (US Pat. No. 11,109,152, hereinafter “Porta”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Schubert, Wasiek, and Lysdal teach the system of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the instructions to transition the control from the vehicle control state include instructions to filter audio signals emanating from an interior portion of the vehicle to include audio exclusively emanating from an operator of the vehicle or from a passenger of the vehicle
Porta teaches a method of videoconferencing in a vehicle wherein the instructions to transition the control from the vehicle control state include instructions to filter audio signals emanating from an interior portion of the vehicle to include audio exclusively emanating from an operator of the vehicle or from a passenger of the vehicle (see at least Porta Figure 8, 10 and 12 and accompanying description for determining speaker, specifically see at least col. 44 lines 45-60 “The tuned region 502 may be a subset of the polar pattern 462a-462b of the microphone 460. The tuned region 502 may be an area of focus for the input sound reception of the microphone 460. The microphone 460 may enhance capture of audio in the direction of the tuned region 502 and/or limit capture of audio outside of the tuned region 502. In an example, microphone 460 may emphasize audio captured within the tuned region 502. In another example, the microphone 460 may block and/or apply noise cancellation on audio received that is outside of the tuned region 502. The audio converted to digital and/or computer readable information from the microphone 460 may have greater clarity in the tuned region 502 compared to the portions of the polar pattern 462a-462b outside of the tuned region 502. The type(s) of enhancements applied to the audio from the tuned region 502 and/or the type(s) of limitations applied to the audio from outside of the tuned region 502 may be varied according to the design criteria of a particular implementation.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schubert, Wasiek and Lysdal with the teaching of Porta to filter the audio signals, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Porta teaches, this optimizes the audio capture for conference calls in cars (see at least Porta col. 1, lines 20-26).
Claim(s) 10, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schubert, Wasiek, and Lysdal in further view of Li (US Pat. No. 2025/0193343, hereinafter “Li”).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Schubert, Wasiek, and Lysdal teach the system of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the instructions to transition the control from the vehicle control state include instructions to generate an audio output responsive to determining that videoconferencing content pertains to an operator of the vehicle.
Li teaches wherein the instructions to transition the control from the vehicle control state include instructions to generate an audio output responsive to determining that videoconferencing content pertains to an operator of the vehicle (see at least Li [0095] which teaches alerting the driver to an auto-initiation of a call and [0167] which teaches that an alert includes an audio output [0096] “The alert to the caller's device may notify the caller that the video conference call is being automatically initiated and that the driver will be joining. Since the caller may be doing other things after selecting auto-initiation, such an alert may give a heads-up to the caller to now focus on the call or get ready for the call. other embodiment, the control circuitry, instead of automatically switching from still images to live video, may alert the driver audibly to whatever something special that occurred or may alert the driver that a change to a live video is warranted and seek the driver's approval to make the change from still images to live video.” And [0167] “In other embodiment, the control circuitry, instead of automatically switching from still images to live video, may alert the driver audibly to whatever something special that occurred or may alert the driver that a change to a live video is warranted and seek the driver's approval to make the change from still images to live video.” See also [0153] ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schubert, Wasiek, and Lysdal with the teaching of Li, to provide an audio alert the user to the pertinent content, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Li teaches this ensures the driver is aware of something that occurred or of the content that is pertinent to them (See at least Li [0095-0096] and [0167]) .
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Schubert, Wasiek, and Lysdal teach the system of claim 1, but does not explicitly discloses wherein the instructions to transition the control from the vehicle control state include instructions to suppress video signals from an operator of the vehicle based on detecting that the operator of the vehicle has become disengaged from the videoconference.
Li teaches wherein the instructions to transition the control from the vehicle control state include instructions to suppress video signals from an operator of the vehicle based on detecting that the operator of the vehicle has become disengaged from the videoconference (See at least Li, Figure 8 and [0164-0165] “When the determination is made that the driver is gazing at the road ahead, the control circuitry 220 and/or 228 may determine that the driver needs to focus on the road and not be distracted with the live image of all the participants. In some embodiments, the driver switching their gaze from the user interface to the road may be associated with a switch in current mode of operation from autonomous mode to a non-autonomous mode…[0165] Accordingly, at block 830, the control circuitry 220 and/or 228 may switch from a live video to still images being displayed on the user interface of the conferencing device associated with the driver.” See also [0179] “In some embodiments, the adaptations configured for the UI of the driver's conferencing device when the autonomous vehicle is in a non-autonomous mode may include, as depicted at block 970, displaying an option to use an audio-only option. In this option, the video conference call may be conducted in an audio-only format where the video is switched off and the still images also are switched on, or where both the video and the still images are switched off.” See also [0068] [0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schubert, Wasiek, and Lysdal with the teaching of Li to suppress the video from the operator, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Li teaches this can improve the safety of the driver (see Li [053]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Schubert, Wasiek, and Lysdal teach the system of claim 1, but do not teach wherein the instructions to transition the control from the vehicle control state include instructions to maintain an audio portion of a videoconference responsive to a determination that the vehicle has been placed in in a-the monitored state.
Li teaches wherein the instructions to transition the control from the vehicle control state include instructions to maintain an audio portion of a videoconference responsive to a determination that the vehicle has been placed in the monitored state (see at least Li Figure 6, step 630 determining a switch in the mode of operation. See also [0121] “For example, in response to determining that the autonomous vehicle is being driven in a non-autonomous mode, deactivate a live video of the participants of the video conference call and replacing it their live feed with an icon, avatar, or image, or in response to determining that the autonomous vehicle is being driven in a non-autonomous mode allowing the video conference call for the driver to be in an audio only mode.” See also [0229] In some embodiments, a driver may start a trip at 1811. Once the trip is started, the control circuitry may record the trip information along with the video conference call. In some embodiments, this trip may start in a fully autonomous mode 1812. [The driver may then change from fully autonomous mode to non-autonomous mode. Accordingly, the autonomous driving platform 1820 may notify 1813 the remote conferencing platform 1830 of the driving mode change. The driving mode change may be from a fully autonomous mode 1812 when the driver starts the trip to a non-autonomous mode. If the driving mode changes to a non-autonomous mode, then the remote conferencing platform 1830 may implement an audio only 1815 video conference.” See also [0097] “Accordingly, the user interface of the driver's conferencing device may be dynamically configured such that the driver of the autonomous vehicle can only accept the invitation to join the conference call in an audio only mode, and not in a video mode.” See also [0040] for description of autonomous mode including a parked vehicle wherein the driver has minimal interaction.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schubert, Wasiek, and Lysdal with the teaching of Li to suppress the video from the operator, but to maintain the audio portion with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Li teaches this can improve the safety of the driver (see Li [053]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schubert, Wasiek, Lysdal, and Li and in further view of Wolterman (US Pub. No. 2018/0194282, hereinafter “Wolterman”).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Schubert, Wasiek, and Lysdal teach the system of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the instructions to transition the control from the vehicle control state include instructions to generate a haptic output to an operator of the vehicle responsive to determining audio or video content that pertains to the operator of the vehicle.
Li teaches wherein the instructions to transition the control from the vehicle control state include instructions to generate [[a haptic output]] responsive to determining that videoconferencing content pertains to an operator of the vehicle (see at least Li [0095] which teaches alerting the driver to an auto-initiation of a call and [0167] which teaches that an alert includes an audio output [0096] “The alert to the caller's device may notify the caller that the video conference call is being automatically initiated and that the driver will be joining. Since the caller may be doing other things after selecting auto-initiation, such an alert may give a heads-up to the caller to now focus on the call or get ready for the call. other embodiment, the control circuitry, instead of automatically switching from still images to live video, may alert the driver audibly to whatever something special that occurred or may alert the driver that a change to a live video is warranted and seek the driver's approval to make the change from still images to live video.” And [0167] “In other embodiment, the control circuitry, instead of automatically switching from still images to live video, may alert the driver audibly to whatever something special that occurred or may alert the driver that a change to a live video is warranted and seek the driver's approval to make the change from still images to live video.” See also [0153] ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schubert, Wasiek, and Lysdal with the teaching of Li, to alert the user to the pertinent content, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Li teaches this ensures the driver is aware of something that occurred or of the content that is pertinent to them (See at least Li [0095-0096] and [0167]) .
The combined Schubert, Wasiek, Lysdal, and Li teach providing an audible alert to the driver, but do not teach that the alert is haptic. Wolterman teaches providing either a visual, audible or haptic alert to the driver (see at least the abstract and claim 15 “A human-machine interface may include one or more of visual, haptic and audio configured to alert a distracted driver”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Schubert, Wasiek, Lysdal and Li with the teaching of Wolterman to provide a haptic output, with a reasonable expectation of success, because as Wolterman teaches haptic outputs alert drivers when they may be distracted (see Wolterman, abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER M. ANDA whose telephone number is (571)272-5042. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-5pm MST.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at (571)270-3832. 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.
/JENNIFER M ANDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights