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 .
Response to Amendments:
Applicant's amendments filed 07/07/2026 have been fully considered. Claim 1-20 remain pending in the application. The Applicant amended claim language and scope of the claims to overcome previous rejection. Accordingly, the amendment necessitated new search and new references of rejection presented in this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection of claim 1-20 under 35 USC § 103 as unpatentable is maintained.
Regard to the Remarks on page 8, Applicant argues that, the references do not teach or suggest all of the recitations of the independent claims, including "an engagement relation with the user based at least in part on the mobile telephone not being in a hand of the user" or to "cancel the dialing-request state upon determining that the dialing-request state is initiated other than via the vehicle handsfree interface."
Applicant stated that Chen is directed to canceling or preventing a call when the detected dialing pattern matches a predefined pattern indicative of unintended dialing. Determining that a phone is in a pocket or handbag may mean that the phone is not in a user's hand, but determining that a phone is not in a user's hand is not the determination made by Chen, which instead focuses on ambient light levels and the proximity of other objects - not detecting whether a phone is in a user's hand - to determine whether a phone is in a pocket or handbag. In sum, Chen does not teach or suggest "an engagement relation with the user based at least in part on the mobile telephone not being in a hand of the user" or to "cancel the dialing-request state upon determining that the dialing-request state is initiated other than via the vehicle handsfree interface."
And applicant further stated that, Kim is directed to "detecting the location of a user located in a vehicle. based on an audio signal received by the mobile device in correspondence to [a] plurality of sound wave signals." Abstract. At most, Kim teaches detecting the location of a user and/or a mobile device within a vehicle and using that location information to provide services or settings associated with a particular vehicle seat. Kim does not teach or suggest "an engagement relation with the user based at least in part on the mobile telephone not being in a hand of the user" or to "cancel the dialing-request state upon determining that the dialing-request state is initiated other than via the vehicle handsfree interface."
However, the examiner respectfully disagreed. The combination of Chen, Kim and further with Munemoto is still read on the amended claim 1 and 11.
Regard to amended claim 1, partially recited:
“in response to a determination that the mobile telephone is not in an engagement relation with the user based at least in part on the mobile telephone not being in a hand of the user, cancel the dialing-request state upon determining that the dialing-request state is initiated other than via the vehicle handsfree interface at a time when the mobile telephone is not in the hand of the user.”
Chen teaches that, “in response to a determination that the mobile telephone is not in an engagement relation with the user based at least in part on the mobile telephone not being in a hand of the user,” (i.e., [0038] To illustrate, an exemplary predefined phone dialing pattern may specify physical attribute values such as a low ambient light level, a random or upside-down orientation of the phone device, random motion of the phone device, and/or physical objects surrounding the phone device before, during, and/or after a phone dialing event. These ambient light, orientation, motion, and proximity attribute values may indicate that the phone device is in a pocket, handbag, or other environment not usually associated with intended dialing. As described in paragraph [0038]”. One can argue that, if the phone is in a pocket or handbag, therefore it is not in the hands of the user.
Chen also teaches that “cancel the dialing-request state upon determining that the dialing-request state is at a time when the mobile telephone is not in the hand of the user.” (i.e., In addition, in response to a determination in step 1222 that the dialing event is unintended, the phone device cancels a dialing, As described in paragraph [0125]).
In a similar endeavor, Munemoto discloses:
cancel the dialing-request state upon determining that the dialing-request state is initiated other than via the vehicle handsfree interface. ([0047] Based on a result(s) of the analyzing, the classification component can determine a contact classification for an object (e.g., finger, palm, other body part) with respect to the touch sensitive surface of the touch display screen. The contact classifications can comprise, for example, a classification for a particular intended touch event (e.g., intended touching of a button or control on the touch display screen) and a classification for an unintentional touch event (e.g., unintended touching of the touch sensitive surface by the object), with respect to the touch sensitive surface.
[0048] In response to detecting an unintentional touch event, an operation management component can reject the unintentional touch event, place (e.g., switch or maintain) the touch display screen of the device in an off state, and/or otherwise prevent an operation being performed on the device due to the unintentional touch event. In response to detecting an intentional touch event, the operation management component can place (e.g., switch or maintain) the touch display screen in an on state and/or enable (e.g., allow) a touch sensitive function of the touch sensitive surface of the touch display screen and/or the operation(s) associated with the intentional touch event to be performed by the device (e.g., by the touch display screen, application associated with the device,
[0050] FIG. 1 illustrates a block diagram of an example touch sensitive device 100 that can determine a classification of a touch event with regard to an object in contact or proximate contact with a touch sensitive surface of the touch sensitive device, in accordance with various aspects and embodiments of the disclosed subject matter. The touch sensitive device 100 can be or can comprise, for example, a mobile phone (e.g., a cellular phone and/or smart phone), a computer, a display table, a personal digital assistant (PDA), an electronic tablet or notebook (e.g., a touch sensitive graphic tablet or notebook), a web pad, electronic bodywear (e.g., a smart watch or other electronic bodywear that comprises a touch sensitive surface), an electronic gaming device, an electronic workstation, a television, an Internet protocol (IP) television, a set-top box, a device (e.g., touch sensitive device) in or integrated with a vehicle, a touch pad, a track pad, or other type of device. As described in paragraph [0047], [0048] and [0050]).
For the above mentioned reasons, the rejections of independent claim 1 and 11, and therefore the rejections of all pending claims are maintained.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kim (Hereinafter “Kim”, US20230224981), in view of Chen et al. (Hereinafter “Chen”, US20140120891) and further in view of Munemoto (Hereinafter “Menemoto”, US 20200064960.)
Regarding claim 1, and 11, Kim discloses A method and a transportation vehicle adapted to interact with a mobile telephone carried by a user of the transportation vehicle, comprising: (i.e., One or more embodiments provide a method for detecting a user's location which is capable of quickly and accurately detecting a location of a specific user riding in a vehicle, a vehicle electronic device performing the method, and a mobile device performing the method. As described in paragraph [0008]).
a wireless interface configured to pair with the mobile telephone; (i.e., Here, pairing may refer to an operation of forming a wireless communication network while transmitting and receiving data necessary for a wireless communication connection between the vehicle electronic device 200 and the mobile device 205. As described in paragraph [0109]).
at least one tracking sensor configured to monitor respective positions of the mobile telephone (i.e., the processor 430 may detect the location of the mobile device 205 based on the audio signal received by the audio input unit 420 in correspondence to the output of the sound wave signals, As described in paragraph [0255]), and the user; (i.e., the user location detection method 900 is a method of detecting a location of a user located in a vehicle by a vehicle electronic device disposed in the vehicle. As described in paragraph [0289]).
a controller coupled to the wireless interface so that the controller is communicatively coupled to the mobile telephone, wherein the controller is configured to coordinate operation of the mobile telephone including exchange of audio signals and remote call control that includes a handsfree interface; (i.e., Specifically, the vehicle electronic device 300 may transmit/receive certain data with the mobile device 205 located adjacent thereto through a wireless communication network, may be paired with the mobile device 205 located adjacent thereto, may remotely control the mobile device 205 located adjacent thereto, and/or may be remotely controlled from the mobile device 205 located adjacent thereto. As described in paragraph [0182]).
Kim discloses all limitations recited within claims as described above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the controller is configured to:
determine that an existing call state of the mobile telephone via the wireless interface from a plurality of call states is a dialing-request state.
determine whether the mobile telephone is in an engagement relation with the user in response to the positions of the mobile telephone and the user or the exchange of audio signals; and
in response to a determination that the mobile telephone is not in an engagement relation with the user based at least in part on the mobile telephone not being in a hand of the user, cancel the dialing-request state upon determining that the dialing-request state is initiated other than via the vehicle handsfree interface at a time when the mobile telephone is not in the hand of the user.
In a similar endeavor, Chen discloses wherein the controller is configured to:
determine that an existing call state of the mobile telephone via the wireless interface from a plurality of call states is a dialing-request state; (i.e., Detection facility 102 may be configured to detect a phone dialing event of a phone device. The detection may be made in any suitable way. As described in paragraph [0026]),
determine whether the mobile telephone is in an engagement relation with the user in response to the positions of the mobile telephone and the user or the exchange of audio signals; (i.e., an exemplary predefined phone dialing pattern may specify physical attribute values such as a low ambient light level, a random or upside-down orientation of the phone device, random motion of the phone device, and/or physical objects surrounding the phone device before, during, and/or after a phone dialing event. As described in paragraph [0038]).
And Chen further discloses: in response to a determination that the mobile telephone is not in an engagement relation with the user based at least in part on the mobile telephone not being in a hand of the user,” (i.e., [0038] To illustrate, an exemplary predefined phone dialing pattern may specify physical attribute values such as a low ambient light level, a random or upside-down orientation of the phone device, random motion of the phone device, and/or physical objects surrounding the phone device before, during, and/or after a phone dialing event. These ambient light, orientation, motion, and proximity attribute values may indicate that the phone device is in a pocket, handbag, or other environment not usually associated with intended dialing. As described in paragraph [0038]”. One can argue that, if the phone is in a pocket or handbag, therefore it is not on hands of the user.
Chen also discloses:
cancel the dialing-request state upon determining that the dialing-request state is at a time when the mobile telephone is not in the hand of the user. (i.e., In addition, in response to a determination in step 1222 that the dialing event is unintended, the phone device cancels a dialing, As described in paragraph [0125]).
In a similar endeavor, Munemoto discloses:
cancel the dialing-request state upon determining that the dialing-request state is initiated other than via the vehicle handsfree interface. ([0047] Based on a result(s) of the analyzing, the classification component can determine a contact classification for an object (e.g., finger, palm, other body part) with respect to the touch sensitive surface of the touch display screen. The contact classifications can comprise, for example, a classification for a particular intended touch event (e.g., intended touching of a button or control on the touch display screen) and a classification for an unintentional touch event (e.g., unintended touching of the touch sensitive surface by the object), with respect to the touch sensitive surface.
[0048] In response to detecting an unintentional touch event, an operation management component can reject the unintentional touch event, place (e.g., switch or maintain) the touch display screen of the device in an off state, and/or otherwise prevent an operation being performed on the device due to the unintentional touch event. In response to detecting an intentional touch event, the operation management component can place (e.g., switch or maintain) the touch display screen in an on state and/or enable (e.g., allow) a touch sensitive function of the touch sensitive surface of the touch display screen and/or the operation(s) associated with the intentional touch event to be performed by the device (e.g., by the touch display screen, application associated with the device,
[0050] FIG. 1 illustrates a block diagram of an example touch sensitive device 100 that can determine a classification of a touch event with regard to an object in contact or proximate contact with a touch sensitive surface of the touch sensitive device, in accordance with various aspects and embodiments of the disclosed subject matter. The touch sensitive device 100 can be or can comprise, for example, a mobile phone (e.g., a cellular phone and/or smart phone), a computer, a display table, a personal digital assistant (PDA), an electronic tablet or notebook (e.g., a touch sensitive graphic tablet or notebook), a web pad, electronic bodywear (e.g., a smart watch or other electronic bodywear that comprises a touch sensitive surface), an electronic gaming device, an electronic workstation, a television, an Internet protocol (IP) television, a set-top box, a device (e.g., touch sensitive device) in or integrated with a vehicle, a touch pad, a track pad, or other type of device. As described in paragraph [0047], [0048] and [0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Chen and Munemoto into the invention of Kim in order to provide an optimal level of services to users.
Regarding claim 2, and 12, Kim, Chen and Munemoto disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above.
And Chen further discloses: wherein the engagement relation is found to exist when the user holds the mobile telephone, (i.e., The user may also generally hold the phone device at a similar orientation when intentionally dialing. As described in paragraph [0082]), and wherein the engagement relation is found not to exist when the mobile telephone is stowed in a tote location. (i.e., These ambient light, orientation, motion, and proximity attribute values may indicate that the phone device is in a pocket, handbag, or other environment not usually associated with intended dialing. As described in paragraph [0038]).
Regarding claim 3, and 13, Kim, Chen, and Munemoto disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above.
And Chen further discloses: wherein the tote location is comprised of a garment pocket or a carrying bag or purse. (i.e., These ambient light, orientation, motion, and proximity attribute values may indicate that the phone device is in a pocket, handbag, or other environment not usually associated with intended dialing. As described in paragraph [0038]).
Regarding claim 5, and 15, Kim, Chen, and Munemoto disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above.
And Chen further discloses: wherein the controller is further configured to generate a message to the user when the dialing-request state is canceled, wherein the message indicates that the dialing-request state was canceled. (i.e., For example, a user of the phone device may configure the phone device to automatically cancel a dialing when detection facility 102 determines that a phone dialing event is indicative of unintended dialing. As described in paragraph [0072]).
Regarding claim 6, and 16, Kim, Chen, and Munemoto disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above.
And Kim further discloses: further comprising a human machine interface having a display panel to display the message. (i.e., An IVI system refers to a system that allows users (drivers and/or passengers) to display or use various information or contents that may be provided in a vehicle, As described in paragraph [0076]).
Regarding claim 7, and 17, Kim, Chen, and Munemoto disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above.
And Chen further discloses: wherein the controller is further configured to cancel the call-in-progress state when the mobile telephone pairs with the wireless interface already in the call-in-progress state and the user is not in the engagement relation with the mobile telephone. (i.e., In certain examples, the operation may include canceling a dialing, such as by canceling or preventing initiation of placement of a phone call in response to the phone dialing event. As described in paragraph [0071]).
Regarding claim 8, and 18, Kim, Chen, and Munemoto disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above.
And Kim further discloses: further comprising a human machine interface having an input element for receiving a user response, and wherein the controller is further configured to. (i.e., The input/output unit 330 is a component providing data to a user or receiving a user request, and may include at least one of a display 331. As described in paragraph [0121]).
display an alert message when the dialing-request state was initiated not using the remote call control at a time when the user is not in the engagement relation with the mobile telephone; (i.e., The notification module 573 may generate a signal for notifying occurrence of an event of the mobile device … The notification module 573 may output a notification signal in the form of a video signal through the display 440. As described in paragraph [0171]).
In a similar endeavor, Chen further discloses detect the user response; (i.e., Device 700 may include a display screen 702 configured to display one or more GUIs for viewing by a user of device 700. In certain examples, display screen 702 may include a touch screen display configured to detect user input provided by a user by way of the touch screen display. As described in paragraph [0093]).
And forego canceling the dialing-request state when the user response indicates that a telephone call is desired. (i.e., the operation may include prompting a user of the phone device for call confirmation, such as by prompting the user to provide input confirming that the phone dialing event is intended before executing placement of a phone call in response to the phone dialing event. As described in paragraph [0071]).
Claims 4, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kim (Hereinafter “Kim”, US20230224981), in view of Chen et al. (Hereinafter “Chen”, US20140120891) and further in view of Munemoto (Hereinafter “Menemoto”, US 20200064960), and Rao et al. (Hereinafter “Rao”, US9300645).
Regarding claim 4, and 14, Kim, Chen, and Munemoto disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above, but does not expressly disclose:
wherein the engagement relation is found not to exist when the audio signals indicate a user behavior inconsistent with a conversation.
In a similar endeavor, Rao discloses: wherein the engagement relation is found not to exist when the audio signals indicate a user behavior inconsistent with a conversation. (i.e., It is yet another aspect of the disclosure to prompt a user of a potential inadvertent phone call by detecting the behavior of the user. In one example, if a phone call has been in session for an extended period of time and there has been no spoken words received by the microphone on the device, the device may detect a likely event of an inadvertent phone call. As described in paragraph (27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Rao into the invention of Kim, Chen, and Munemoto to provide an optimal level of services to users.
Claims 9, 10, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kim (Hereinafter “Kim”, US20230224981), in view of Chen et al. (Hereinafter “Chen”, US20140120891) and further in view of Munemoto (Hereinafter “Menemoto”, US 20200064960), and Appelman (Hereinafter “Appelman”, US20090234922).
Regarding claim 9, and 19:
Kim further discloses: wherein the tracking sensor is comprised of a camera, and wherein the controller is further configured so that after canceling an existing call state the controller:
collects situational data from the camera; (i.e., The camera module 335 is a component obtaining video and/or audio data. As described in paragraph [0122]).
Kim, Chen, and Munemoto disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above, but does not expressly disclose:
determines whether a remote telephone number associated with the canceled call state is on a predetermined list of users contacts.
and forwards the collected situational data to the remote telephone number with a message indicating that the call state was automatically canceled.
In a similar endeavor, Appelman discloses: determines whether a remote telephone number associated with the canceled call state is on a predetermined list of user contacts; (i.e., The graphical user interface includes a list of potential message recipients selected by a user as significant to the user. As described in paragraph [0023]).
And Appelman further discloses: And forwards the collected situational data to the remote telephone number with a message indicating that the call state was automatically canceled. (i.e., The graphical user interface also includes one or more forwarding indications that indicate whether a message addressed to a potential message recipient is to be forwarded to a mobile telephone number associated with the potential message recipient. As described in paragraph [0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Appelman into the invention of Kim, Chen, and Munemoto in order to provide an optimal level of services to users.
Regarding claim 10, and 20, Kim, Chen, Munemoto, and Appelman disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above,
Appelman further discloses: further comprising a human machine interface having an input element for receiving a user response, and wherein the controller is further configured to:
compile the predetermined list of user contacts in response to the user response via the input element. (i.e. The desktop instant messaging server 130 also includes code segments 137 to enable a user to manage contact information 135A in the user's address book, such as by adding information for a new contact, deleting a contact, or editing information related to a contact. As described in paragraph [0056]).
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 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 ERIC M. VO whose telephone number is (571)272-9854. The examiner can normally be reached T-F; 7:30 - 5:30.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 571-270-5371. 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.
/Eric M. Vo/Examiner, Art Unit 2644
/KATHY W WANG-HURST/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights